RESIGNATION
It is well known that no quiet could subsist in a country where
there is not a Church Establishment.--GEORGE III TO ADDINGTON,
_29th January 1801_.
On 25th September 1800 Pitt wrote to the Lord Chancellor, Loughborough,
then in attendance on the King at Weymouth, requesting his presence at a
Cabinet meeting in order to discuss the Catholic Question and proposals
respecting tithes and a provision for the Catholic and Dissenting
clergy. Five days later he explained to his colleagues the main
proposal. In place of the Oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration he desired
to impose on members of Parliament and officials merely the Oath of
Allegiance, which would be no bar to Romanists. The change won the
approval of all the Ministers present except Loughborough. He strongly
objected to the proposal, upheld the present exclusive system, and
demurred to any change affecting Roman Catholics except a commutation of
tithes, a measure which he had in preparation. His colleagues,
astonished at this firm opposition from the erstwhile Presbyterian of
East Lothian, begged him to elaborate his Tithe Bill, and indulged the
hope that further inquiry would weaken his resistance to the larger
Reform. They did not know Loughborough.
There is a curious reference in one of Pitt's letters, of October 1798,
to Loughborough as the Keeper of the King's conscience.[572] The phrase
has an ironical ring well suited to the character of him who called it
forth. Now, in his sixty-seventh year, he had run through the gamut of
political professions. An adept in the art of changing sides, he, as
Alexander Wedderburn, had earned the contempt or envy of all rivals. Yet
such was the grace of his curves and the skill of his explanations that
a new turn caused less surprise than admiration. Unlike his rival,
Thurlow, who stormed ahead, Wedderburn trimmed his sails for every
breeze and showed up best in light airs. Making few friends, he had few
inveterate enemies; but one of them, Churchill, limned him as
Adopting arts by which gay villains rise
And reach the heights which honest men despise;
Mute at the Bar and in the Senate loud,
Dull 'mong the dullest, proudest of the proud,
A pert prim prater of the northern race,
Guilt in his heart, and famine in his face.
This was before Wedderburn had wormed himself into favour with Lord
North and won the office of Solicitor-General (1778). Two years later he
became Lord Loughborough, a title which Fox ascribed to his rancorous
abuse of the American colonists. Figuring next as a member of the
Fox-North Administration, he did not long share the misfortunes of his
colleagues, for he alone of his colleagues contrived not to offend
either the King or Pitt. This sleekness had its reward. The perversities
of Thurlow having led to his fall in 1792, Loughborough became Lord
Chancellor. His sage counsels heightened his reputation; and in October
1794 Pitt assigned to him the delicate task of seeing Earl Fitzwilliam
and Grattan in order to smooth over the difficulties attending the union
with the Old Whigs. At his house in Bedford Square, Bloomsbury, occurred
some of the conferences which ensured Fitzwilliam's acceptance of the
Irish Viceroyalty. Loughborough urged Pitt to do all in his power to
prevent a rupture with the Portland Whigs or the Irish people. Counsels
of conciliation then flowed from his lips and were treasured up. In
fact, Pitt seems to have felt no suspicion of him despite his
courtier-like ways and his constant attendance on the King. For
Loughborough, like Dundas, had outlived the evil reputation of an
earlier time. The Marquis of Buckingham, writing to Grenville on an
awkward episode affecting Lord Berkeley, advised him to consult
Loughborough as a man of discretion and undoubted private honour.[573]
Neither Pitt nor Grenville knew that Loughborough had played them false
in 1795. The man who urged them to send Fitzwilliam to Dublin with the
olive-branch soon tendered to George III official advice of an exactly
opposite tenour, namely, that assent to Catholic Emancipation would
involve a violation of the Coronation Oath. A day or two later he stated
to Rose that he had given to the King wholly different counsels, to the
effect that the Coronation Oath did not apply to the question at issue,
which referred to a legislative enactment, not to an act of the King in
his executive capacity.[574] Two other legal authorities unequivocally
declared for this view of the case.
