CAUSES OF RUPTURE WITH HOLLANDARMED NEUTRALITY.

TH

HE desperation which ill success and ill conduct produces in ministers was never more clearly evinced than in the course of the year 1780. As if Great Britain had not been sufficiently involved in the work of bloodshed and devastation; by the singular diligence and activity of administration a new enemy was conjured up, and added to an already sufficiently powerful combination.

One of the causes which provoked the resentment of the British ministry against the States General has already been noticed; but there were some of a still more important nature, which it is now time to remark.

The naval superiority of Great Britain had long been the subject of regret and envy in Europe. As it was the interest, so it seemed to be the wish of the European powers to avail themselves of the present favourable moment to effect an humiliation of her maritime grandeur. That the flag of all nations must strike to British ships of war, could not be otherwise than mortifying to independent Sovereigns. This haughty demand was not their only cause of complaint. Various litigations had taken place between the commanders of British armed vessels, and those who were in the service of neutral powers, respecting the extent of that commerce, which was consistent with a strict and fair neutrality. The British insisted on the lawfulness of seizing supplies, which were about to be carried to their enemies. Having been in the habit of commanding on the sea, they considered power and right to be synonymous terms. As other nations, from a dread of provoking their vengeance, had submitted to their claim of dominion on the ocean, they fancied themselves invested with authority to control the commerce of independent nations, when it interfered with their views. This haughtiness worked its own overthrow. The empress of Russia took the lead in establishing a system of maritime laws, which subverted the claims of Great Britain.

On the twenty-sixth of February 1780, a declaration was published by the empress of Russia, addressed to the courts of London, Versailles, and Madrid. In this it was observed, "That her Imperial majesty had given such convincing proofs of the strict regard she had for the rights of neutrality, and the liberty of commerce in general, that it might have been hoped her impartial conduct would have entitled her subjects to the enjoyment of the advantages belonging to neutral nations. Experience had however proved the contrary: her subjects had been molested in their navigation by the ships and privateers of the belligerent powers. Her majesty therefore declared, "That

she found it necessary to remove these vexations which had been offered to the commerce of Russia; but before she came to any serious measures, she thought it just and equitable to expose to the world, and particularly to the belligerent powers, the principles she had adopted for her conduct, which were as follows:

"That neutral ships should enjoy a free navigation, even from port to port, and on the coasts of the belligerent powers. That all effects belonging to the belligerent powers should be looked on as free on board such neutral ships, with an exception of places actually blocked up or besieged, and with a proviso that they do not carry to the enemy contraband articles." These were limited by an explanation, so as to "comprehend only warlike stores and ammunition ;" and her Imperial majesty declared, that " she was firmly resolved to maintain these principles, and that with the view of protecting the commerce and navigation of her subjects, she had given orders to fit out a considerable part of her naval force." This declaration was communicated to the States General, and the empress of Russia invited them to make a common cause with her, so far as such a union might serve to protect commerce and navigation. Similar communications and invitations were also made to the courts of Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Lisbon. A civil answer was received from the court of Great Britain, and a very cordial one from the court of France. On this occasion it was said by his most christian majesty, "That what her Imperial majesty claimed from the belligerent powers, was nothing more than the rules prescribed to the French navy." The kings of Sweden and Denmark also formally acceded to the principles and measures proposed by the empress of Russia. The States General did the same. The queen of Portugal was the only sovereign who refused to concur. The powers engaged in this association resolved to support cach other against any of the belligerent nations, who should violate the principles which had been laid down in the declaration of the em press of Russia.

This combination assumed the name of the armed neutrality. By it a respectable guarantee was procured to a commerce from which France and Spain procured a plentiful supply of articles essentially conducive to a vigorous prosecution of

the war.

