280 THE ARMED NEUTRALITY. [CHAP. LI. This famous League was caused as follows. The North of Europe abounds with materials, such as timber, hemp, pitch, &c., 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 Czarina. Catharine herself was disposed toward England, and these 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, according to the apology for his administration, published by that Minister, 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 circumstances, and makes it appear as if the French had always been the friends, the English always the enemies, of a liberal maritime policy. (Hist. de France, t. xvi. p. 453 sqq.) Hence also Coxe's assertion (Spanish Bourbons, vol. v. p. 87) that France "had laboured to introduce the principle that neutral ships might carry on the trade, both coasting and general, of hostile nations," appears to be incorrect. Coxe, Spanish Bourbons, v. p. 100. CHAP. LI.] RUSSIAN DECLARATION. 281 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 Czarina, 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 Czarina 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.1 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 See Count Görtz, Mémoire sur la neutralité armée maritime, &c. (8vo. Paris, 1805): cf. Statement of Florida Blanca, Coxe, Spanish Bourbons, vol. v. App. 282 FAILURE OF THE LEAGUE. [CHAP. LI. 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 declared to 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 succours which the Dutch had engaged to supply by the Treaty of Westminster in 1674. The Republic, as we have seen (supra, p. 226 sq.), was torn by two factions: the patriot party, which 1 Martens' Recueil, t. ii. p. 84. 2 When he was in Paris in 1777, a lady having asked his opinion on this sub ject, he replied, "Mon métier est d'étre royaliste." Martin, t. xvi. p. 412. CHAP. LI.] RUPTURE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND HOLLAND. 283 favoured 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 definitive answer was returned to the application. Paul Jones, the noted pirate, who sailed under the American flag, but who was in reality a Scotchman, having put into the Texel to refit, with two English frigates which he had captured, the StatesGeneral not only refused the demand of the British Cabinet for the extradition of Jones, but also declined to detain his prizes. The affair with Count Bylandt, arising out of the practice of the Dutch of conveying to the enemy materials for shipbuilding and contraband articles, has been already related. But the incident which led to the war was the discovery of proof that the Dutch had formed treaties with the United States of America. On September 3rd, 1780, an English frigate having captured an American packet bound for Holland, and carrying Henry Laurens, formerly President of Congress, it was discovered from the papers on board not only that Laurens was authorized to negotiate definitively with the Dutch, but also that a treaty of commerce, fully recognizing the independence of the American States, had been signed by the authority of Van Berkel, the Burgomaster of Amsterdam, so long back as September, 1778. The StatesGeneral having refused to disavow or punish Van Berkel and his accomplices, war was declared by England, December 20th, 1780.1 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 StatesGeneral, 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 Adolphus, George III. vol. iii. p. 222: Martens Erzählungen merkw. Fälle, B. ii. S. 39. The latter authority, however, states that the Dutch did disavow Van Berkel, though they refused to punish him. M. Martin liberally assigns as one cause of the English declaration of war a wish to confiscate Dutch money invested in England. Hist. de France, t. xvi. p. 455. 284 NAVAL WAR. [CHAP. LI. 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 Commo-* dore 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 175/7 at Guildford, March 15th, 1711, 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 |