ublic, which Pitt refused to accept, especially as their corollary
made for the aggrandisement of France. In his eyes international law
imposed stringent obligations, which no one State, or nation, had the
right to revoke. Old world theories of life, when rudely assailed at
Paris, moved their champions to an enthusiasm scarcely less keen than
that of the Jacobins. Britons who fraternized with the new hierophants
were counted traitors to their King. Moreover, by a most unfortunate
coincidence, the British Government publicly announced its resolve to
support the Dutch Republic on the very day when the French Convention
passed the first of its subversive decrees. Thus, national pride came
sharply into conflict. Neither side could give way without seeming to
betray alike its principles and its honour.

Personal questions played a baneful part in embittering the feud. Pitt
and Grenville shrouded themselves in their insular and innate austerity.
They judged the English Radical clubs too harshly; they ascribed to
those who congratulated the Convention on 28th November treasonable
aims which can scarcely have arisen in England when the addresses were
drawn up. Apart from frothy republican talk, which should have been
treated with quiet contempt, those congratulations contained no sign of
consciousness that France was about to challenge us to conflict. We may
admit that Frost and Barlow showed great tactlessness in presenting
those addresses when friction between the two nations had already begun;
for the incident, besides stiffening the necks of Frenchmen, gave the
Reform movement an appearance of disloyalty to England which worked
infinite harm. Nevertheless, on reviewing these questions, we see that
Pitt treated the foolish ebullitions of youth as though they implied
malice.

Surely, too, he, and still more Grenville, were unwise in placing
Chauvelin under a political and social ban, which naturally led him to
consort with the bitterest enemies of Government in order to annoy
Ministers here and please his employers at Paris. A touchy and sensitive
nature like Chauvelin's is usually open to the soothing influences of
flattery. Grenville, however, drove him to open enmity, which finally
wreaked its revenge;[193] for it was Chauvelin's report on the readiness
of Britons to revolt which finally decided the Convention to declare war
on 1st February. We may also inquire why the Court of St. James's did
not make clear the course of