The armed neutrality led almost immediately to a rupture with the States General-Besides this cause, their conduct had indeed all along been directed by the narrow and selfish views of trading policy, and not by any sense of former obligations. Few Europeans had a greater prospect of advantage from American independence than the Hollanders. The conquest of the United States would

have regained to Great Britain a monopoly of their trade; but the establishment of their independence promised to other nations an equal chance of participating therein. As commerce is the soul of the United Netherlands, to have neglected the present opportunity of extending it would have been a deviation from their established maxims of policy. Former treaties framed in distant periods, when other views were predominant, opposed but a feeble barrier to the claims of present interest. From the year 1777, Sir Joseph Yorke, the British minister at the Hague, had made representations to their high mightinesses of the clandestine commerce carried on between their subjects and the Americans. He particularly stated that Mr. Van Graaf, the governor of St. Eustatia, had permitted an illicit commerce with the Americans; and had at one time returned the salute of a vessel carrying their flag. Sir Joseph, therefore, demanded a formal disavowal of this salute, and the dismission and immediate recal of governor Van Graaf. This demand was answered with a pusillanimous, temporising reply. On the twelfth of September 1778, a memorial was presented to the States-general from the merchants and others of Amsterdam, in which they complained that their lawful commerce was obstructed by the ships of his Britannic majesty. On the twenty-second of July 1779, Sir Joseph Yorke demanded of the States-general the succours which were stipulated in the treaty of 1678: but this was not complied with.

COUNT BYLAND'S SQUADRON TAKEN. THE British government, therefore, being deter mined to break with Holland, and having received information, that a large fleet of Dutch merchantships, laden with naval and military stores, had sailed for the ports of France, despatched captain Fielding with a proper force to examine the convoy, and to seize such articles as should be deemed contraband. On the first of January 1780, commodore Fielding fell in with this fleet, and the Dutch admiral peremptorily refusing permission to search the ships; and the boats which commodore Field. ing despatched for that purpose, having been fired at, and prevented from executing his orders; the commodore proceeded to fire a shot a-head of the Dutch admiral, which was answered by a broadside. Count Byland, the Dutch admiral, however, having received one in return, and not being in condition to support the engagement, struck his colours. Most of the suspected vessels escaped during the contest. The admiral, with the rest of his squadron, was brought to Spithead. Strong remonstrances were addressed to the ministry by the States-general on this transaction, but no satisfaction was obtained. On the seventeenth of April, a most hostile proclamation was published by the king of Great Britain; but the policy of the Dutch was too deep to be led into the snare laid for them by the British ministry. They saw that more numerous advantages were to be derived from the cultivation of a pacific system, than from precipitating themselves violently into all the calamities of war.

CAPTURE OF MR. LAURENS-DECLARA-
TION OF WAR.

ANOTHER Occasion, however, soon presented itself for the English to regard the Dutch as enemies. On the third of September the Mercury packet, from Philadelphia for Holland, was captured off the banks of Newfoundland by the Vestal frigate. On board the packet was Mr. Laurens, late president of the congress, who was proceeding on a diplomatic commission to the States-general. Before the vessel struck, he had thrown his papers over. board; but the greater part of them were recovered, and submitted to the inspection of the privy. council; and among them, it is said, was found the sketch of a treaty of amity and commerce between the two republics, which had been examined and approved by M. Van Berkel, counsellor and grand pensionary of Amsterdam. Mr. Laurens, after having been examined by the privy-counci!, was committed close prisoner to the Tower, on a charge of high treason; and strong representations were made by the British ambassador at the Hague, to the States-general, demanding, that "exemplary punishment should be inflicted on Van Berkel and his accomplices, as disturbers of the public peace,

Ir was not only in Europe and America that Great Britain was involved in the most distressing embarrassments at this disastrous period, but even in the East Indies several causes had concurred to inspire the native powers of India with general disgust and disapprobation of the politics of England. No regular system was adopted for the government of those provinces, which British valour and rapacity had wrested from the native princes of the East. The whole politics of India were committed to the mercenary servants of the company, who were too intent upon the acquisition of wealth, to entertain any liberal system of policy; and whose whole time and attention were consequently consumed in low intrigues with the native princes, and in schemes of conquest formed on no regular plan.

