1789 distinguished their party, and for which | manufacturers of France and Belgium. The the great writers of its Revolution have them- guarantee of Limburg and Luxemburg, includselves not scrupled to censure Mr. Fox and all ing Maestricht, to Belgium, was still more unhis adherents. "The opposition in England," pardonable, because Luxemburg was part of says Madame de Staël, "with Mr. Fox at their the old patrimony of the House of Nassau, and head, were entirely wrong in the opinion they Limburg, with its barrier fortress Maestricht, formed regarding Bonaparte; and in conse- was no part of Belgium, but of Holland, properquence that party, formerly so much esteemed, ly so called. Holland could not part with them, entirely lost its ascendency in Great Britain. if she had the slightest regard to her future It was going far enough to have defended the French safety. After Maestricht, its old bulwark on the Revolution through the Reign of Terror; but no side of France, and Antwerp, its new bulwark fault could be greater than to consider Bona- on the side of Flanders, were lost, its indeparte as holding to the principles of the Revo-pendence was an empty name. lution, of which he was the ablest destroyer.' Determined to perish rather than yield to The same blind admiration for revolutionary France, which Lord Grey had manifested from the outset of his career, was imbibed with increased ardour by his whole administration, upon the breaking out of the Three Glorious Days; and the King of the Netherlands soon found, to his cost, that instead of an equitable and impartial arbitrator, he had got a ruthless and partial enemy at the Conference, in Great Britain.

The first measure in which this altered temper was publicly manifested, was by the permission of England to Leopold to accept the crown of Belgium. This at once dissevered, and rendered irretrievable, without a general war, the separation of that country from Holland, because it established a revolutionary interest, and that too of the strongest kind, dependent on the maintenance of that separation. This step was a clear departure from the equity of an arbitrator and a judge, because it rendered final and irrevocable the separation which it was the object of the mediation to heal, and which, but for the establishment of that revolutionary interest, would speedily have been closed. In truth, the Belgians were, after a year's experience, so thoroughly disgusted with their revolution; they had suffered so dreadfully under the tyrants of their own choosing; starvation and misery had stalked in so frightful a manner through their populous and once happy streets, that they were rapidly becoming prepared to have returned under the mild government of the House of Orange, when this decisive step, by establishing a revolutionary interest on the throne, for ever blighted these opening prospects of returning tranquillity and peace.

But the matter did not rest here. France and England concluded a treaty in July, 1831, eight months after the accession of the Whigs to office, a treaty by which they guarantied to Leopold his revolutionary dominions, including that part of territory which included Maestricht, the frontier fortress of the old United Provinces, with the noble fortress of Luxemburg; and the free navigation of the Scheldt. This outrageous step was ruinous to Holland. The terms which it imposed on the King of the Netherlands, especially the surrender of Maestricht and Luxemburg, and the navigation of Dutch waters by the Belgians, were utterly destructive of that country. It was the same thing as if the free navigation of the Mersey and the Thames had been guarantied to the

* Rev. Franc. ii. 270.

such ruinous conditions, the King of the Netherlands declared war against the new King of Belgium, and then was seen what a slight hold the revolutionary party possessed of the Flemish people. The revolutionary rabble were defeated in two pitched battles ; the fumes of the Belgian revolt were dissipated; counter movements were beginning in Ghent and the principal towns in the Netherlands, and Brussels was within half an hour of falling into the hands of its lawful monarch, when the armies of France and the fleet of England, yielding to the demand of Leopold, and bound by the guarantee contained in the revolutionary treaty, advanced to support the cause of revolution. The consequences might easily have been foreseen. The armies of Holland were checked in the mid-career of victory, Brussels preserved for its cowardly revolutionary tyrants, and the ulcer of the Belgian revolts, when on the point of being closed, preserved open in the centre of Europe.

The King of the Netherlands gained something by this vigorous step; the French saw the utter worthlessness of their revolutionary allies; the crying injustice of demanding the cession of Maestricht and Luxemburg became too great even for the governments of the mediating powers, and the protocols took a new direction. Antwerp, and a free navigation of the Dutch waters, became now the great object on which France and England insisted, though it involved, by transferring the trade of the United Provinces to the Belgian territory, the most serious injury of Holland. That is the point which has since been insisted on; that is the object for which we are now to` plunge into an iniquitous and oppressive war.

