session his attention was principally engaged by the Westminster
scrutiny, the state of the revenue, and the affairs of India. In the
first he took a part which widened the breach between Mr. Fox and
himself; and he had the mortification of being exposed to the charge
that he cherished personal animosity against his illustrious antagonist,
and of being deserted by many of his usual adherents, and finally left
in a minority, March 3, 1785, when the scrutiny was ended by a vote of
the house. Lord Hood and Mr. Fox were then returned. In his financial
measures Mr. Pitt had eminent success. By economy, by resolutely facing
the difficulties of the question, and, no doubt, by the assistance of
that general prosperity, agricultural as well as commercial, which was
beginning to succeed the depression of the American war, the revenue,
which at his accession to office was considerably below the expenditure,
was improved so much as, by the spring of 1786, to afford the promise of
a million surplus. This was devoted to the formation of an effective
sinking-fund. Mr. Pitt prided himself on this more than any other of his
measures, and resisted all temptation to encroach upon it even during
the pressing difficulties of the latter years of his administration. The
merit of having devised the scheme was claimed by Dr. Price: be this as
it may, the principal merit, that of having rigidly carried it into
execution, is Pitt’s. Later authorities have denied the advantage of the
system altogether. The India Bill, the other leading measure of this
session, differed from Mr. Fox’s chiefly in these important points, that
the members of the Board of Control, like other members of
administration, were removable at pleasure, and that nearly all the
patronage of India was left in the hands of the Board of Directors. In
1785, for the last time, Mr. Pitt again brought forward the subject of
parliamentary reform. His plan was to transfer the members of thirty-six
decayed boroughs to the metropolis and to various counties, and as other
boroughs decayed, to give their franchises to populous and increasing
towns. But the boroughs being regarded, in the words of his biographer,
as “a species of valuable property and private inheritance, the
voluntary surrender of their rights was not to be expected without an
adequate consideration.” This was not treated as a government measure,
and was rejected by a large majority.
The other passages of most importance in Mr. Pitt’s political life,
before the French Revolution, were his decided support of the
impeachment of Warren Hastings, though without going the whole length of
Mr. Burke and other opposition members, in 1786, and the conclusion of a
commercial treaty with France on a more liberal footing than had yet
been contemplated by the countries; the successful opposition which he
made to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, in 1787,
notwithstanding the support he had received from the Dissenters a few
years before; his conduct on the Regency Bill, in opposition to the
ill-advised assertion of Mr. Fox, that the Prince of Wales was entitled
as a matter of right to the full possession of the powers of royalty, as
sole Regent, in 1788–9; and his support of the abolition of the Slave
Trade, for which he spoke and voted, but without making it a ministerial
question. Indeed, in consequence of Mr. Wilberforce’s illness, Pitt was
the first to bring that national disgrace and crime under the notice of
the house, and he exerted his best eloquence in favour of its immediate
abolition, and against the temporising course which was adopted.
It does not appear that in the beginning of the French Revolution Mr.
