THE RETURN OF PITT.
The period following the rupture of the peace of Amiens, though crowded
with military events of the highest importance, was inevitably barren in
social and political interest. Disappointed in its hopes of returning
prosperity, the nation girded itself up with rare unanimity for a
renewed contest. In July the income-tax was reinstituted and a bill was
actually carried authorising a levy _en masse_ in case of invasion.
Pending its enforcement, the navy was vigorously recruited by means of
the press-gang; the yeomanry were called out, and a force of infantry
volunteers was enrolled, which reached a total of 300,000 in August, and
of nearly 400,000 at the beginning of the next session. Pitt himself, as
warden of the Cinque Ports, took command of 3,000 volunteers in Kent,
and contrasted in parliament the warlike enthusiasm of the country with
the alleged apathy of the ministry. On July 23 a rebellion broke out in
Ireland, instigated by French agents and headed by a young man named
Robert Emmet. The conspiracy was ill planned and in itself
insignificant, but the recklessness of the conspirators was equalled by
the weakness of the civil and military authorities, who neglected to
take any precautions in spite of the plainest warnings. The rebels had
intended to attack Dublin Castle and seize the person of the lord
lieutenant, who was to be held as a hostage; but they dared not make the
attempt, and after parading the streets for a few hours were dispersed
by the spontaneous action of a few determined officers with a handful of
troops, but not before Lord Kilwarden, the chief justice, and several
other persons, had been cruelly murdered by Emmet's followers. Futile as
the rising was, it sufficed to show that union was not a sovereign
remedy for Irish disaffection.
Meanwhile the relations between the prime minister and his predecessor
had been growing less and less cordial. Throughout the year 1801 Pitt
was still the friend and informal adviser of the ministry, and it is
difficult to overrate the value of his support as a ground of confidence
in an administration, personally popular, but known to be deficient in
intellectual brilliance. In 1802 he generally stood aloof, and though in
June of that year he corrected the draft of the king's speech, he
absented himself from parliament, for he was dissatisfied with the
measures adopted by government. His dissatisfaction was known to his
friends, and in November a movement was set on foot by Canning to induce
Addington to withdraw in Pitt's favour; but Pitt, though willing to
resume office, refused to allow the ministry to be approached on the
subject. He preferred to wait till a general wish for his return to
power should be manifested. In December he visited Grenville at
Dropmore, and expressed a certain discontent with the government.[13] It
was his intention still to treat the ministers with tenderness, but to
return to parliament and criticise their policy. It is easy to see that
his object at this date was not to drive the government from office, but
to give rise to a desire to re-enlist his own talents in the service of
the country, and thus prepare the way for a peaceable resumption of the
position he had abandoned in the preceding year.
[Pageheading: _NEGOTIATIONS FOR PITT'S RETURN._]
No sooner had rumours of Pitt's willingness to resume office reached
Addington in the last days of December, than he opened negotiations with
Pitt with a view to effecting this object. Pitt did not receive his
overtures very warmly. He doubtless wished to be brought back because he
was felt to be indispensable, without any appearance of intrigue. Time
was in his favour, and he allowed the negotiations to proceed slowly. As
the proposals took shape, it became clear that Addington did not wish to
be openly superseded by Pitt, but preferred that they should serve
together as secretaries of state under a third person; and Addington
even suggested Pitt's brother, the Earl of Chatham, then master-general
of the ordnance, as a suitable prime minister. Pitt's reply,
communicated to Addington by Dundas, now Viscount Melville, in a letter
dated March 22, 1803, was to the effect that Pitt would not accept any
position in the government except that of prime minister, with which was
to be coupled the office of chancellor of the exchequer. Addington
readily acceded to Pitt's claim to this position, but Grenville refused
to serve in a ministry where Addington and Hawkesbury held "any
efficient offices of real business," and Addington declined to abandon
ministerial office for a speakership of the house of lords, which Pitt
proposed to create for him. Finally, on April 10, Pitt at a private
conference with Addington proposed as an indispensable condition of his
own return to office that Melville, Spencer, Grenville, and Windham
should become members of his cabinet. This meant a reconstruction of the
whole ministry, and Pitt stipulated that the changes should be made by
the king's desire and on the recommendation of the existing ministry.
The situation had become an impossible one. Nothing was more reasonable
than that Pitt, the friend and protector of the existing ministry,
should assume the direction of affairs now that the nation appeared to
be on the brink of war. But Pitt could not honourably desert those
former colleagues, who had resigned with him on the catholic question.
Two of these, however, Grenville and Windham, though doubtless men of
the highest capacity, had bitterly attacked the existing ministry; and
it was not to be expected that that ministry, supported as it still was
by overwhelming majorities in both houses of parliament, supported as it
had hitherto been by Pitt himself, should consent to admit its opponents
to a share of office. It is highly improbable that Grenville and Windham
would then have co-operated with Addington and Hawkesbury, and their
admission to office would have ruined the cohesion of the cabinet,
unless it had been accompanied by the retirement of the leading members
of the existing ministry which Pitt's previous attitude, together with
the actual balance of parties in parliament, rendered it impossible to
demand. How difficult it was to induce Grenville and Windham to enter
into any combination future years were to prove. For the present the
ministry took not merely the wisest, but the only course open to it.