Shortly afterwards, an event took place, which, by drawing still closer the revolutionary bonds between France and Belgium, developed still farther the system of aggression to which England had in an evil hour lent the weight of her once venerated authority. Leopold married the daughter of Louis Philippe, and Flanders became in effect, as well as in form, a French province. This event might have been foreseen, and was foreseen, from the moment that he ascended the throne of that country. It was well known in the higher classes in London, that Leopold had more than once proposed to his present queen, before the Belgian revolt; that it was her disinclination to go to Greece which made him refuse the crown of that country; and that the moment he mounted the throne of Belgium, he would

become the son-in-law of the King of France. mies of the great democratic powers to parti All this was distinctly known; it was well un-tion the dominions of the King of the Netherderstood, that if Antwerp was demanded for lands, and force him to give up what his reBelgium, it was in effect demanded for France, | volted subjects have not been able to wrest and that the establishment of the tricolour flag from him? It won't do to say, they derived on the great arsenals and dockyards of that the power from the acquiescence of the King city, was the necessary result of making it a of the Netherlands, in the forcible mediation of sine qua non of the pacification of the Nether- the Allied Powers; for what he acquiesced in lands. All this, we repeat, was thoroughly was the pacific arbitration of the five, and not known before Leopold was counselled by our the hostile intervention of the two. From what administration to accept the throne of Bel- then do they derive their right? From the gium, or Antwerp was seriously insisted upon same title which Russia has to the partition of at the Conference; and it was in the full Poland; the right of the strongest; the title of knowledge of that consequence that he was a revolutionary state to extend and strengthen placed on that throne, and the cession of that all the subordinate revolutionary dynasties with great outwork of revolutionary France impe- which in terror at a righteous retribution it riously demanded by the French and English has strengthened its sides. plenipotentiaries. And it is in the full knowledge that this effect must follow, that a war is now undertaken by England, the effect of which may be to throw Europe into conflagration, and the consequences of which no man can foresee.

Setting aside, therefore, altogether the obvious and crying inexpedience of this war, which is to restore to France that important naval station so threatening to England, which it took us so much blood and treasure to wrest from her in the last war; setting aside the exAnd what is the present state of the Belgian treme impolicy of irritating and spoliating our question? The King of the Netherlands, like best customers and oldest allies, in the hopea worthy descendant of the House of Nassau, less idea of winning the favour of a fickle and refuses to surrender Antwerp to the single de- jealous manufacturing rabble; what we chiefly mand of France and England, but agrees to view with alarm is, the monstrous injustice submit all disputes regarding it to. the joint and gross partiality of our conduct; the total arbitration of the five allied powers. The five disregard of the faith of treaties, and the oblipowers were the umpires originally chosen; gations of centuries which it involves, and the and the five alone have any legal or equitable deplorable degradation to which it reduces title to interfere in the matter. But how stands England, in compelling her, instead of stand the fact now? Have the five powers, whose ing forward in the vanguard of freedom, to united and balanced judgment was relied on follow an obsequious vassal in the train of by the parties to the arbitration-have they all Gallic usurpation. Not if her fleets were sunk, combined in the measures of violence against or her armies defeated,-not if Portsmouth Holland? Quite the reverse: Austria, Rus- was in ashes or Woolwich in flames,-not if sia, and Prussia, a majority of the arbiters, the Tower of London bore the flag of an enehave solemnly protested against such a mea-my and the tombs of Westminster Abbey were sure, and its prosecution is likely to involve France and England in a desperate contest with these Northern potentates. Who then insists on the spoliation? A minority of the arbiters; revolutionary France and revolutionary England: revolutionary France, panting to regain the frontier of the Rhine, and secure the great fortified harbour of Antwerp, as an advanced post from whence to menace our independence; and revolutionary England following with submissive steps, like the Cisal-ranny; from leading the world against a despot pine or Batavian republic, in the wake of the great parent democracy. And this is the first fruits of the government of the Whigs.

