POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP
I cannot approve of the requisition, in the studies of future
statesmen, of so much theoretical knowledge, by which young people
are often ruined before their time, both in mind and body. When
they enter into practical life, they possess indeed an immense
stock of philosophical and learned material; but in the narrow
circle of their calling this cannot be practically applied, and
will therefore be forgotten as useless. On the other hand what they
most needed they have lost: they are deficient in the necessary
mental and bodily energy, which is quite indispensable when one
would enter efficiently into practical life.--GOETHE.
The lives of English statesmen have very rarely, if ever, been
enervated by that excessive zeal for education which the great German
thinker discerned as a possible danger for his fellow countrymen.
Certainly to those who had drunk deep of the learning of Leipzig,
Heidelberg, or Göttingen, the transference to a Staats-secretariat
at Weimar, Cassel, or even at Berlin, must have been a life of sheer
drudgery. Doubtless, the _doctrinaire_ policy of many a Continental
State sprang from the persistent attempts of some Pegasus in harness
to rise again to the serene heights of his youthful contemplations.
In England our youths did not meditate on the science of politics.
Both Oxford and Cambridge displayed a maternal care lest the brains
of the rising generation should overtax the bodies; and never was the
unsullied spring of Helicon ruffled by draughts taken under compulsion.
Gibbon’s experience at Magdalen College in 1752–3, of the genial
indifference of his first tutor, and the unblushing neglect of his
successor, seems to have been quite normal; and it is clear that the
curriculum of that wealthy corporation had not the remotest connection
with any known form of activity outside its walls.
Pitt’s residence at Cambridge was more fruitful for the future. The
dons of Pembroke Hall seem to have taken their duties less lightly
than was the rule elsewhere; and Pitt’s lifelong gratitude to Dr.
Pretyman may have been partly due to the unusual advancement in
learning achieved under his watchful care. But even so, the regular
studies had no bearing on the life of a statesman other than that which
comes from an intelligent reading of the philosophers and historians of
Greece and Rome. Pitt’s choice of lectures on Civil Law was his own.
And, after taking his degree in the autumn of 1776, he seems largely
to have followed the bent of his mind, which, as we have seen, led him
to study the crises in national affairs, and the causes of welfare or
decay. It is significant that the young Napoleon Bonaparte approached
historical study in the same practical way.
Above all, Pitt haunted the precincts of Westminster, and there learnt
to view politics, not as a science, but a strife. For him, therefore,
there was little risk of being hampered by an ill-digested mass of
theoretical learning as he faced the ever shifting problems of the
Commonwealth; still less of undergoing the transition from the breezy
uplands of philosophy to the political mill of some petty principality.
It is the happy lot of Britain’s sons to come to ever widening spheres
of activity; and their minds, never “sicklied o’er” at the outset,
should possess the alertness and vigour which Goethe rightly praised as
a better equipment than the best elaborated theories and the richest
store of precedents. This natural course of development ought to
produce not _doctrinaires_, but statesmen.
* * * * *
The chief misfortunes of Pitt’s early life were his appalling
precocity, which the Earl of Chatham in no wise checked, and the
sense of responsibility thrust upon him all too soon by the terrible
bereavement described above. As the eldest son was then abroad with
his regiment, William was at once involved in a network of cares. The
finances of the family were in an embarrassed state. Chatham’s habits
had been so lavish, and his conduct in official life so honourably
scrupulous, that the estate was encumbered with debts. Parliament voted
the sum of £20,000 towards their payment; but, if we may judge from one
of the later letters of Lady Chatham, embarrassments at times continued
to beset her.[74] William also inherited property which was to yield
little more than an annual income of £250--a sum inadequate to meet
the demands of an ambitious youth in an age when money no less than
family standing served as the passport to a public career.
Nevertheless, the lack of resources seems to have stimulated energies
that were ever braced by difficulty. About five months after the
funeral of his father, we find him expressing to Lady Chatham his
resolve to take rooms at Lincoln’s Inn. In his view practice at the
Bar was invaluable as a training for that wider and grander service to
which he had early vowed himself.
In one important particular Pitt’s conduct showed singular foresight.