Addington, after vainly endeavouring to induce Pitt to modify his terms,
laid them before a cabinet council on April 13; they were immediately
rejected, though the cabinet declared itself ready to admit to office
Pitt himself and those of his colleagues who had hitherto acted with the
Addington ministry. Pitt could hardly have expected any other reply. No
ministry could have granted such terms except on the supposition that
Pitt was indispensable, and Pitt for the present hardly claimed such a
position.[14]
But if Pitt did not consider himself indispensable, his friends did, and
both he and others came gradually to adopt their view. The rejection of
his terms left him free to adopt the line of policy that he had sketched
to Grenville in the previous December. He had not to wait long for an
opportunity, but in the opinion of Pitt's friends at least the first
provocation came from Addington. Unable to strengthen his ministry by
any accession from Pitt and his followers, he had turned to the "old
opposition," the whigs who, under the leadership of Fox, had
consistently advocated a pacific policy. These had recently supported
the ministry against the "new opposition," as the followers of Grenville
and Windham were called. But since 1797 Fox and the majority of the "old
opposition" had generally absented themselves from parliament, and
George Tierney, member for Southwark, had led what was left of their
party.[15] He now received and accepted the offer of the treasurership
of the navy, one of the most important of the offices below cabinet
rank. As a speaker Tierney was a valuable addition to the government
which was sadly deficient in debating power; he had, however, been
particularly bitter in his attacks on Pitt, with whom he had fought a
duel in 1798, and had provoked the sarcastic wit of Canning, in whose
well-known parody, "The Friend of Humanity and the Knife-grinder"
(1798), the original illustration by Gillray depicted the friend of
humanity with the features of Tierney and laid the scene in the borough
of Southwark.
[Pageheading: _CHANGES IN ADDINGTON'S MINISTRY._]
The appointment, which Pitt himself does not appear to have resented,
was announced on June 1, and Tierney took his place on the treasury
bench on the 3rd. On the same evening Colonel Patten moved a series of
resolutions condemning, in extravagant terms, the conduct of the
ministry in the negotiation with France. Pitt seized the opportunity to
move the orders of the day. In other words, he proposed that the
question should be left undecided. He expressed the opinion that the
ministry was not free from blame, but declared himself unable to concur
in all the charges against it. He considered further that to drive the
existing ministers out of office would only throw the country into
confusion, and that it was therefore inadvisable to pursue the question.
To this the ministerial speakers replied by demanding a direct censure
or a total acquittal, and the consequent division served only to display
the weakness of the opposition. The Addington, Fox, and Grenville
parties combined to oppose Pitt's motion, which was rejected by 333
votes against 56. Pitt and Fox, and their respective followers then left
the house, leaving the ministerial party and the Grenville party to
decide the fate of Patten's resolutions, which were negatived by 275
votes against 34. A comparison of the figures of the two divisions,
allowing for tellers, gives as the voting strength of Pitt's party 58,
of Grenville's 36, of Fox's 22, and of Addington's 277. Of these the
Grenville party alone desired to eject the ministers from office, while
Fox's party openly professed a preference for Addington over Pitt.
During the remainder of the session Pitt seldom took any part in
parliamentary business, and never opposed the ministry on any question
of importance. On August 12 parliament was prorogued after a session
lasting nearly nine months, and the prime minister embraced the
opportunity of making some slight reconstructions in the ministry.
Pelham, who was removed from the home office, resigned his place in the
cabinet, and was shortly afterwards consoled with the chancellorship of
the duchy of Lancaster, an office which was not yet definitely
recognised as political. Charles Philip Yorke, son of the chancellor who
died in 1770 and half-brother of the third Earl of Hardwicke, resigned
the office of secretary at war and succeeded to the home office on the
17th. It was also considered advisable to strengthen the ministry in the
upper house, where Grenville's oratory gave the opposition a decided
advantage in debating power, and Hawkesbury was accordingly summoned to
the lords on November 16 in his father's barony of Hawkesbury. After
this rearrangement the cabinet contained eight peers and three
commoners, no illiberal allowance of commoners according to the ideas of
the age. The recess was further marked by a violent war of pamphlets
between the followers of Addington and Pitt, which began early in
September, and which, although no politician of the first order took any
direct part in it, did much to embitter the relations of their
respective parties.[16] Not less irritating were the _jeux d'esprit_
with which Canning continued to assail the ministry in the newspaper
press.[17] The most famous of these is the couplet:--
Pitt is to Addington
As London is to Paddington.
A more openly abusive poem, entitled "Good Intentions," described the
prime minister as "Happy Britain's guardian gander". The following
verses refer to the appointment of Addington's brother, John Hiley
Addington, to be paymaster-general of the forces, and of his
brother-in-law, Charles Bragge, afterwards succeeded by Tierney, to be
treasurer of the navy:--
How blest, how firm the statesman stands
(Him no low intrigue can move)
Circled by faithful kindred bands
And propped by fond fraternal love.
When his speeches hobble vilely,
What "Hear him's" burst from Brother Hiley;
When his faltering periods lag,
Hark to the cheers of Brother Bragge.