About the year 1778 the British in India made repeated attempts to interfere in the revolution which had taken place in the Mahratta government. Ragonaut Row caused his nephew the reigning Paishwa (with the care of whom, during his minority, he was solemnly entrusted) to be assassinated, in the hope of securing to himself the sovereignty. From these circumstances, and from the British presidency at Bombay receiving and protecting Ragonaut the murderer of his nephew, the foundation was laid for that famous confederacy which, in the year 1779, was formed between the Nizam, Hyder Ally, and the Mahrattas, the object of which was no less than the complete expulsion of the British from the continent of India. Early in the year 1780 preparations were made for invading the Mahratta territories, and on the fifteenth of February general Goddard marched with a considerable force to besiege the city of Ahmedabad, the capital of the province of Guzerat, which was taken by storm in five days after the arrival of the British army under its walls; the reduction of the whole province soon followed. On the third of April following, the general surprised the camp of Scindia and Holkar, and the Mahratta chiefs were forced to retreat with considerable loss. brilliant services were also performed on the side of Bengal. But these successes were more than counterbalanced by the progress made by Hyder Ally, who, having collected a prodigious force, on the twentieth of July, made his way through the ghauts, or narrow passes in the mountains; and, at the head of nearly one hundred thousand men, entered without resistance the Carnatic; and by the tenth of August his cavalry had penetrated even to the vicinity of Madras.

Some

In this emergency, Sir Hector Munro hastily assembled the different corps which were scattered through the province, and endeavoured to post himself strongly on the Mount, to cover and protect the capital; and orders were despatched to colonel Baillie, who commanded in the Guntoor, to hasten back to join the main army, and in the course of his march to endeavour, as much as pos sible, to intercept the enemy's convoys. In the mean time Hyder formed the siege of Arcot, and Sir Hector thought it an indispensable duty to march to its relief. On the approach of the British general, Hyder raised the siege, but directed the route of his army in such a manner across the course of colonel Baillie's detachment, as effectually to prevent the intended junction. On the sixth of September, the troops of the Sultan, under the command of his brother Meer Saib and his son, the since celebrated Tippoo Sultan, encountered colonels Baillie and Fletcher at a place called Perimbancum. All that skill could devise or valour ef fect, was performed by the British; and though the disparity of force was almost unexampled, victory at first declared in favour of colonel Baillie. Unfortunately, in the moment of success and exultation, the tumbrils which contained the ammunition, suddenly blew up, and with two dreadful explosions, in the centre of the British lines; and one whole face of their column was laid open, and the artillery destroyed. The moment of advantage was suddenly caught by Tippoo Saib, who forced his

way, at the head of his cavalry, into the broken square; and the British being deprived of their ammunition, and not having had even time to form, were, after prodigies of valour, cut to pieces, or made prisoners of war. The British are said to have lost on this occasion about four thousand sepoys, and six hundred Europeans. Immediately after this disastrous event, the army, under Sir Hector Munro, retreated, and abandoned Arcot to its fate, which soon fell into the hands of Hyder Ally. Thus ended this unfortunate campaign in India.

MR. CORNWALL CHOSEN SPEAKER. WHILE these things were transacting abroad, the ministry had contrived to procure a new parliament at home, modelled for their purposes. It met on the thirty-first of October 1780, when their first business was the choice of a speaker. The great merit and faithful services of Sir Fletcher Norton were totally obliterated by the quarrel he had with the minister, as has been already mentioned; and another speaker was determined upon. The business, however, was introduced with the highest compli ments to the late speaker, and the choice of another was proposed on account of the importance of parliamentary business, which might be productive of debates inconsistent with his precarious state of health; on which account the American secretary (lord George Germaine) moved that Wolfran Cornwall be appointed to that high office; and the motion was seconded by Welbore Ellis.