Pitt anticipated any bad consequences to Great Britain, or that he
expected or wished to be led into that protracted war, which, though
ultimately triumphant, involved us in imminent danger, enormous expense,
and a debt still pressing us to the ground. At least, in opening his
budget in 1792, he spoke with more than usual confidence of the
favourable prospects of the revenue, and prognosticated many years of
peace. At the same time he was already impressed with suspicion and fear
of those in England who regarded with complacency the dawning of the
Revolution; and in the same session he declared himself opposed to the
introduction of Mr. Grey’s motion for reform in parliament, on the
express ground that men’s minds were in a state of fermentation, which
rendered any innovation inexpedient and dangerous. But the events of the
summer and autumn changed Mr. Pitt’s views more widely. After the
deposition of Louis XVI., on the 10th of August, the British minister at
Paris was recalled; and as soon as the news of that unhappy sovereign’s
death reached England, the French minister in London was ordered to quit
the kingdom. War was declared by France, February 1, 1793. We do not
attempt to compress the history of that eventful period into these
pages. The policy of our government was to make the sea the scene of our
chief exertions, and our fleets were victorious in every quarter of the
globe. By land the conduct of the war was most unsuccessful. We were
indeed cautious of risking our own troops on the continent; but the
national wealth was profusely spent in subsidizing other nations, in
combining alliances against France, which one after another proved
utterly unable to withstand the energy of the French government and the
talent of the republican generals, and in trifling expeditions,
injurious if they failed, and useless if successful. Meanwhile the
enormous expenditure of the day caused a corresponding increase of the
public burdens, and, as was foreboded, a ruinous accession to the public
debt. A large party, who were far from joining with those that would
willingly have made England the subject of an experiment similar to the
one going on in France, denied both the necessity and the expediency of
the contest in which we were engaged; party spirit reached a frantic
height; and these men, as sincere friends to their country as those who
most strenuously supported the arbitrary measures of government, were
denounced, and confounded with the small minority really hostile to
domestic order. And no doubt the oppressive conduct of the
administration drove many persons to extremes, which, in cooler moments
and under a more equitable policy, they would not have countenanced.
Then came the trials of Muir and Palmer in Scotland, in 1793, of Hardy
and Horne Tooke in 1794, the Alien Bill, the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, and other measures calculated, in the language of the times,
to prevent the spread of revolutionary principles, for which the
minister was hailed by one party as the saviour of his country from
anarchy, and denounced by another as a pillar of despotism, an enemy to
the free constitution of his country, a deserter from the principles of
his youth, and a persecutor of those associates who still adhered to
them. Increased discontent was met by increased severity; and, after the
insults offered to the King’s person as he proceeded to open the session
of parliament in 1796, the famous bills, for the prevention of seditious
meetings and for the better security of his Majesty’s person and
government, commonly called the Pitt and Grenville Acts, were introduced
and carried, not without the utmost indignation and the most determined
opposition by all means short of forcible resistance, both within the
walls of parliament and without.
Mr. Fox and the other chief members of opposition, finding their utmost
efforts unsuccessful, seceded openly from the House of Commons when the
Seditious Meetings Bill went into committee. Meanwhile the country was
beset by the most serious difficulties. The drain of specie produced by
our subsidies to foreign powers, the large advances required from the
Bank by government, and the disposition to hoard money produced by the
fear of invasion and of domestic anarchy, gave reason to apprehend that
the Bank would be unable to meet its engagements; and in 1797 it was
relieved by the Restriction Act from the obligation of paying cash in
exchange for its notes. In the same year the mutiny at the Nore broke
out; and in 1798 the rebellion in Ireland made a most formidable
addition to the dangers and distresses of the nation. Meanwhile our
exertions had been powerless to check the victorious arms of France on
the continent of Europe, and a strong desire for peace was felt by many
who had been Mr. Pitt’s staunch supporters, and advocates of the
revolutionary war. This led to his retirement from office in 1801,
unless that event is rather to be ascribed to the King’s fixed
determination not to grant the Irish Catholics that full relief, which
had been held out as one inducement to procure the consent of Ireland to
the Act of Union. It is to Mr. Pitt that the merit of carrying through
that important measure is due; a measure which would probably have been
attended with much more beneficial results if the policy of its author
with respect to Catholic Emancipation had been adopted. But even the
importance of the object is insufficient to justify, and can only
palliate, the corrupt means which were used in gaining the assent of the
Irish parliament to the Union, which was very unpopular with the Irish
nation.
Mr. Pitt resigned his office in February, 1801, and was succeeded by Mr.