Each a gentleman at large,
Lodged and fed at public charge,
Paying (with a grace to charm ye)
This the Fleet, and that the Army.[18]
[Pageheading: _THE KING'S ILLNESS._]
When parliament reassembled on November 22 the opposition was still
disunited, and, though Windham severely condemned the inadequacy of the
provision made for national defence, he did not venture to divide
against the government. But during the Christmas recess a distinct step
was made towards the consolidation of the opposition by the reunion of
the two sections of the whig party. Grenville had conceived a chimerical
project of replacing the existing administration by one which should
include all statesmen possessed of real political talent, whatever their
differences in the past might have been. True to this policy, he
persuaded Fox in January, 1804, to join him in attempting to expel the
Addington administration from office as an essential preliminary to any
further action. Sheridan, however, with some of the Prince of Wales's
friends, still refused to enter into any combination which might result
in the return of Pitt to power. The parliamentary session was resumed on
February 1, but the course of events was complicated by a recurrence of
the king's malady. Symptoms of this were observed towards the end of
January; the disease took a turn for the worse about February 12, and on
the 14th it was made known to the public. For a short time the king's
life appeared to be in danger; his reason was affected during a longer
interval, but the attack was in every way milder than in 1789, and on
March 7 Dr. Simmons reported to Addington that "the king was competent
to perform any act of government".[19] It is true that for many months
the king's health did not allow him to give his full attention to public
business, but there was nothing to prevent him from attending to such
routine work as was absolutely necessary. There could, however, be no
question of a change of ministers till there should be a marked
improvement in the king's health.
The king's illness was made the occasion on February 27 of a motion by
Sir Robert Lawley for the adjournment of the house of commons. This was
parried by Addington with the statement that there was no necessary
suspension of such royal functions as it might be necessary for His
Majesty to discharge at the present moment.[20] The emphasis here
obviously lay on the word "necessary". A still bolder course was adopted
shortly afterwards by the lord chancellor. When on March 9 the king's
assent to several bills was given by commission, Fitzwilliam raised not
unreasonable doubts as to whether the king was capable of resuming the
functions of government. Eldon, however, declared that, as the result of
a private interview with the king, he had come to the conclusion that
the royal commissioners were warranted in assenting to the bills in
question. Whether the chancellor was justified in assuming this
responsibility must remain doubtful; at all events Pitt seems to have
determined that the time was now ripe for a ministerial crisis. He had
on February 27 criticised both the military and naval defences of the
country, but he would not directly attack the government till the king's
health was in a better condition. At last, on March 15, the first attack
was made. Pitt selected the weak point in the administration. St.
Vincent's obstinacy in refusing to believe in the possibility of a
renewal of hostility and his excessive economy had brought about a
marked deterioration in the strength and quality of the fleet. Pitt
accordingly moved for an inquiry into the administration of the navy.
Fox dissociated himself from Pitt's attacks on the first lord of the
admiralty, but supported the motion on the ground that an inquiry would
clear St. Vincent's character. On a division the government had a
majority of 201 against 130. On the 19th, however, Pitt refused to join
the Grenvilles in supporting Fox's motion for the re-committal of the
volunteer consolidation bill. On the following day Eldon made overtures
to Pitt, and on the 23rd Pitt dined _tête-à-tête_ with the chancellor,
but no record has been preserved of the nature of their negotiations.
On the 29th Pitt, in a letter to Melville, explained his position at
length. He intended, as soon after the Easter recess as the king's
health should permit, to write to the king explaining the dangers which,
in his opinion, threatened the crown and people from the continuance of
the existing government, and representing the urgent necessity of a
speedy change; he would prefer an administration from which no political
party should be excluded, but was unwilling, especially in view of the
king's state of health, to force any minister upon him; if, therefore,
he should be invited by the king to form a ministry from which the
partisans of Fox and Grenville were to be excluded, he was prepared to
form one from his own followers united with the more capable members of
the existing government, excluding Addington himself and St. Vincent;
should this measure fail of success, he would "have no hesitation in
taking such ground in Parliament as would be most likely to attain the
object".[21] As it happened, the parliamentary assault preceded the
correspondence with the king. Immediately after the recess the ministry
laid before parliament military proposals which Pitt felt bound to
resist. On April 16 Pitt, supported by Windham, opposed the third
reading of a bill for augmenting the Irish militia, and expressed a
preference for the army of reserve. He was defeated by the narrow
majority of 128 against 107. On the 23rd Fox proposed to refer the
question of national defence to a committee of the whole house. He was
supported by Pitt and Windham, and defeated by 256 votes only against
204. The division which sealed the fate of the ministry was taken two
days later on a motion that the house should go into committee on a bill
for the suspension of the army of reserve. This was opposed by Pitt, who
expounded a rival plan for the diminution of the militia and increase of
the army of reserve. Fox and Windham demanded for Pitt's scheme a right
to consideration, and on a division the motion was carried by no more
than 240 against 203. The division of April 16 had convinced Addington
that a reconciliation with Pitt was necessary. On Pitt's refusing to
confer with him, he agreed to recommend the king to charge Eldon with
the task of discovering Pitt's views as to the formation of a new
ministry, in case the king wished to learn them.
[Pageheading: _ADDINGTON'S RESIGNATION._]
The king, however, expressed no such wish, and on April 22 Pitt sent an
unsealed letter to Eldon to be laid before the king; announcing his
dissatisfaction with the ministry and his intention of declaring this
dissatisfaction in parliament.[22] It was not till the 27th that Eldon
found a suitable opportunity of communicating Pitt's letter to the king.