The members in opposition expressed the utmost astonishment, not only at the conduct of administration in proposing a new speaker, at the very time that they acknowledged Sir Fletcher Norton to be the most proper of all men to fill the office, but at the strange arguments made use of on the occasion. The health of the speaker was now so firmly estab. lished, that the pretence of his want of it, especial ly when coming from the ministerial side, must be considered as an absolute mockery of the house, and a direct insult upon the gentleman himself. Dunning therefore proposed, that Sir Fletcher Norton should be continued speaker, and his motion was seconded by Thomas Townshend. The late speaker, however, declined the intended honour, and said, that he had come to the house with a fulĺ resolution not to stand a candidate for the chair upon any account; but he declared that he must be an idiot indeed, if he could believe that his state of health was the reason of the determination of ministry against his being continued in the chair. Cornwall's election was carried by two hundred and three to one hundred and thirty-four.

DUTCH WAR.

1781.-ON the twenty-fifth of January the king sent a message to the house by his minister, acquainting them that letters of marque and reprisals had been issued against the Dutch. This communication was no sooner made than Burke observed, "That, however lightly a war might be thought of by some men, he was one of those who thought it always a most serious matter; a matter which nothing but the greatest necessity could justify." It was further observed by the opposition, "that the British manifesto stated that a treaty was entered into between the city of Amsterdam and America; but the treaty now laid before the house was, in the express terms of it, the plan of a treaty, or the rough draught of a compact, the ratification of which was to depend upon events which might never happen. This declaration of war was also ventured on, contrary to every recent precedent, during a recess. The minister was reminded that in this manner the house had been betrayed into all the pernicious measures of his administration. In this manner had the house been led into the American war, that fatal source of all our calamities. In this manner had the French rescript been announced; and af terwards the Spanish rescript, and at length the declaration of war against Holland, our ancient and natural ally. Year after year had the minister acquainted the house with a new enemy, but never had he yet brought them the welcome information of a new friend. Much had been said of the provocations we had received from Holland, and the predominance of a French interest in that countrybut had Holland received no provocation from us? The insolence of the British memorial presented to the States in 1777, contributed more than any thing

else to the prevalence of the French faction In Holland. It had been stated, as a serious ground of offence, that Holland had not complied with the requisition of troops, which, by treaty, she had en gaged to furnish. But it was notorious, that, in the event of this compliance, Holland would have been immediately invaded by France; and, in conformity with the same treaties, we must then have sent a much greater aid to the assistance of the republic. If the Dutch at the present period had changed their political system respecting this country, it was owing to the criminal conduct of an administra. tion, who had precipitated us into a war, whence all our misfortunes had arisen. In consequence of that war, our American commerce was lost; and could it be a matter of surprise that the Dutch, a people who existed by commerce, should be desirous to secure a share of it? We were abandoned, not by the Dutch only, but by all the pow ers of Europe, who were all equally convinced, that, under the present wretched administration of affairs, whoever became the ally of Great Britain would only share in her disgrace and her misfortunes."

An address to his majesty, however, in favour of the war was voted by a great majority in the two houses of parliament. INDIAN AFFAIRS-BURKE'S REFORM BIll.

THE crude and improvident politics of lord North and his colleagues had reduced the British possessions in the East Indies to an unsettled and distracted state. On the fourth of December 1780, a petition was presented to the house of commons from the British inhabitants of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, complaining of the injudicious and indiscri minate manner in which the judges of the supreme court endeavoured to administer the English laws in those provinces; and this was seconded by another from the governor-general and council, containing a long statement of the transactions, and requesting an indemnification from the legal penalties, which, for the preservation of government and the country, they had been under the necessity of incurring by forcibly resisting the proceedings of the chief-justice Sir Elijah Impey. General Smith, on the twelfth of February, moved that these petitions should be referred to a committee of fifteen members to be chosen by ballot, and to meet in a chamber above stairs; and after some time a bill was introduced by general Smith founded on the report of the committee of fifteen, for regulating the administration of justice in India, and for indemnifying the governor general and council for the resistance made by them to the supreme court. This bill, after some resistance from the law members, passed both houses, and received the royal assent; it defined and limited the authority of the supreme court, and exempted the governor-general and council of Bengal from its jurisdiction. It declared farther, that no person should be under the cognizance of the supreme court, on account of his being a landholder or farmer in the provinces of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa; and that no judicial officers in the country courts should be liable to actions in the supreme court for their decisions.