This puts, in the clearest point of view, the extravagant injustice of our present attack on Dutch independence. The mediation of the five powers was accepted; the five, taken jointly, have alone the power of fixing the award. Three hold out, and refuse to accede to the violent measures which are now proposed; but two, carried away by an adverse interest, and having formed a marriage connection with one of the submitting parties, insist upon instantaneous measures of spoliation. What title have the two to drop the pen and take up the sword, in order to enforce measures which the other three refuse to sanction? Who gave France and England, taken singly, any rights to act as arbiters between Belgium and Holland? Who authorized the fleets and ar

rifled by foreign bands, in defence of our liberties in a just cause, would we think so despondingly of our destinies, would we feel so humbled in our national feelings, as we do at thus witnessing the English pendant following the tricolour flag in a crusade against the liberty of nations. We have descended at once from the pinnacle of glory to the depths of humiliation; from being the foremost in the bands of freedom, to being last in the train of ty

in arms, to crouching at the feet of our vanquished enemy. That which an hundred defeats could not have done, a disgrace which the loss of an hundred sail of the line, or the storming of an hundred fortresses could not have induced upon Old England, has been voluntarily incurred by New England, to obtain the smiles of a revolutionary throne. Well and justly has Providence punished the people of this country for the democratic madness of the last two years. That which all the might of Napoleon could not effect, the insanity of her own rulers has produced; and the nation which bade defiance to Europe in arms, has sunk down before the idol of revolutionary ambition. "Ephraim," says the Scripture, "has gone to his idols; let him alone.”

Suppose that La Vendee, which is not impossible, were to revolt against Louis Philippe, and by a sudden effort expel the troops of the

French monarch from the west of France-proceeding? Yet this is precisely what the that the Allied Powers of Russia, Austria, and English people have been led, blindfold, by Prussia, were then to interfere, and declare their Whig rulers, and the revolutionary press, that the first shot fired by the Citizen King at to do! If his character is not totally destroyed, his revolted subjects, would be considered by terrible will be the wakening of the Lion when them as a declaration of war against the Holy he is roused from his slumber. Alliance; that, intimidated by such formidable neighbours, France was to agree to their mediation; that immediately a monarch of the legitimate race were to be placed by the Allies, without the concurrence of Louis Philippe, on the throne of Western France, and he were to be married with all due expedition to an archduchess of Austria; and that shortly after, a decree should be issued by the impartial mediators, declaring that Lyons was to be annexed to the newly erected dynasty, and that in exchange Tours should be surrendered to the republican party; and that upon the French king refusing to accede to such iniquitous terms, the armies of the Holy Alliance were to march to the Rhine. How would Europe be made to ring from side to side, by the revolutionary press, at such a partition; and how loudly would they applaud the Citizen King for having the firmness to resist the attempt? And yet this is what France and England are now doing, with the applause of all the liberal press of Europe; and it is for such intrepid conduct on the part of the King of the Nether-on which they are to justify it, we leave it to lands, that he is now the object of their obloquy and derision.

Ireland, which is perhaps as likely to happen, revolts against England. She shows her gratitude for the important concessions of the last fifty years, by throwing off the yoke of her benefactor, and proclaims a republican form of government. The Allied Powers, with France at their head, instantly interfere-declare that the first shot fired by England at her revolted subjects, will be considered as a declaration of war against all Europe, but offer, at the same time, their good offices and mediation to effect a settlement of the differences between Great Britain and the Emerald Isle. Weakened by so great a defection, and overawed by so formidable a coalition, England reluctantly consents to the arbitration, and a truce is proclaimed between the adverse parties. Immediately the Allies declare, that the separation must be permanent; that "it is evident" that England's means of regaining her lost dominions are at an end, and that the peace of Europe must be no longer compromised by the disputes between the Irish and English people. Suiting the action to the word, they forthwith put a foreign prince, without the consent of England, on the Irish throne, and, to secure his independence of Great Britain, marry him to the daughter of the King of France. Immediately after, the Allied Powers make a treaty, by which Ireland is guarantied to the revolutionary king; and it is declared that the new kingdom is to embrace Plymouth, and have right to the free navigation of the Mersey. Upon England's resisting the iniquitous partition, a French and Russian army, a hundred and fifty thousand strong, prepare for a descent on the shores of Kent. What would the English people, and the friends of freedom throughout the world, say to such a