Before that date Addington, who considered that he could no longer
remain in office with dignity after the divisions of the 23rd and 25th,
had on the 26th informed the king of his intention to resign. The king
reluctantly consented to his resignation, which was announced to the
cabinet on the 29th. On the following day Eldon called on Pitt with a
request from the king for a plan of a new administration. Pitt replied
in a letter, setting forth at great length the arguments in favour of a
combined administration, and requesting permission to confer with Fox
and Grenville about the construction of the ministry.[23] The letter
irritated the king, who demanded a renewed pledge against catholic
emancipation, with which Grenville was specially associated in his mind,
and refused to admit Pitt to office if he persevered in his purpose of
consulting Fox and Grenville. Pitt then declared his adherence to the
pledge given in 1801[24] and requested an interview with the king. The
interview, which took place on May 7, lasted three hours, and ended in a
compromise. The king agreed to admit Grenville and his friends to
office, but, while ready to accept the friends of Fox, he refused, as
much on personal as on political grounds, to give Fox a place in the
cabinet. At the same time he declared himself ready to grant him a
diplomatic appointment. At a later date the king went the length of
declaring that, rather than accept Fox, he would have incurred the risk
of civil war.
[Pageheading: _PITT'S RETURN TO OFFICE._]
Fox readily agreed to his own exclusion, which he had fully expected,
and urged his followers to join Pitt, but Grenville and his friends
refused to serve without Fox, while the friends of Fox and the more
immediate followers of Addington refused to serve without their
respective leaders. Addington always considered that Pitt had treated
him ungenerously in driving him from office, when it was open to him to
return to the head of affairs with the full consent of the existing
ministers. More recently it has been the fashion to blame Pitt for
bringing too little pressure to bear upon the king and thus losing the
support of Fox and Grenville. Neither charge appears to be justified.
Through the whole length of the Addington administration Pitt showed
himself fully sensitive of what was due to the king, with whom he had
worked cordially for eighteen years, to Grenville who had resigned in
his cause, and to Addington who had assumed office under his protection.
There was no trace of faction in Pitt's attitude towards the ministry.
He merely opposed what he believed to be dangerous to the country, and
when he was convinced of the necessity of removing Addington from a
share in public business, he endeavoured to effect his purpose in such a
way as to give the minimum of offence.
On the other hand, Pitt's intended combination in a supreme crisis of
his country's destiny with his life-long antagonist, Fox, was a heroic
experiment, perhaps, but still only an experiment. The failure of the
ministry of "All the Talents" renders it exceedingly doubtful whether
such an alliance would have proved successful, and Fox's lukewarm
patriotism would have been dearly purchased at the expense of the
alienation of the king, perhaps even of his relapse into insanity. Nor
is it certain that the strongest pressure would have induced George III.
to accept Fox at this date. Addington was still undefeated and might
have remained in office if Pitt had refused to assume the reins of
government without Fox. Grenville is undoubtedly more responsible than
any one else for the weakness of Pitt's second administration. It was
from a sense of loyalty to Grenville that Pitt had suffered the
negotiations for his return to office in 1803 to fall through, and now
when the two statesmen could return together, and when, if ever, a
strong government was needed, either a quixotic sense of honour or a
wounded pride induced Grenville not only to stand aloof from the new
administration himself, but to do his utmost to prevent others from
giving it their support.[25] The new cabinet was quickly formed. Pitt
received the seals of office on May 10, and took his seat in parliament
after re-election on the 18th, the very day on which Napoleon was
declared emperor by the French senate.
This event, long foreseen, was doubtless hastened by the disclosure of
the plot formed by Moreau, Pichegru, and Georges Cadoudal against the
first consul. There was no proof of Moreau's complicity in designs on
Napoleon's life, and the mysterious death of Pichegru in prison left the
extent of his complicity among the insoluble problems of history, but
there can be no doubt that Cadoudal was justly executed for plotting
assassination. Unfortunately some of the under-secretaries in the
Addington administration had not only shared the plans of the
conspirators so far as they aimed at a rising in France, but had
procured for them material assistance. They appear, however, to have
been innocent of any attempt on Napoleon's life. Drake, the British
envoy at Munich, was, however, deeper in the plot. The evidence of
British complicity naturally received the very worst construction in
Paris.[26] Napoleon himself certainly believed in an Anglo-Bourbon
conspiracy, organised by the Count of Artois and other French royalists,
when he caused the Duke of Enghien to be kidnapped in Baden territory
and hurried off to the castle of Vincennes. He was, however, already
aware of his prisoner's innocence when on March 21 he had him shot there
by torch-light after a mock trial before a military commission. All
Europe was shocked by this atrocious assassination, and though Napoleon
sometimes attempted to shift the guilt of it upon Talleyrand, he
justified it at other times as a measure of self-defence, and left on
record his deliberate approval of it, for the consideration of
posterity. Two months later he became Emperor of the French.
When Pitt resumed office on May 10, 1804, he was no longer the
heaven-born and buoyant young minister of 1783, strong in the confidence
of the king and the anticipated confidence of the nation, with a
minority of followers in the house of commons, but with the brightest
prospects of political success before him. Nor was he the leader of a
devoted majority, as when he resigned in 1801 rather than abandon his
convictions on the catholic question. He had been compelled to waive
these convictions, without fully regaining the confidence of the king,
and, while the adherents of Fox retained their deep-seated hatred of a
war-policy, the adherents of Addington and Grenville were in no mood to
give him a loyal support. Windham and Spencer were no longer at his
side, and his ministry was essentially the same as that of Addington,
with the substitution of Dudley Ryder, now Lord Harrowby, for Hawkesbury
as foreign secretary, Melville for St. Vincent as first lord of the
admiralty, Earl Camden for Hobart as secretary for war and the colonies,
and the Duke of Montrose for Auckland as president of the board of
trade. Hawkesbury was transferred to the home office, vacated by Yorke,
and the new chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Lord Mulgrave, was
given a seat in the cabinet. Of Pitt's eleven colleagues in the cabinet
Castlereagh alone, who remained president of the board of control--a
wretched speaker though an able administrator--had a seat in the lower
house.