He did not, as might have been expected in days when travelling was
slow and expensive, give up his rooms at Pembroke Hall, but for nearly
two years he continued usually to reside there, even while keeping his
terms at Lincoln’s Inn. Extravagant though this arrangement seemed to
be, it was based on prudential motives. In the miserable condition
in which public affairs then were, he judged that a dissolution of
Parliament could not be long deferred; and the chance of winning a seat
at his University seemed to him, though still in his teens, greater
than at an ordinary constituency, where the deep pockets of grandees or
nabobs must mar his prospect.[75]
About Cambridge, then, his hopes fondly clustered, seeing that it
was “a seat of all others the most desirable, as being free from
expense, perfectly independent, and I think in every respect extremely
honourable.”[76] The words have the ring of manly determination which
marks all his public utterances.
The following letter of his to Mr. John (afterwards Lord) Townshend,
then one of the members for the University, marks the first official
announcement of his intentions:
Pembroke Hall, July 15 1779.
DEAR TOWNSHEND,
The very earnest and sincere wishes I expressed for your success
in the late contest for the University of Cambridge, might perhaps
lead you to imagine that I should take a similar part on every
future occasion. I was therefore very sorry that it was not in my
power to explain to you my situation when I had the pleasure of
seeing you here. But, having since finally determined to offer
myself a candidate for the University at the General Election, I
am desirous of giving you immediate notice of a circumstance of
which I imagine you will be glad to be apprised as soon as possible.
W. PITT.[77]
At the same time he informed his uncle, Earl Temple, of his resolve,
and received the following reply. The italicizing of the Christian name
speaks for itself:
Stowe, July 18 1779.
I cannot, my dear _William_, but interest myself most warmly in
whatever relates to your honour or interest; I therefore learn with
singular pleasure the hopes you conceive that the good old lady,
the alma mater of Cambridge, may be inclined to treat you as her
most favourite son. Such a testimony at your age from a learned
body cannot but be very flattering. As to your prospect of success,
I cannot form any opinion, being totally unacquainted with every
circumstance but that of your merit. You must therefore be [_sic_]
at present to receive from me nothing but sincere assurances of
my best good wishes and readiness to serve you as may be in my
power. How far it may be advisable for you before you have more
ripened in your profession to launch out into the great ocean of
politicks and expose yourself to the sweet music of those lovely
syrens, which have already seduced your cousin Thomas from the
destined and determined object of his life, is a matter of great
doubt, and the reflection that it is so may prove some consolation
to you should you not succeed. The memory of your father and the
great character you have attained speak forcibly in your favour,
but a dead minister, the most respectable that ever existed, weighs
very light in the scale against any living one, at least if I may
guess at your university by her good sister. All therefore I can
say further is to recommend to you very thoroughly to examine the
foundation of your hopes before you engage, not suffering your
conduct to be warped by your wishes; because, if from the event
this measure shall appear to be lightly taken up, such an outset
in life will diminish much of those high expectations which you
have so deservedly raised. Your young old friend and namesake
salutes you very kindly and gratefully, Hester and Catherine very
affectionately, without forgetting that antient spinster Mrs.
Stapleton. We shall be happy to receive you here, candidate or no
candidate....[78]
TEMPLE.
Despite this response, Pitt resolved to persevere, and that too, though
the political horizon had darkened owing to the declaration of war
by Spain. At first he avowed his deep concern at this event; but the
note of hopefulness, which is never long absent from his letters, soon
begins to reassert itself in the expression of a belief that this new
danger may “be productive of some good effects at home, and that there
may still be spirit and resources in the country sufficient to preserve
at least the remnant of a great empire.” This forecast was justified.
The struggle became one for national existence, waged against our
hereditary rivals, the monarchs of the House of Bourbon; and the
searchings of heart of England’s sons, at warring against their own
kith and kin, were in large measure stilled. The thrilling incidents
that accompanied the three years’ siege of Gibraltar by the Spaniards,
our successes in India, and the naval triumphs of the closing years of
the war showed the hardening of the nation’s fibre under the strain of
adversity and danger.