The hired journals of government, sensible that the conduct of their rulers on this vital question will not bear examination, endeavour to lay it upon the shoulders of the Allied Powers, and affect to lament the meshes in which they were left by the foreign policy of Lord Aberdeen. Of all absurdities, this is the greatest; Russia, Prussia, and Austria, are so far from sanctioning the attack on the King of the Netherlands, that they have solemnly pro tested against it; and Prussia, preparing to second her words by blows, has concentrated her armies on the Meuse. The King of the Netherlands professes his willingness still to submit the question of Antwerp and the Scheldt to the five Allied Powers, though he refuse to yield them up to the imperious demand of two of them. How, then, is it possible to involve the other Allied Powers in an iniquity of which they positively disapprove, and for which they are preparing to make war? True, they signed the treaty which gave Antwerp to Belgium, and their reasons for doing so, and the grounds

them and their paid journalists to unfold. But they have positively refused to sanction the employment of force to coerce the Dutch; and without that, the revolutionary rabble of Belgium may thunder for ever against the citadel of Antwerp.

But because the three powers who signed the treaty for the partition of Poland, have also signed the treaty for the partition of the Netherlands, is that any vindication for our joining in the spoliation? When two robbers unite to waylay a traveller, is it any excuse for them that three others have agreed to the conspiracy We were told that arbitrary despotic govern ments alone commit injustice, and that with the triumph of the people, and the extension of democracy, the rule of justice and equity was to commence. How then are revolu tionary France and revolutionary England the foremost in the work of partition, when the other powers, ashamed of their signature at the disgraceful treaty, hang back, and refuse to put it in force? Is this the commencement of the fair rule of democratic justice? A treaty, which the three absolute powers, the partitioners of Poland, are ashamed of, the revolutionary powers have no scruple in enforcing -an iniquity which Russia and Austria refuse to commit, France and England are ready to perpetrate!

The pretence that we are involved in all this through the diplomacy of the Tories, is such a monstrous perversion of truth as cannot blind any but the most ignorant readers. When was the treaty which guarantied Leopold's dominions signed by France and England? in July, 1831; eight months after the accession of the Whigs to office. When was the treaty. giving Antwerp to Belgium, signed by the fivc powers? In November, 1831, a year after the retirement of the Duke of Wellington from

power. What treaty did the Duke of Wellington leave binding on his successors, in regard to Belgium? The treaty of 1815, which guarantied to the King of the Netherlands his whole dominions. What incipient mediation did he leave them to complete? That of the five Allied Powers, for the pacific settlement of the Belgian question. And yet we are told he involved Great Britain in a hostile aggression on Holland, and was the author of a measure of robbery by two of the mediating powers!

The answer of the King of the Netherlands to the summons of France and England to surrender the citadel of Antwerp, is so decisive of the justice of his cause on this point, that we cannot refrain from quoting it :

"Holland having acceded, not to the treaty of the 15th of November, 1831, but to the greater part of its arrangements, must found its proceedings on the stipulations which it has accepted. Among the articles agreed to in concert with the Conference of London, is included the evacuation, in a fixed time after the exchange of the ratifications of the territories which were respectively to change hands, which point was regulated by the last of the 24 articles of 15th October, 1831, by the treaty of 15th November, and in the projects of con

To give a show of equity to their spoliation, the revolutionary powers have summoned Leopold to surrender Venloo, and declare that Holland is to retain Luxemburg and Limburg. This is a mere colourable pretext, destitute of the least weight, and too flimsy to deceive any one acquainted with the facts. Lux-vention which have followed it. If, on the emburg always was in the hands of the Dutch; it formed part of the old patrimony of the house of Nassau, and the Belgians have no more right to that great fortress, or its territory, than they have to Magdebourg or Lisle. Venloo is a fortress of third-rate importance, about as fair an equivalent for Antwerp as Conway would be for Liverpool. Who ever heard of any works of Napoleon on Venloo, or any effort on his part to retain it as part of the outworks of his conquering dominions? Venloo is situated on the right or German bank of the Meuse, and never belonged to Belgium; so that to consider it as a compensation for the great and magnificent fortress of Antwerp, the key of the Scheldt, is as absurd as it would be to speak of Harwich as a compensation for London.