[Pageheading: _PITT'S RECONCILIATION WITH ADDINGTON._]
Military exigencies now engrossed all thoughts, and the king's speech,
in proroguing parliament on July 31, foreshadowed a new coalition, for
which the murder of the Duke of Enghien had paved the way. The
preparations for an invasion of England had been resumed, and Napoleon
celebrated his birthday in great state at Boulogne, still postponing his
final stroke until he should be crowned, on December 2, at Paris by the
helpless pope, brought from Italy for the purpose.[27] A month later he
personally addressed another pacific letter to the King of England, who
replied in his speech from the throne on January 15, 1805, that he could
not entertain overtures except in concert with Russia and the other
powers. Meanwhile, Pitt, conscious as he was of failing powers, retained
his undaunted courage, and while he was organising a third coalition,
did not shrink from a bold measure which could hardly be justified by
international law. This was the seizure on October 5, 1804, of three
Spanish treasure-ships on the high seas, without a previous declaration
of war against Spain, though not without a previous notice that
hostilities might be opened at any moment unless Spain ceased to give
underhand assistance to France. The excuse was that Spain had long been
the obsequious ally of France, and, as the alliance now became open,
Pitt's act was sanctioned by a large majority in both houses of
parliament in January, 1805. The parliamentary session which opened in
this month found Pitt's ministry apparently stronger than it had been at
the beginning of the recess. Despairing of any help from Grenville,
except in a vigorous prosecution of the war, he had sought a
reconciliation with Addington, who became Viscount Sidmouth on January
12 and president of the council on the 14th. Along with Sidmouth his
former colleague Hobart, now Earl of Buckinghamshire, returned to office
as chancellor of the duchy. To make room for these new allies, Portland
had consented to resign the presidency of the council, though he
remained a member of the cabinet, while Mulgrave was appointed to the
foreign office, in place of Harrowby, who was compelled by ill-health to
retire.
But this new accession of strength was soon followed by a terrible
mortification which probably contributed to shorten Pitt's life.
Melville, his tried supporter and intimate friend, was charged on the
report of a commission with having misapplied public money as treasurer
of the navy in Pitt's former ministry. It appeared that he had been
culpably careless, and had not prevented the paymaster, Trotter, from
engaging in private speculations with the naval balances. Although
Trotter's speculations involved no loss to the state they were,
nevertheless, a contravention of an act of 1785. Melville had also
supplied other departments of government with naval money, but was
personally innocent of fraud. There was a divergence of feeling in the
cabinet as to the attitude to be adopted towards Melville. Sidmouth,
himself a man of the highest integrity, was a friend of St. Vincent, the
late first lord of the admiralty, and had not forgiven Melville for his
part in the expulsion of himself and St. Vincent from office. He had
therefore both public and private grounds to incline him against
Melville. On April 8, Samuel Whitbread moved a formal censure on
Melville in the house of commons. Pitt, with the approval of Sidmouth
and his friends, moved the previous question on Whitbread's motion, and
declared his intention of introducing a motion of his own for a select
committee to investigate the charges. In spite of the support which Pitt
derived from the followers of Sidmouth the votes were equally divided on
Whitbread's motion, 216 a side. Abbot, the speaker, gave his casting
vote in favour of Whitbread, and the announcement was received by the
whig members with unseemly exultation.[28]
[Pageheading: _MINISTERIAL CHANGES._]
The censure was followed by an impeachment before the house of lords,
where Melville was acquitted in the following year. Meanwhile, he had
resigned office on April 9, the day after the vote of censure, and his
place at the admiralty was taken by Sir Charles Middleton, who was
raised to the peerage as Lord Barham. The appointment gave umbrage to
Sidmouth, to whom Pitt had made promises of promotion for his own
followers, and he was with difficulty induced to remain in the cabinet.
Pitt was, however, irritated by the hostile votes of Sidmouth's
followers, Hiley Addington and Bond, on the question of the impeachment,
and regarded this as a reason for delaying their preferment. Sidmouth
now complained of a breach of faith, as Pitt had promised to treat the
question as an open one, and he resigned office on July 4.
Buckinghamshire resigned next day. Camden was appointed to succeed
Sidmouth as lord president, Castlereagh followed Camden as secretary for
war and the colonies, retaining his previous position as president of
the board of control, and Harrowby, whose health had improved since his
resignation in January, took Buckinghamshire's place as chancellor of
the duchy. Thus weakened at home, Pitt could derive little consolation
from the aspect of continental affairs. On May 26, Napoleon was crowned
King of Italy in the cathedral of Milan, and the Ligurian Republic
became part of the French empire in the following month. The ascendency
of France in Europe might well have appeared impregnable, and it might
have been supposed that nothing remained for England but to guard her
own coasts and recapture some of the French colonies given up by the
treaty of Amiens.