Addington, who concluded the peace of Amiens in 1802, the preliminaries
having been signed the autumn before. Mr. Pitt defended the conditions
of this treaty when attacked in parliament, therein taking a different
part from several of his late colleagues. But his retirement in the
first instance was regarded as not much more than nominal, and he was
generally thought to be the adviser of the ministry after he ceased to
belong to it. This state of affairs however was short-lived. His support
gradually subsided, first into coldness, then into avowed
disapprobation, and finally into hostility not less decided than that of
the regular opposition. In the early part of 1804, after the lapse of
twenty years of violent hostility, Pitt and Fox were again seen speaking
and voting on the same side. A fruitless attempt was made by the
ministry to procure the accession of the former; and as it became clear
that the existing government could not stand, and as the lapse of time
and change in affairs had removed many of the most irreconcileable
grounds of party variance, a strong hope was felt that an
administration, uniting the best talents and most powerful interests of
the country, might be formed by the junction of the three parties
represented by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Lord Grenville. This hope appears
to have been defeated by the King’s personal objections to admit Mr. Fox
to office. It is asserted by Mr. Rose that Mr. Pitt used his utmost
endeavours to overcome that prejudice, “conceiving a strong government
as important to the public welfare, and as calculated to call forth the
united talents as well as the utmost resources of the empire; in which
endeavour he persisted till within a few months of his death.”
Unfortunately for his own fame, and probably for the interests of the
country, he did not think fit to make this union of parties a condition
of his own return to office. Lord Grenville, his relation, friend, and
coadjutor, refused to become a member of an exclusive ministry, and Mr.
Pitt took his station at the head of a cabinet singularly deficient in
men of commanding talent, and more than half composed of Mr. Addington’s
colleagues. The disappointment of the nation was great; but the late
period of the session (he was gazetted First Lord of the Treasury May
12) was of material service in enabling him to face the difficulties of
his position; and he employed the autumn in seeking to gain strength by
forming an alliance with some other party. Lord Grenville however proved
firm in his resolution not to accept office while Mr. Fox was excluded;
and the minister, assuredly with deep mortification, was compelled to
make overtures of reconciliation to Mr. Addington, who was created
Viscount Sidmouth, and appointed President of the Council in January,
1805. This alliance after all proved inefficient to strengthen the
government, while it was fruitful in jealousies, which led to Lord
Sidmouth’s speedy retirement from office in July; and in the same
session the dismissal, and ultimately the impeachment, of his old and
valued friend and ablest coadjutor, Mr. Dundas, now created Viscount
Melville, added another and a still more distressing embarrassment to
those by which the minister was already beset.
On his return to office Mr. Pitt had again recourse to his former policy
of raising up continental alliances against France; and he succeeded in
uniting Austria and Russia in the confederacy which was crushed by the
decisive battle of Austerlitz, December 2, 1805. At this time his
constitution was rapidly giving way, exhausted by a life of excessive
labour, which he sought to relieve by the immoderate use of wine, a
habit first induced by the original defects in his constitution. In
December he was ordered by his physicians to Bath, but he received no
benefit from the change of place, and returned to his residence at
Putney by slow stages. He expired January 23, 1805.
In addition to his other offices, Mr. Pitt held the sinecure of Warden
of the Cinque Ports, worth about 3000_l._ per annum, which, unsolicited,
was bestowed on him by the King in 1792, as a mark of personal esteem.
But the pressure of public business left no time for the regulation of
his domestic affairs, and, notwithstanding his large income, he expended
his small patrimonial estate, and died deeply involved in debt. The
parliament was not slow to acknowledge his long services. His remains
were interred at the public expense; a monument was erected to him in
Westminster Abbey; 40,000_l._ were voted to discharge his debts; and, in
conformity to his dying request, a pension of 1500_l._ was conferred on
his nieces, daughters of the Earl of Stanhope.