After residing at Burton Pynsent for some weeks in the autumn in order
to reassure Lady Chatham while the invasion-scare was at its height,
Pitt returned to Cambridge at the close of the year, and settled down
at Lincoln’s Inn in the early weeks of 1780. Thanks to the kindness of
his uncle, Earl Temple, he had been able to procure a lease of rooms on
the north side of the attic of staircase number 4 of Stone Buildings
(those nearest to Holborn). The sum of £1,100, which in November 1778
he had pronounced “frightful,” had been advanced on the property which
Pitt was to inherit when he came of age.
Concerning Pitt’s life at Lincoln’s Inn we know next to nothing. The
lack of official records of the Inns of Court, except unilluminating
entries of dates, thwarts all efforts at reconstructing the early life
of many famous men; and the denseness of the gloom which surrounds our
institutions, academic and legal, is apt to provoke the investigator
to unpatriotic reflections. Is there any French statesman of modern
times about whose early career the records of the institutions with
which he was associated are so scanty and uninteresting as are those of
Cambridge and Lincoln’s Inn concerning the life of the brilliant son of
Chatham?
As it is, the investigator at Lincoln’s Inn can discover little more
than that Pitt was called to the Bar on 12th June 1780, and that on the
next day a lease was taken out for his rooms for three “lives,” namely,
John, Earl of Chatham, aged 23, William Pitt, aged 21, and James
Charles Pitt, aged 18. The rent was £9 9_s._ 10_d._ per annum.[79]
The great preoccupation of Pitt, apart from the ever-pressing topic
of national danger, was the movement for Economic Reform. Originating
at York in December 1779, it gathered volume until the petitioners in
that county alone numbered more than 8,000 freeholders. East Anglia
responded to the call of Yorkshire; and Pitt hoped to see London rally
to the cause of purity and political freedom. If ever there was a
chance of sweeping away the network of sinecures whereby the King kept
his hold on the House of Commons, it was now, when the growth of debt
and taxation rendered economy in non-essentials the most urgent of
public duties.
In February 1780 Burke introduced his proposals for Economic Reform
in a speech of great ability. He sought, firstly, to abolish the
special jurisdictions in Wales and Cheshire and in the Duchies of
Lancaster and Cornwall, which formed petty and extravagant and corrupt
governments. The great orator, like a forensic _retiarius_, sought to
enfold his great enemy, Corruption, within the cloak of humour which
he thus deftly threw in front. Affecting the desire to free the royal
prerogative from irritating and absurd local restrictions, he proceeded
thus: “Cross a brook, and you lose the King of England, but you have
some comfort in coming again under His Majesty, though shorn of his
beams, and no more than Prince of Wales. Go to the north and you find
him dwindled to a Duke of Lancaster. Turn to the west of that north,
and he hops upon you in the humble character of the Earl of Chester.”
Equally difficult and important was Burke’s attempt to reduce the
Civil List and lessen the number of sinecures attached to the King’s
household. He sought to abolish the offices of Master of the Household,
Treasurer, Comptroller, Cofferer, Treasurer of the Chamber, the whole
Board of Green-Cloth, the Wardrobe and Jewel Offices, the Board of
Works, and the Keepers of stag-hounds, buck-hounds, fox-hounds,
and harriers, and other well-paid sinecures. With playful irony he
described the clatter of white-sticks and yellow-sticks about the head
of a reformer who would touch those offices, or sought to exclude
the King’s turnspit from Parliament. As regarded the Civil List, he
proposed to fix its amount immutably, to transfer to the general fund
accounts which had ceased properly to belong to the King’s private
purse, and to regulate the whole on business-like principles. He also
urged the suppression of useless offices in the general administration,
especially the newly created Secretaryship for the Colonies and the
Board of Trade, the latter of which then formed a desirable sinecure
for eight members of Parliament.[80] Most important of all, perhaps,
was the proposal, brought in by Sir Philip Clerk, to exclude from
Parliament contractors--a class which had been proved to have battened
on the funds, and to have urged the continuance of the war.