But Pitt's spirit was still unbroken, and by the middle of July he
succeeded in rallying three powers, Russia, Austria, and Sweden, into a
league to withstand the further encroachments of France. Such a league
had been proposed by Gustavus IV. of Sweden, early in 1804, but nothing
definite was done till Pitt's ministry entered upon office. Meanwhile,
the assassination of the Duke of Enghien had led to a rupture of
diplomatic relations between France and Russia, though war was not
declared. Negotiations were presently set on foot for a league, which,
it was hoped, would be joined by Austria and Prussia in addition to
Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden. An interesting feature in the
negotiations was the tsar's scheme of a European polity, where the
states should be independent and enjoy institutions "founded on the
sacred rights of humanity," a foreshadowing, as it would seem, of the
Holy Alliance. The discussion of details between Great Britain and
Russia began towards the end of 1804. Difficulties, however, arose about
the British retention of Malta and the British claim to search neutral
ships for deserters. A treaty between the two powers was signed on April
11, 1805; but the tsar long refused his ratification, and it was only
given in July, after a formal protest against the retention of Malta.
The object of this alliance was defined to be the expulsion of French
troops from North Germany, the assured independence of the republics of
Holland and Switzerland, and the restoration of the King of Sardinia in
Piedmont; 500,000 men were to be provided for the war by Russia and such
other continental powers as might join the coalition. Great Britain,
instead of furnishing troops, was to supply £1,250,000 a year for every
100,000 men engaged in the war. After the close of the war an European
congress was to define more closely the law of nations and establish an
European federation. At the same time the allies disclaimed the
intention of forcing any system of government on France against her
will. It will be observed that the number of troops specified was far in
excess of what Russia alone could place in the field; such numbers could
only be obtained by the adhesion of Austria and of either Prussia or
some of the smaller German states to the coalition. So far as Austria
was concerned, Napoleon's Italian policy rendered war inevitable.
Already in November, 1804, the Austrian court had entered into a secret
agreement with Russia to make war on France in the event of further
French aggressions in Italy. The coronation of Napoleon as King of Italy
and the annexation of Liguria were, however, more than aggressions; they
were open violations of the treaty of Lunéville which had guaranteed the
independence of the Cisalpine and Ligurian republics. Austria hereupon
determined on war, and secretly joined the coalition on August 9, 1805.
Sweden, which was not a member of it, concluded separate treaties of
alliance both with Great Britain and with Russia. Greater difficulties
had to be surmounted in the case of Prussia. Frederick William III.
cherished no enthusiasm for European liberty, and vacillated under the
influence of Napoleon's offer of Hanover on the one hand and his
numerous petty insults on the other. Prussia in consequence remained
neutral throughout the most decisive period of the ensuing war.
[Pageheading: _NELSON AND VILLENEUVE._]
Long before the coalition was ready Napoleon's mind had recurred to his
venturesome project for the invasion of England. An army, the finest
that he ever led to victory, which, even after it had been transferred
to another scene of action, he still saw fit to call the "army of
England," was encamped near Boulogne. It was constantly exercised in the
process of embarking on board flat-bottomed boats or rafts, which were
to be convoyed by Villeneuve, admiral of the Toulon fleet, and
Gantheaume, admiral of the Brest fleet, for whose appearance the French
signalmen vainly scanned the horizon. In the meantime, Nelson had been
engaged for two years, without setting foot on shore, in that patient
and sleepless watch, ranging over the whole Mediterranean, which must
ever rank with the greatest of his matchless exploits. At last, he
learned in the spring of 1805, that Villeneuve, following a plan
concerted by Napoleon himself, had eluded him by sailing from Toulon
towards Cadiz, had there been joined by the Spanish fleet, and was
steering for the West Indies. Nelson followed with a much smaller number
of ships, and might have forced an action in those waters, but he was
misled by false intelligence and missed the enemy, though his dreaded
presence was effectual in saving the British islands from any serious
attack.
The combined fleets of France and Spain recrossed the Atlantic and in
accordance with Napoleon's plans made for Ferrol on the coast of
Galicia. After being repulsed with some loss off Cape Finisterre by Sir
Robert Calder, who was court-martialled and severely reprimanded for
neglecting to follow up his victory, they put in first at Vigo, and then
with fifteen allied ships at Coruña. But, instead of venturing to carry
out Napoleon's orders by challenging Admiral Cornwallis's fleet off
Brest, and making a desperate effort to command the channel, Villeneuve
now took advantage of his emperors recommendation to return to Cadiz in
event of defeat, and set sail for that port in the middle of August.
Nelson, ignorant of his movements, had vainly sought him off the Straits
of Gibraltar, and came home to report himself at the admiralty. Arriving
at Spithead on August 18, he was in England barely four weeks, most of
which he spent in privacy at Merton. During this brief respite he
received a general tribute of admiration and affection from his
countrymen, which anticipated the verdict of posterity. On September 15
he sailed from Portsmouth, with a presentiment of his own fate, after
having described to Sidmouth the general design of his crowning sea
fight: he would, he said, break the enemy's line in two places; and he
did so. He joined Admiral Collingwood off Cadiz on the 29th, and on
October 19 he received news that Villeneuve, smarting under the
prospect of being superseded, had put to sea with the combined fleet.
Complicated naval manoeuvres followed, but on the 21st the enemy was
forced to give battle, a few leagues from Cape Trafalgar, and Nelson
caused his immortal signal to be hoisted--"England expects that every
man will do his duty".