We abstain, for the reasons already assigned, from attempting to give a
summary of Mr. Pitt’s qualifications and merits as a statesman, but it
is a debt of justice to bear testimony to his unimpeached integrity in
all pecuniary affairs. As a speaker he possessed extraordinary powers;
clear, fluent, and singularly correct in his diction, unimpassioned, and
seldom rising into flights of eloquence, he was always ready to profit
by the indiscretions of an opponent, and his sarcasm was of the most
cutting and effective kind. His argumentative powers were of a high
order, and the clearness and precision of his mind fitted him admirably
for those minute financial statements which formed an important part of
his official duties. His voice, though wanting in variety, was sonorous
and impressive in an extraordinary degree; his action, though awkward
and ungainly at first sight, was not unpleasing, nor unsuited to his
discourse. In the relations of private life his character was
unexceptionable. “With a manner somewhat reserved and distant, in what
might be termed his public deportment, no man was ever better qualified
to gain, or more successful in fixing, the attachment of his friends,
than Mr. Pitt. They saw all the powerful energies of his character
softened into the most perfect complacency and sweetness of disposition
in the circles of private life, the pleasures of which no one more
enjoyed, or more agreeably promoted, where the paramount duties he
conceived himself to owe to the public admitted of his mixing in them;
that indignant severity with which he met and subdued what he considered
unfounded opposition, that keenness of sarcasm with which he repelled
and withered (as it might be said) the powers of most of his assailants
in debate, were exchanged, in the society of his intimate friends, for a
kindness of heart, a gentleness of demeanour, and a playfulness of good
humour, which none ever witnessed without interest, or participated
without delight.” Such is the testimony borne to Mr. Pitt’s social
qualities by his intimate and attached friend, the Hon. George Rose, in
his “Brief Examination into the Increase of the Revenue, &c. of Great
Britain, during Mr. Pitt’s administration.”
[Illustration: [Statue of Mr. Pitt, by Chantrey, in Hanover Square.]]
[Illustration:
_Engraved by J. Posselwhite._
WESLEY.
_From a Print engraved by J. Fittler, after a Miniature Painted by J.
Barry._
Under the Superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge
_London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._
]
[Illustration]
WESLEY.
Samuel Wesley, whose mother was a niece of Thomas Fuller, the church
historian, was in his earliest years thrown by family circumstances
among the party of the dissenters; but he abandoned them in disgust, and
entered at Exeter College, Oxford, in 1684. He afterwards obtained the
livings of Epworth and Wroote, in Lincolnshire; and at the former of
those places, June 17, 1703, was born his second son John. Six years
afterwards, the house was set on fire by some refractory parishioners,
and the boy was forgotten in the first confusion. He was presently
discovered at a window, and by great exertion rescued at the very moment
which promised to be his last. John Wesley saw the hand of Providence in
this preservation, and made it in after life a subject of reflection and
gratitude.
At the age of seventeen he was removed from the Charterhouse School,
where he had made some proficiency, to Christchurch, Oxford; and the
reputation by which he was then distinguished was that of a skilful
logician and acute disputant. He was destined for the Church; and when
the time for ordination arrived, after some faint scruples which he
professed respecting the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed and
the supposed Calvinistic tendency discoverable in the Articles had been
removed, he entered into orders; and, as the book which had especially
excited him on the most serious meditation to undertake that office was
Jeremy Taylor’s ‘Rules of Holy Living and Dying,’ so was it with the
deepest earnestness that his resolution was taken, and with a fixed
determination to dedicate his life and his death, his whole thoughts,
feelings and energies, to the service of God. Accordingly, in the
selection of his acquaintance, he avoided all who did not embrace his
principles; and having now obtained a fellowship at Lincoln College, he
had the means of assembling round him a little society of religious
friends or disciples, over whom his superior talents and piety gave him
a natural influence. These, through their strict and methodical manner
of living, acquired from their fellow-students the appellation of
Methodists,—a name derived from the schools of ancient science, and thus
destined, through its capricious application by a few thoughtless boys,
to designate a large and vital portion of the Christian world.
About this time Wesley entered upon his parochial duties as his father’s
curate at Epworth[4], and presently afterwards, on the approaching death
of that respectable person, he was strongly urged by his family to
obtain, as he probably might have done, the next presentation for
himself. Had he yielded to their solicitations, he might have passed his
days in humble and peaceful obscurity; but his mind was too large for
the limits of a country parish, and he already felt that he was intended
to serve his Maker in a larger field. So, evading the arguments and
withstanding the entreaties of his friends, he went back to reside for a
while upon his fellowship at Oxford.