Had Burke’s proposals stood in need of further vindication, it would
have been supplied by the mysterious fate which befell them. Members
of Parliament with scarcely an exception loudly commended the measure,
and the eloquence and power with which Burke introduced it to the
House. About the same time Lord Shelburne brought forward in the Upper
House damning proofs of the greed of contractors and of the gross
carelessness with which accounts were kept at the Admiralty and War
Office.[81] The defence of ministers was strong only in personalities.
Argument there was none; and it seemed that the whole festering sudd of
corruption must be swept away by the flood of popular indignation.
From three of Pitt’s letters, those of 9th and 26th February and 14th
March 1780, we can imagine the high hopes of the young reformer as he
listened to the scathing attack on Ministers by Lord Shelburne, and
the comprehensive indictment framed by Burke. In the second letter he
notes with joy the drop of the ministerial majority to two; and in the
small hours of 14th March he was privileged to witness the stormy scene
which occurred when Burke by a majority of eight carried his motion for
abolishing the Board of Trade. And yet the sudd did not move. Despite
the success of reformers in the House, and the growing excitement among
their associations in the country, the clogging influences of the past
prevailed. Members who praised Burke for his lofty and statesmanlike
aims, voted in committee against the details of his scheme. Little by
little it disappeared; and, in face of the greed, cowardice, or apathy
of Parliament, Burke soon declared his indifference as to the fate of
the few remaining clauses of his measure. The bill for the exclusion
of contractors from Parliament passed the Commons, but was thrown out
by the Lords.
Another surprise was in store for the House and the country. On 6th
April Mr. Dunning brought forward a motion that “the influence of the
Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be lessened.” The
motion was made suddenly and on the day when numerous petitions were
laid on the table, signed by thousands of persons, on behalf of shorter
parliaments and a larger addition to the representatives of counties
who, as a rule, showed some independence. The proposal produced a
great sensation. Ministers seemed to be “stunned.” Pitt’s relative,
Thomas Pitt of Boccanoc, ably supported this daring motion. The Speaker
himself left the chair and spoke in support of it, and the resolution,
after a trifling change of form, was passed by a majority of eighteen.
But again the forces of obscurantism triumphed. Apparently Dunning owed
his success solely to the fear of the imminence of a general election,
and as that fear lessened, so also did the numbers of the popular
party in the House. North slowly but surely regained his hold on the
waverers, and succeeded in defeating a motion begging the King not to
dissolve or prorogue Parliament until steps had been taken to diminish
the influence of the Crown at elections (24th April).
For the present Pitt stifled his disappointment at this fiasco by
attendance at the opera and masquerades, so we may judge from his
letters; but he probably hardened his resolve to effect the Reform
of Parliament itself, which, as was now clear to all but Burke, must
precede any attempt to cleanse the Augean stables of the Court and the
Administration. That gifted thinker but somewhat erratic politician,
whose character will concern us later, had gone so far as to defend the
state of the representation and to urge reformers to concentrate their
efforts on the task of freeing Parliament from the corrupt influences
that were warping its character. To this belief he still clung, in
spite of the recent damning proof that a Parliament of place-hunters
and borough-mongers had refused to root out the canker of corruption,
even at a time of great national danger. Pitt, for his part, looked for
safety to that course of action which Chatham had so often taken; he
turned away from Parliament and fixed his hopes in the nation. Even the
oratory of Burke failed to satisfy him. He found in his great speech of
11th February not only “real beauties,” but “ridiculous affectations.”
He added, however, in his letter of 14th March: “I have heard two less
studied harangues from him since in reply that please me much more
than this does now that it is upon paper.” This criticism, coming from
the son of Chatham, is a little surprising; but it may be considered
symptomatic. As will appear later, there was something in Burke’s
temperament which jarred on the young statesman.
While disagreeing with Burke and the more academic wing of the
reformers, Pitt did not consort with the men on the extreme left who
now raised a great clamour through the country. He seems to have had no
dealings at this time with the Reform or “Œconomic” Associations; and
events now occurred which helped for a time to distract his attention
from politics. While he was expecting to be called to the Bar, London
fell a prey to the Lord George Gordon rioters (2nd to 9th June).