[Pageheading: _THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR._]
The French and Spanish fleet comprised thirty-three ships of the line,
of which eighteen were French and fifteen Spanish; the British had only
twenty-seven, but among these were seven three-deckers as against four
on the side of the allies. It had the additional advantage of superior
discipline and equipment, to say nothing of the genius of its commander.
The British fleet advanced in two divisions, Nelson leading the weather
division of twelve, and Collingwood the lee division of fifteen ships.
According to Nelson's plan Collingwood was to attack the rear of the
enemy's line, while he himself cut off and paralysed the centre and van.
Both divisions advanced without regular formation, the ships bearing
down with all the speed they could command and without waiting for
laggards. Collingwood in the _Royal Sovereign_, steering E. by N., broke
through the allies' line twelve ships from the rear, raking the _Santa
Ana_, Alava's flagship, as he passed her stern, with a broadside which
struck down 400 of her men. For some fifteen minutes the _Royal
Sovereign_ was alone in action; then others of the division came up and
successively penetrated the line of the allies, and engaging ship to
ship completely disposed of the enemy's rear, their twelve rear ships
being all taken or destroyed.
Meanwhile, Nelson in the _Victory_, who had reserved to himself the more
difficult task of containing twenty-one ships with twelve, held on his
course, advancing so as to keep the allied van stationary and yet to
prevent the centre from venturing to help the rear. He designed to pass
through the end of the line in order to cut the enemy's van off from
Cadiz, but, finding an opportunity, changed his course, passed down the
line and attacked the centre. He passed through the line of the allied
fleet, closely followed by four other ships of his division, and the
five British ships concentrated their attacks on the _Bucentaure_,
Villeneuve's flagship, the gigantic Spanish four-decker, the _Santísima
Trinidad_, which was next ahead of her, and the _Redoutable_, which
supported her. The centre of the allies was crushed and the van cut off
from coming to the help of the rear, which was being destroyed by
Collingwood.
Before the battle ended, the naval force of France, and with it
Napoleon's projects of invasion, were utterly and hopelessly ruined.
Eighteen prizes were taken, and, though many of these were lost in a
gale, four ships which escaped were afterwards captured, and the
remainder lay for the most part shattered hulks at Cadiz. By this battle
the supremacy of Great Britain at sea was finally established. Nelson,
who, during the ship-to-ship engagement which followed his penetration
of the enemy's line, was mortally wounded by a sharp-shooter from the
mizzen-top of the _Redoutable_, died before the battle was over, though
he was spared to hear that a complete victory was secure. His death is
among the heroic incidents of history, and his last achievement, both in
its conception and its results, was the fitting climax of his fame. The
plan for the battle which he drew up beforehand for the instruction of
his captains, and the changes which he made in it to meet the conditions
of the moment are alike worthy of his supreme genius as a naval
tactician. His arrangements were carried out by men who had learned to
love and trust him, and who were inspired by the fire of his spirit, and
hence it was that the allied fleet of France and Spain perished at the
"Nelson touch".[29]
Very different were the fortunes of war in central Europe, where
Napoleon himself commanded the "army of England". It was not until the
end of August that Napoleon knew that Villeneuve would be unable to
appear in the Channel, but no sooner did he abandon his project of
invasion in despair than he resolved on a campaign scarcely less
arduous, and gave orders for a grand march into Germany. Pitt, as we
have seen, had successfully negotiated an alliance with Russia and
Austria, whose armies were converging upon the plains of Bavaria and
were to have been reinforced by a large Prussian contingent. Unhappily,
they had not effected a junction when Napoleon crossed the Rhine near
Strassburg and the Danube near Donauwörth, while he detached large
forces to check the advance of the Russians and the approach of
reinforcements expected from Italy. One of these movements involved an
open violation of Prussian territory, but he could rely on the
well-tried servility of Frederick William. The first decisive result of
his strategy was the surrender of Mack at Ulm, with 30,000 men and 60
pieces of ordnance. This event took place on October 20, the very day
before the battle of Trafalgar, and opened the road to Vienna, which the
French troops entered on November 13, occupying the great bridge by a
ruse more skilful than honourable, during the negotiation of an
armistice. Vienna was spared, while Napoleon pressed on to meet the
remainder of the Austrian army, which had now been joined by a larger
body of Russians near Brünn. The allies numbered about 100,000 men;
Napoleon's army was numerically somewhat less, but possessed the same
kind of superiority as the British navy at Trafalgar. The result was the
crushing victory of Austerlitz on December 2, followed by the peace of
Pressburg, between France and Austria, signed on the 26th. The principal
articles of this treaty provided for the cession of Venetia, Istria, and
Dalmatia to the kingdom of Italy, and the aggrandisement of Bavaria and
Würtemberg, whose electors received the royal title as the price of
their sympathetic alliance with France. Russia withdrew sullenly, having
learned the hollowness of her league with Prussia, which had basely
temporised while the fate of Germany was at stake, and whose minister,
Haugwitz, suppressing the _ultimatum_ which he was charged to deliver,
had openly congratulated the conqueror of Austerlitz.