Burke, not being dejected by the rejection of his reform bill last year, on the fifteenth of February moved for leave to bring in a bill exactly similar, and opened his proposition by stating the powerful motives which engaged him now to resume his undertaking; and these were the celebrated resolntions of the late parliament, respecting the alarming increase of the influence of the crown; the general wish and expectation of the people, and the direct applications to himself from several of the most considerable counties.

Under very unfavourable auspices the bill was read a second time, when it experienced the weight of that influence it was meant to reduce. It how ever introduced to public notice the splendid talents of young lord Maitland, and the captivating elo. quence of William Pitt, the second son of the late earl of Chatham, who in very early youth had been elected a member of the present parliament, and who now exhibited himself to an admiring nation as the supposed heir of his talents and virtues. "One great object," Pitt said, " of all the petitions which had been presented, was a recommendation of economy in the public expenditure; and the design of the present bill was, to carry into effect the wishes of the people, by introducing a substantial

system of economy. Besides the benefits which would result from the bill in this respect, it had another object still more important, and that was the reduction of the influence of the crown, an in fluence which was the more to be dreaded, because more secret in its attacks, and more concealed in its operations, than the power of prerogative." Pitt adverted to the extraordinary objections which had been made to the bill; it proposed to bring no more than two hundred thousand pounds per annum into the public coffers, and that sum was insignificant, in comparison of the millions annually expended. "What then is the conclusion we are led to deduce? The calamities of the present crisis are too great to be benefited by economy. Our expenses are so enormous, that it is useless to give ourselves any concern about them; we have spent, and are spending so much, that it is foolish to think of saving any thing. Such is the language which the opponents of this bill have virtually employed. It had also been said, that the king's civil-list was an irresumable parliamentary grant, and it had been even compared to a private freehold. The weakness of such arguments was their best refutation. The civil-list revenue was granted to his majesty, not for his private use, but for the support of the executive government of the state. His majesty, in fact, was the trustee of the public, subject to parliamentary revision. The parliament made the grant, and undoubtedly had a right to resume it when the pressure of the times rendered such resumption necessary. Upon the whole, he considered the present bill as essential to the being and independence of this country, and he would give it his most determined support."

PETITIONS OF COUNTY DELEGATES

PROPOSED MARRIAGE BILL.

THE existing grievances of the country appeared so much to increase in consequence of the war, and so little prospect of redress was afforded by the last parliament, that an association was formed by several of the most opulent and populous countics, and delegates were chosen for the purpose of prosecuting the object of a parliamentary reform, with proper vigour and unanimity. A petition prepared by the delegates, and signed by themselves only, was presented on the eighth of May, by Mr. Duncombe and Sir George Saville, who moved that it should be referred to a committee of the whole house. The motion was however rejected on the plea that it was a petition not from the parties who complained of the grievances, but from persons in a delegated capacity. The numbers were two hundred and twelve, to one hundred and thirtyfive.

Fox made an effort, in the course of this session, to introduce a bill for the repeal, or at least for a modification, of the famous marriage act. The principal feature in the proposed bill was, that it reduced the legal age for contracting marriage to eighteen in males, and sixteen in females, and no marriage was to be annulled after the parties had cohabited for one year. The bill passed the house of commons, but was rejected by the lords.

MOTION ON AMERICAN WAR-SESSION CLOSED.