What must have been the disgust of the young patrician as he gazed at
the scenes of rapine and drunkenness which went on under the name of
Protestantism! The pretence of bigotry was soon flung aside, and then,
when the thin crust of civilization was removed, men saw appalled the
depths of villany that usually are hidden. For days the passions of
the mob raged unchecked by timorous magistrates and ministers. The
King alone was undismayed, and finally insisted on the use of vigorous
measures. Thanks to his staunchness, the wheels of government began to
move once more. Then the orgy quickly died down; but it left men with a
dread of the newly-revealed Caliban, and a heightened respect for the
one man whose firmness had ensured the vindication of law and order.
How much the popular cause then suffered can never be known. When,
in the course of the French Revolution, the Parisian mob carried the
King and Queen from Versailles to Paris and completed its triumph at
the harvest time of 1792, Englishmen viewed those events in the lurid
light thrown by the flames of the Lord George Gordon riots; and it is
probable that Pitt himself was no stranger to this feeling.
The cause of Parliamentary Reform in England also suffered untold harm.
Why talk about manhood suffrage, vote by ballot and annual Parliaments,
as the Westminster Committee had talked, when all around were proofs
of the savagery of the many-headed monster? The Duke of Richmond, who
then, along with Fox, advocated a programme of reform which was to
furnish the Chartists with their “six points,” confessed in a letter to
Shelburne that the riots “will tend to discredit any attempts of the
people to do themselves justice on any future occasion when the cause
may warrant it”;[82] and though Charles James Fox retained his faith
in the cause, yet he and all other democrats thenceforth found it a
hopeless task to roll the stone up to the point to which the enthusiasm
of the people carried it in the spring of 1780. After midsummer of that
year the various committees and associations preached to deaf ears. The
King had won.
To return to Pitt’s fortunes, we may note that Lincoln’s Inn had been
in no immediate danger from the rioters, though surrounded with flames
on all sides. In order to be ready for the worst, the benchers took
arms and formed a corps, in which Pitt had his first experience of
volunteering. The records of the Inn, however, show that it was also
defended by 800 men of the Northumberland Militia, the sum of £364
12_s._ 0_d._ being paid for provisions to them for the ten days during
which they were in garrison.[83]
The desire of the resident members of the Inn worthily to entertain
the officers of that corps led to the appointment of a committee for
that purpose, which included Pitt, Pepper Arden (afterwards Lord
Alvanley), Mitford (afterwards Lord Redesdale), Bland Burges, and three
others. The last named, in his reminiscences, tells how, when his turn
came, he invited Gibbon and Lord Carmarthen to meet four officers
and other company at dinner. The historian, as is well known, was a
most entertaining talker, flitting easily from one topic to another,
and lighting up all with sallies of wit which the listeners were
expected to receive with deferential applause and unquestioning mirth.
Judge then of his astonishment, when, after one of his best foreign
anecdotes, which touched on “the fashionable levities of political
doctrine then prevalent,” a deep but clear voice was heard from the
far end of the table calmly but civilly impugning the correctness of
the story and the propriety of its political connexion. The applause
ceased at once, and Gibbon turned his gaze petulantly on the slim youth
who had dared to challenge his unquestioned supremacy, and sat there
quietly eating grapes. As the interruption had been hailed with too
much approval to be ignored or dismissed with a frown, he endeavoured
to crush the youth by heavy artillery. A spirited fire came in return,
and a sharp duel of wits began, which the company followed with the
keenest interest. Finally the skill and vigour of the attack drove the
historian from one position after another and left him defenceless;
whereupon he left the room in high dudgeon. In vain did Bland Burges
seek in the anteroom to calm his feelings and persuade him to return.
“By no means,” replied Gibbon; “that young gentleman is, I have no
doubt, extremely ingenious and agreeable, but I must acknowledge that
his style of conversation is not exactly what I am accustomed to,
so you must positively excuse me.” Meanwhile Pitt continued to hold
forth on the topic in dispute, “which he discussed with such ability,
strength of argument, and eloquence, that his hearers were filled with
profound admiration.”[84]
Such was the first recorded triumph of Pitt. Would that we knew more
than the bare outlines of the discussion! But an unkind fate has
vouchsafed here, as at so many points, enough of information to whet
the appetite for more, enough to give us the merest glimpse of those
surprising powers which easily discomfited Gibbon at his prime.