Great Britain had had no direct share in the conflict in Southern
Germany and Moravia; she had, however, joined in two expeditions, the
one in Southern, the other in Northern Europe. In spite of a treaty of
neutrality between France and the Two Sicilies, ratified on October 8,
an Anglo-Russian squadron was permitted to land a force of 10,000
British troops under Sir James Craig, and 14,000 Russians on the shore
of the Bay of Naples. These troops effected nothing, and the violation
of neutrality was, as we shall see, destined to involve the Neapolitan
monarchy in ruin. The expedition to North Germany was planned on a
larger scale. Hanover had been occupied by France since June, 1803. Its
recovery was attempted by an Anglo-Hanoverian force under Cathcart,
which was to have been supported by a Russian and Swedish force acting
from Stralsund. The co-operation of Prussia was also expected. In order
to secure this alliance the British government offered Prussia an
extension of territory so as to include Antwerp, Liège, Luxemburg, and
Cologne, in the event of victory. In November the expedition landed. In
December Prussia had definitely given her protection to the Russian
troops in Hanover and offered it to the Hanoverians. Pitt computed that
at the beginning of the next campaign nearly 300,000 men would be
available in North Germany. But the vacillation of Prussia ruined all.
On December 15 Haugwitz signed the treaty of Schönbrunn, by which
Prussia was to enter into an offensive and defensive alliance with
France and was to receive Hanover in return for Ansbach, Cleves, and
Neuchâtel. Frederick William could not yet stoop to such a degree of
infamy, and therefore, instead of ratifying the treaty, resolved on
January 3, 1806, to propose a compromise, which involved among other
provisions the temporary occupation of Hanover by Prussia. In
consequence of this determination he sent, on January 7, a request for
the withdrawal of the British forces, which were accordingly
recalled.[30]
[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF PITT._]
The collapse of his last coalition was the death-blow of Pitt, cheered
though he was for the moment by the news of Trafalgar. The fatal
consequences of Austerlitz were reported to him at Bath, whence he
returned by easy stages to his villa at Putney in January, 1806. His
noble spirit was broken at last by the defection of Prussia, and after
lingering a while, he died on the 23rd of that month, leaving a name
second to none among the greatest statesmen of his country. His
sagacious mind grasped the advantage to be gained by freeing trade from
unnecessary restrictions, and anticipated catholic emancipation,
parliamentary reform, and the abolition of slavery. He gave the nation,
in the union with Ireland, the one constructive measure of the first
order achieved in his time, and only marred by the weakness of more
pliable successors in a lesser age. His dauntless soul, which bore him
up against the bitterest disappointments, the desertion of friends, and
the depression of mortal disease, inspired the governing classes of
England to endure ten more years of exhausting war, to save Europe (as
he foretold) by their example, and to crown his own work at Waterloo.
His lofty eloquence, which has been described as a gift independent of
statesmanship, was indeed a product of statesmanship, for it consisted
in no mere witchery of words, but in a luminous and convincing
presentation of essential facts. He may have been inferior to his own
father in fiery rhetoric, to Peel in comprehensive grasp of domestic
policy, and to Gladstone in the political experience gained by sixty
years of political life, but in capacity for command he was inferior to
none. If he was not an ideal war minister, he was not a war minister by
his own choice; his lot was cast in times which suppressed the exercise
of his best powers; and he was matched in the organisation of war,
though not in the field, against the greatest organising genius known to
history. He must be judged by what he actually did and meditated as a
peace minister; his conduct of the war must be compared with that of
those able but not gifted men who strove to bend the bow which he left
behind him; and we must assuredly conclude that none of his colleagues
or rivals was his peer either in powers or in public spirit.
FOOTNOTES:
[13] Buckingham, _Court and Cabinets_, iii., 242; Lewis,
_Administrations of Great Britain_, p. 225.
[14] Buckingham, _Court and Cabinets_, iii., 282-90; Pellew, _Life of
Sidmouth_, ii., 113-31; Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv., 20-39.
[15] See vol. x., p. 399.
[16] Pellew, _Life of Sidmouth_, ii., 145-47; Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_,
iv., 88-93.
[17] For a list of Canning's squibs, belonging to this period, see
Lewis, _Administrations_, p. 249, note.
[18] It was not fair to hold Addington entirely responsible for the
promotion of his brother, who had been a junior lord of the treasury
under Pitt. The taunt came with a particularly bad grace from Canning,
who had himself been paymaster-general in the last administration.
[19] Pellew, _Life of Sidmouth_, ii., 250.
[20] _Annual Register_, xlvi. (1804), p. 34.
[21] Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv., 135-44.
[22] See the letter in Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv., appendix, pp.
i.-iii.
[23] There is preserved a sketch in Pitt's handwriting of a combined
administration with Melville, Fox, and Fitzwilliam as secretaries of
state, and Grenville as lord president.
[24] Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv., appendix, pp. xi., xii.
[25] The best account of Pitt's return to power is to be found in
Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, iv., 113-95; appendix, pp. i.-xiii. The story
is told in a very spirited manner by Lord Rosebery, _Pitt_, pp. 238-44.
[26] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I._, i., 450-53.
[27] Napoleon actually crowned himself, although he had originally
intended to be crowned by the pope.
[28] Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iv., 338.
[29] Nelson's tactics at Trafalgar are explained in a series of
remarkable articles in _The Times_ of September 16, 19, 22, 26, 28, 30,
and October 19, 1905. For incidents of the battle see Mahan, _Life of
Nelson_, ii., 363 _sqq._
[30] Rose, _Life of Napoleon I._, ii., 53-57, 63-65.