Whether in the autumn and winter of 1800 Loughborough's secret counsels
had much effect on the King may be doubted; for George, in his letter of
6th February 1795 to Pitt, declared Catholic Emancipation to be "beyond
the decision of any Cabinet of Ministers." As for the Church
Establishment, it was essential to every State, and must be maintained
intact. When George had once framed a resolve, it was hopeless to try to
change it. Moreover, during the debates on the Union, early in 1799, he
remarked to Dundas at Court that he hoped the Cabinet was not pledged to
anything in favour of the Romanists. "No," was the wary reply, "that
will be a matter for future consideration." Thereupon he set forth his
scruples respecting the Coronation Oath. Dundas sought to allay them by
observing that the Oath referred, not to his executive actions, but only
to his assent to an act of the Legislature, a matter even then taken for
granted. The remark, far from soothing the King, elicited the shrewd
retort, "None of your Scotch metaphysics, Mr. Dundas! None of your
Scotch metaphysics!"
The action of Loughborough, then, can only have put an edge on the
King's resolve; and all speculation as to the exact nature of his
"intrigues" at Weymouth or at Windsor is futile. In truth a collision
between the King and Pitt on this topic was inevitable. The marvel is
that there had been no serious friction during the past eighteen years.
Probably the knowledge that a Fox Cabinet, dominated by the Prince of
Wales, was the only alternative to Pitt had exerted a chastening
influence on the once headstrong monarch; but now even that spectre
faded away before the more potent wraith of mangled Protestantism. The
King was a sincerely religious man in his own narrow way; and arguments
about the Coronation Oath were as useless with him as discussions on
Modernism are with Pius X.
Pitt therefore kept his plans secret. But we must here digress to notice
an assertion to the contrary. Malmesbury avers that Loughborough, while
at Weymouth in the autumn of 1800, informed his cousin, Auckland, and
the Archbishop of Canterbury of the danger to the Established Church;
that the latter wrote to the King, who thereupon upbraided Pitt. Now, it
is highly probable that Auckland knew nothing of the matter until the
end of January 1801,[575] and the secret almost certainly did not come
to light until then, when the Archbishop, Auckland's brother-in-law, was
a prey to nervous anxieties resulting from recent and agitating news.
Further, no such letter from the King to Pitt is extant either at the
Public Record Office, Orwell Park, or Chevening; and if the proposals
were known to George why did he fume at Pitt and Castlereagh on 28th
January for springing the mine upon him? Finally, if the King, while at
Weymouth, blamed Pitt for bringing the matter forward, why did
Malmesbury censure him for keeping it secret? It is well to probe these
absurdities, for they reveal the untrustworthiness of the Earl on this
question.
To revert to Pitt's procedure; there were two arguments on which he must
have relied for convincing the King of the need of granting Catholic
Emancipation. Firstly, the Irish Catholics had, on the whole, behaved
with marked loyalty and moderation during the wearisome debates on the
Union at Dublin, a course of conduct markedly different from the acrid
and factious tactics of the privileged Protestant Episcopalians.
Secondly, as the summer of 1800 waned to autumn, the position of Great
Britain became almost desperate. Her ally, Austria, had lost Lombardy
and was fighting a losing game in Swabia. Russia had not only left the
Second Coalition, but was threatening England with a renewal of the
Armed Neutrality League. At home a bad harvest was sending up corn to
famine prices; and sedition again raised its head. In such a case would
not a patriotic ruler waive his objections to a measure essential not
only to peace and quiet in Ireland, but to the stability of the United
Kingdom? The latter consideration derived added force from the fact that
Bonaparte, fresh from his triumphs in Italy, was inaugurating a policy
of conciliation which promised to end the long ferment in the west of
France and to make of her a really united nation. While he was allaying
Jacobinical zeal and royalist bigotry, could Britons afford to keep up
internal causes of friction, and, disunited among themselves, face a
hostile world in arms? In such an emergency would not the King waive
even his conscientious scruples, and at the cost of some qualms pacify
and consolidate his nominally united realms?
For it was certain that the Irish Catholics would not rest now that the
boon of Emancipation was well within reach. Pitt and Cornwallis had
aroused their hopes. While not openly promising that the portals at
Westminster should be thrown open to Roman Catholics, Ministers had
allowed hints to go forth definite enough to influence opinion,
especially in Cork, Tipperary, and Galway. In fact, Castlereagh assured
Pitt that the help of Catholics had turned the wavering scales in favour
of Union.[576] The claims of honour therefore required that Pitt should
do all in his power to requite the services of a great body of men, long
depressed and maligned, who, when tempted by the foreigner to revolt,
had on the whole shown remarkable patience and fidelity. The pressure of
this problem was too much for the scanty strength of Pitt. Worried by
private financial needs, and distressed at the bewildering change in
European affairs, he broke down in health in September-October; and a
period of rest and change at Addington's seat at Woodley, near Reading,
was all too short for a complete recovery (18th October to 5th
November). Addington, describing this visit, remarked that Pitt had
become one of his family. Neither of them knew that a time of feud was
at hand.