Footnote 4:
It was, strictly speaking, during this his absence from Oxford that
his little society then (of which the leading member was his younger
brother Charles) acquired the name of Methodist.
In the year 1735 he engaged in the more public exercise of the ministry
in the character of a missionary. He set sail for the new colony of
Georgia in America; he had the countenance of the civil authorities, and
the object which he principally professed was the conversion of the
Indians. His habits at this period were deeply tinged with ascetism. In
his extreme self-denial and mortification, in respect to diet, clothing,
and the ordinary comforts of life, he affected a more than monastic
austerity, and realized the tales of eremitical fanaticism. He even
declaimed against the study of classical authors, and discouraged, as
sinful, any application to profane literature. And the extravagance of
his zeal took a direction, such indeed as might be expected from his
birth and education, but ill adapted to recommend him to the affections
of the colonists. He adhered, with the obstinacy of a bigot, to the
rubric of the Church; he refused to administer baptism except by
immersion; he withheld the communion from a pious dissenter, unless he
should first consent to be rebaptized; he declined to perform the burial
service over another; and while he was exciting much enmity by this
excessive strictness, he formed an indiscreet, though innocent,
connexion with a young woman named Sophia Causton, which led him into
difficulty, and occasioned, after some ludicrous and some very serious
scenes, his sudden and not very creditable departure from America.
He remained there a year and nine months without making, so far as we
learn, a single attempt to introduce Christianity among the Indians. He
alleged that the Indians had expressed no wish for conversion; and if
his conscience was indeed thus easily satisfied, he was yet very far
removed from Christian perfection. Thus much indeed he certainly appears
to have learnt from this first experiment on his own powers, that he was
not yet qualified for the office of missionary; for he felt that he, who
would have converted others, was not yet converted himself.
Wesley had sailed to America in the society of some Moravian
missionaries, whose exalted piety had wrought deeply on his feelings,
and given them some influence over his conduct. On his return to
England, while he was already impressed with some sense of his own
unworthiness, he became closely connected with Peter Boehler, a man of
talents and authority, and a Moravian. Through his instructions Wesley
became thoroughly convinced of his own unbelief, and began to pray, with
all the ardour of his enthusiastic soul, for an instantaneous
conversion. It was not long before he believed that this blessing was
vouchsafed to him. On the evening of the 24th of May, 1738, as one of a
society in Aldersgate Street was reading in his presence Luther’s
‘Preface to the Epistle to the Romans,’—“About a quarter before nine,”
says Wesley, “while he was describing the change which God works in the
heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed; I felt
I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was
given me that He had taken away _my_ sins, even _mine_, and saved _me_
from the law of sin and death.” Howbeit, when he returned home, he had
still some more struggles with the evil one, and was again buffeted by
temptations; but he was now triumphant through earnest prayer. “And
herein,” he adds, “I found the difference between this and my former
state chiefly to consist. I was striving, yea fighting, with all my
might under the law, as well as under grace; but then I was sometimes,
if not often, conquered; now I am always conqueror.” This is justly
considered as a remarkable day in the history of methodism; and Wesley
himself attached so much importance to the change that had been wrought
in him, that he scrupled not to proclaim, to the great scandal of some
of his unregenerate friends, that he had never been a Christian until
then.
His first act after his conversion was to set out on a visit to the
celebrated Moravian colony, established under the patronage of Count
Zinzendorf, at Herrnhut in Lusatia. There he employed a fortnight in
examining the doctrines and discipline of that sect, and then returned,
as he went, on foot. “I would gladly have spent my life here; but my
Master calling me to labour in another part of the vineyard, I was
constrained to take my leave of this happy place.” Yet he perceived
clearly enough the imperfections in their method; and his intercourse
with their noble patron was not such as to flatter the ambition, or even
the independence, of his character. But he had acquired a knowledge of
their system, and was thus qualified to apply to his own purposes any
part of it which might hereafter serve them.