TOWARDS the end of the session, Fox moved the house to resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the American war, for the purpose of devising some means of accommodation. This motion was supported in an animated speech by Pitt, who expressed his utter abhorrence of a war, "which was conceived," he said, " in injustice, nurtured in folly, and whose footsteps were marked with slaughter and devastation. It exhibited the height of moral depravity and human turpitude. The nation was drained of its best blood and its vital resources, for which nothing was received in return but a series of iuefficient victories or disgraceful defeats, victories obtained over men struggling in the holy cause of liberty, or defeats which filled the land with mourning for the loss of dear and valuable relatives, slain in a detested and impious quarrel." The motion was rejected by a majority of seventythree voices.

On the eighteenth of July 1781, the session was closed by a speech, in which his majesty observed, "that the great efforts made by the nation, to sur

mount the difficulties of the present arduous and complicated war, must convince the world that the ancient spirit of the British nation was not abated or diminished; and he was resolved to accept of no terms or conditions of peace, than such as might consist with the honour and dignity of his crown, and the permanent interests and security of his people."

ATTACK ON JERSEY.

We now return to the military transactions of this eventful year. On the sixth of January 1781, eight hundred French troops under the command of the baron de Rulle, landed before day-break on the island of Jersey; and so little expectation was entertained of any attack, that they passed undis. covered to the town of St. Hillier, and, to the utter astonishment of the inhabitants, at day-break, the market-place was filled with French soldiers. Fortunately the lieutenant-governor, major Moses Corbet, had received information of their landing, time enough to despatch intelligence to the different stations of the three regiments in the island, and to the militia. But he was taken prisoner himself by seven o'clock, and immediately carried before the French commander, who pressed him to sign terms of capitulation, under pain of firing the town and putting the inhabitauts to the sword. It was in vain the governor represented, that, being a prisoner, he was deprived of all authority, and no capitulation that he could sign would be of any force or efficacy: the general still insisted, and to avoid the consequences, the governor ratified the capitulation.

The king's troops and the militia assembled on the heights near the town, under the command of major Pierson, and now in their turn summoned the invaders to surrender themselves prisoners of war. An engagement ensued, in which major Pierson was killed; and the French general being mortally wounded, the second in command desired Corbet to resume the government, and accept their submission as prisoners of war. The negligence of the lieutenant-governor was afterwards censured by a court-martial, and he was dismissed from his office.

SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR.

THE siege of Gibraltar still continued, and the blockade was renewed after admiral Rodney's de parture; but the Spaniards under Don Barcelo were defeated on the seventh of June, in an attempt to burn the English shipping in the harbour there. In the command of the channel fleet, Sir Charles Hardy, who died on the nineteenth of May, was succeeded by admiral Geary. He sailed in the beginning of June, and was not out many days before he was so fortunate as to intercept a considerable convoy of French West India ships, homeward bound from St. Domingo, and captured twelve rich vessels. But this advantage was counterbalanced by the loss of almost the whole outward-bound convoy from England to the East and West Indies, which on the twenty-ninth of July was taken by the combined fleets to the number of fifty-five.

In the mean time, the court of Spain, mortified at this repeated disappointment, determined to make greater exertions for the reduction of Gibraltar. Their works were carried on with more vigour than ever. Having on an experiment of twenty months found the inefficacy of a blockade, they resolved to try the effects of a bombardment. Their batteries were mounted with guns of the heaviest metal, and with mortars of the largest dimensions. These disgorged torrents of fire on a narrow spot. It seemed as if not only the works, but the rock itself, must have been overwhelmed. All distinction of parts was lost in flame and smoke. This dreadful cannonade continued day and night, almost incessantly for three weeks, in every twenty-four hours of which one hundred thousand pounds of gunpowder were consumed, and between four and five thousand shot and shells went through the town. It then slackened, but was not intermitted during one whole day for upwards of a twelvemonth. The fatigues of the garrison were extreme; but the loss of men was less than might have been expected. For the first ten weeks of this unexampled bombardment, the whole number of killed and wounded was only about three hund red. The damage done to the works was trifling.