Hitherto we have argued the question on the footing of the real merits of the points at issue, and not the subordinate question on which the negotiations finally broke off. But here, too, the injustice of the proceeding is not less manifest than in the general nature of the transaction.

It was stipulated by the treaty of 15th November, 1821, signed by all the Allied Powers, that the evacuation of the provinces to be mutually ceded on both sides, should take place after the exchange of the ratification of a final peace. Of course, Antwerp was held by Holland, and Venloo by Belgium, until that event; and on that footing they have been held for the last twelve months.

11th June, the Conference proposed the 20th July, for the evacuation of the respective territories, it declared, by its note of 20th July, that in making this proposal, it had thought that the treaty between Holland and Belgium would be ratified. To effect the evacuation at a time anterior to the exchange of the ratifications, would be acting in opposition both to the formally announced intentions of the Conference, and to the assent which has been given to them by the government of the Netherlands."

"It is true," says the Times, "that the territories were not to be evacuated on each side till the ratifications of a general peace are exchanged." This puts an end to the argument: we have not a shadow of justice for our demand of the immediate evacuation of Antwerp, any more than for the preceding treaty, which assigned it to Belgium.

The war in which, to serve their new and dearly-beloved revolutionary allies, and enable them to regain their menacing point to our shores, we are now about to be involved, may last ten days or ten years: it may cost 500,000%. or 500,000,000l.: all that is in the womb of fate, and of that we know nothing; but the justice of the case in either event remains the same. That which is done is done, and cannot be undone: the signature of England has been affixed to the treaty with revolutionary France for the partition of our allies, and there it will remain for ever, to call down the judgment of Heaven upon the guilty nation which permitted, and the execrations of posterity on the insane administration which effected it.

But what do France and England now require? Why, that Antwerp should be ceded by Holland before the treaty is either signed or agreed In this war, our rulers have contrived to get to, and when weighty matters are still in de- us into such a situation, that by no possibility pendence between the contracting parties. can we derive either honour, advantage, or seThe advantages which the King of the Ne-curity, from the consequences to which it may therlands holds, the security he possesses by holding that great fortress, is to be instantly abandoned, and he is to be left, without any security, to the tender mercies of the father-in-law of his enemy, and the friendly sympathy of their democratic allies in this island. Is this just? Is it consistent with the treaty of November, 1831, on which England and France justify their armed interference? Is it not evidently a violation of both? and does not it eave the revolutionary states as much in the wrong on the last disputed point of the Conference as on its general spirit?

lead. If the French and English are victorious, and we succeed in storming the citadel of Antwerp for the tricolour flag, will England be a gainer by the victory-will our commerce be improved by surrendering the navigation of the Scheldt into the hands of the jealous manufacturers of France and Belgium, and for ever alienating our old and willing customers in the United Provinces? Will our national security be materially improved by placing the magnificent dockyards, and spacious arsenals, and impregnable fortifications, which Napoleon erected for our subjugation,

..