We know little about the extent of Pitt’s legal attainments or his
skill as a pleader. His practice was to last but a short time. Three
days after the end of the riots he was called to the Bar and afterwards
went on the Western Circuit, of which he was a member. As to the
impression aroused by his pleading, I have found very few particulars
except the statement in an almost contemporary biography that his first
case, which must have been in London, was one concerning an East India
trade dispute, and that he attracted the notice of Lord Mansfield
on the Bench. He is said to have acted as junior counsel in several
cases at Dorchester and Exeter, and to have commanded attention by the
force of his reasoning rather than attracted it by playing upon the
emotions. His style, in short, was clear and argumentative rather than
“attractive and passionate.”[85] From Exeter he was recalled in haste
by news which was of far higher interest to him than the quarrels of
Wessex squires and traders. The King had dissolved Parliament and had
fixed 31st October for the date of assembly of its successor.
This action was what might have been expected from the most astute of
electioneering agents. Disgust at the excesses of the Gordon rioters
was still the dominant motive in the political world, and at such a
time men looked askance at Reform. Further, in order to ensure the
success of what he termed “my cause,” George III condescended to the
arts of the canvasser, entering the shop of a draper at Windsor, and
saying in his quick peremptory way--“The queen wants a gown, wants a
gown. No Keppel. No Keppel.” Windsor rejected Keppel; Burke failed to
keep his seat at Bristol; and Pitt made no impression whatever on the
Toryism of the University of Cambridge. In any case his election was
highly improbable. Dons and country clergymen are not wont to favour
the claims of a young and unknown candidate; but the trend of thought
at that time made his defeat certain.
He bore it with his usual serenity. “Mansfield and Townshend have
run away with the prize,” so he wrote on 16th September, “but my
struggle has not been dishonourable.” He now once more betook himself
to legal affairs at Lincoln’s Inn, but his thoughts still centred in
Westminster. Despite the stagnation which marked our public life after
the victory of the King and Lord North at the general election, the
fate of the commonwealth drew Pitt to St. Stephen’s for the earlier
half of every day. His regular attendance at the House was perhaps
instrumental in furthering his dearest hopes. The Duke of Rutland had
been on cordial terms with Pitt at Cambridge; and he now mentioned the
talents of his friend to Sir James Lowther. That magnate of Cumberland,
who could secure the return of eleven candidates, welcomed the
suggestion that Pitt should enter Parliament for one of his seats, and,
with a generosity none too common among owners of “pocket boroughs,”
offered him a seat at Appleby unconditionally, save that he (Pitt) was
to resign his seat if his political views should in the future become
opposed to those of his patron.[86]
To this condition even the proud son of Chatham could not demur; and,
though the connection with what was practically a pocket borough could
not be quite palatable to a reformer, yet he doubtless remembered that
his father first entered Parliament as member for Old Sarum.
While we smile at the vagaries of the old system, which enabled “the
great commoner” to begin his public career as representative of an
untenanted mound, and his son as member for a town which he did not
even visit, let us remember that occasionally it opened a door easily
for a man of genius. Gladstone, in his Tory years, eulogized the system
on these grounds;[87] and it is certainly remarkable that, besides the
two Pitts, many other famous men used these stepping-stones. Burke,
through most of his public life, was member for a pocket borough,
Wendover or Malton; and Canning entered Parliament as member for a
scarcely discoverable village, Newtown, in the Isle of Wight. Fox and
Peel also entered Parliament by similar means. However quaintly the old
order of things misrepresented the British people, it did now and then
help to bring brilliant men to the front with a speed that is no longer
possible. But it is noteworthy that young men of spirit took care to be
soon quit of pocket boroughs.[88]
Appleby having duly registered the decree of Sir James Lowther at the
close of 1780, Pitt took his seat in the House of Commons on 23rd
January 1781. From that time to the very same day in the year 1806 when
he breathed his last, he was to expend his life in strenuous efforts
throughout a quarter of a century which comprised such events as the
close of the American War, the new grouping of the Powers of Europe,
the French Revolution, and the rise of Napoleon.