in the hands of a revolutionary King of France | grounded hope that equitable arrangements and his warlike and able prime minister? If would have put a period to the pressure on the we are defeated, is the honour of England, the country, but this just expectation has been disconqueror of France, likely to be upheld, or its appointed. The States-General are grieved at influence increased, by our inability to bully a the course of the negotiations. Whilst we are fifth-rate power, even with the aid of our Jaco- moderate and indulgent, demands are made on bin allies? Whatever occurs, whether Hol- us which are in opposition to the honour and land submits in five days, or holds out bravely the independence of the nation; a small but and nobly for five years; whether the united glorious state is sacrificed to a presumed genetricolour and the leopard are victorious or are ral interest. It makes a deep impression to vanquished, we can derive nothing but humili- see that foreign powers entertain a feeling in ation, danger, and disgrace from the event. favour of a people torn from us by violence We shall certainly incur all the losses and bur- and perfidy—a feeling leading to our destrucdens of war: we can never obtain either its tion-instead of experiencing from the great advantages or its glories. powers aid in upholding our rights. The clouds that darken the horizon might lead to discouragement, were it not for the conviction of the nation that she does not deserve this treatment, and that the moral energy which enabled her to make the sacrifices already rendered, remains in undiminished strength to support her in the further sacrifices necessary for the conservation of the national independence; that energy ever shone most brilliant when the country was most in danger, and had to resist the superior forces of united enemies; that energy enabled her to re-establish her political edifice which had been demolished by the usurper; and the same energy must, under our king, maintain that edifice against the usurpatory demands or attacks of an unjust defection.

Every man in England may possibly soon be compelled to ten pounds in the hundred to undo the whole fruits of our former victories, and give back Antwerp to France!!! And give back Antwerp to France!!! This is the first fruits of our Whig diplomacy, and our new revolutionary alliance. Will the surrender of Portsmouth or Plymouth, or of an hundred ships of the line, be the second?*

.

.

"The result is anticipated with confidence. The nation glories in her powerful means of defence, and in her sea and land forces, which are in arms to obtain equitable terms of the peace that is still so anxiously solicited.

In making these observations, we disclaim all idea of imputing to ministers any intentional or wilful abandonment of the interests and honour of England. We believe that as Englishmen and gentlemen, they are incapable of such baseness. What we assert is, that the passion for innovation, and their long-established admiration of France, have blinded their eyes; that they are as incapable of seeing the real consequences of their actions, as a young man is in the first fervour of love, or an inmate of bedlam in a paroxysm of insanity. From this sickening scene of aggression, spoliation, and robbery, we turn with pride and "The charges are heavy, but the circumadmiration to the firm and dignified, yet mild stances that render them necessary are unexand moderate language of the Dutch govern- ampled; and there is no native of the country ment. There was a time, when their conduct who would not cheerfully make the utmost in resisting the partition of their country by sacrifices when the honour and independence two powerful and overbearing revolutionary of the nation are endangered. Much may be neighbours, would have called forth the unani- conceded for the sake of the peace of Europe, mous sympathy and admiration of the British but self-preservation puts a limit to concespeople: when they would have compared it to sions when they have approached to the utthe long glories of the House of Nassau, and most boundary. The Netherlands have ever the indomitable courage of that illustrious made, willingly, great sacrifices for the defence chief, who, when the armies of Louis XIV. of their rights; but never have they voluntawere at the gates of Amsterdam, declared that rily relinquished their national existence, and he knew one way to avoid seeing the disgrace many times they have defended them with of his country, and that was to die in the last small numerical forces against far superior ditch. We cannot believe that revolutionary numbers. This same feeling now glows in passions should have so completely changed every heart; and still there is the God of our the nature of a whole people in so short a time, forefathers, who has preserved us in times of as to render them insensible to such heroic the most imminent peril. In unison with their conduct: at all events, for the honour of hu- king, the States-General put their confidence man nature, we cannot forbear the gratifica- in God; and, strong as they are in their unanition of adorning our pages by the following mity of sentiments, and in the justice of their quotation from the last reply of the States- cause, they confidently look forward to the reGeneral of Holland to the speech of the King of the Netherlands, announcing the approach-rance." ing attack of France and England.

"Never did the States-General approach the throne with feelings similar to those of the present moment. They had fostered the well

*Of course the surrender of Antwerp to revolutionary Belgium, governed by the son-in-law of France, is, in other words, a surrender to the great parent democracy itself.

ward of a noble and magnanimous perseve

The revolutionary journals of England call this the obstinacy of the king of Holland. It is obstinacy. It is the same obstinacy as Leonidas showed at Thermopylaæ, and Themistocles at Salamis, and the Roman senate after the battle of Cannæ, and the Swiss at Morgarten, and the Dutch at Haarlem; the obstinacy which commands the admiration of men through every succeeding age, and, even