At the close of the year Castlereagh came from Dublin to London to
confer with Ministers on legal and other details connected with the
proposal of Catholic Emancipation. By that time Loughborough's sharp
opposition to the measure was known at Dublin Castle, where Cornwallis
declared all resistance to the measure to be mere madness. The
Catholics, he reported, were quiet merely because they were confident of
success. Cooke, though once opposed to Catholic Emancipation, now
accepted it as a necessity.[577] Nevertheless in the King's view
Catholic Emancipation was wholly incompatible with his Coronation Oath
and with the Church Establishment in England. In the middle of December
the Chancellor drew up an able and very detailed Memorandum on the legal
aspects of the case. He even discoursed on the proselytizing zeal of
Romanists and the material causes of discontent in Ireland which the
Union would probably dispel. As Cooke remarked, the paper seemed
designed to close the question for ever.[578]
Pitt was equally determined to set the question at rest. He and
Castlereagh had confidence in the issue; and Cornwallis declared that if
Pitt were firm he would meet with no difficulty. Accordingly Pitt
inserted in the King's Speech for the ensuing session a passage
expressing confidence that Parliament would seek to improve the benefits
already secured by the Act of Union. The phrase was smooth enough to
leave the King's conscience unruffled, and on 23rd January he assented
to the Speech, requesting that no change be made.[579] But while Pitt
sapped the approaches to the citadel, Loughborough countermined him. On
what day and in what manner he informed the King of the proposed measure
of Catholic Emancipation is not clear. Possibly George scented mischief
in a short conversation with Spencer and Grenville about the middle of
January. But his brain was set on fire by something which he heard on
27th or 28th January. On the latter day (Wednesday), during the _levée_
at St. James's Palace, his behaviour betrayed unusual excitement, and he
said warmly to Windham, a friend of the measure, that he regarded all
supporters of it as "personally indisposed" to him. Waxing hotter in the
course of the function, he declared in a loud voice to Dundas: "What is
this that the young Lord [Castlereagh] has brought over, which they are
going to throw at my head? Lord C. came over with the plan in
September.... I shall reckon any man my personal enemy who proposes any
such measure. The most Jacobinical thing I ever heard of."
This extraordinary outburst naturally led Ministers to confer together
on the morrow; and they requested Grenville to prepare a paper
explaining the proposed changes in the form of oath for members of
Parliament and officials. Grenville declined this task, which Pitt
himself then undertook. This question, I may note, was far more
difficult than outsiders could understand. Castlereagh's interviews with
Pitt in September, and now again in January, had only recently brought
Ministers near to an agreement, a fact which fully accounts for the
delay in drafting the proposals in a form suitable for the King's
inspection.[580] On that day George took another step betokening
irrevocable opposition. He begged Addington to see Pitt and convince him
of the danger of the measure. The King confessed that he could scarcely
keep his temper in speaking about it; for it portended the destruction
of the Established Church and the end of all order in civil life.
Addington therefore paid a visit to Pitt, who cannot have been well
pleased to see him acting as a tool of the King. The interview, however,
seems to have been friendly, and it inspired Addington with the
complacent hope that he had dissuaded Pitt. Possibly he or Auckland
alarmed Dr. Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, and set the bishops in
motion. Other persons working to this end were the Earl of Clare and the
Irish Primate. The latter took a prominent part in arousing the fears of
the King. Cooke wrote: "The Primate was a great card, was much consulted
by the King, for ever with him, or in correspondence with him.... The
Archbishop of Canterbury was at first so nervous that for ten or twelve
nights he could not sleep, and our Primate was daily with him,
encouraging him."[581]
It is uncertain how far Pitt was aware of the many adverse influences
playing upon the King; for his papers on this topic are unusually
scanty. On the 30th he sent a draft of his proposals to Loughborough, a
sign that he would persevere with them. On the morrow George again
summoned Addington to the palace, and adjured him to form a Ministry.
This offer preceded the arrival of any intimation from Pitt of his
desire to resign if his advice were rejected. Addington for his part
begged to be excused; whereupon the King exclaimed: "Lay your hand upon
your heart and ask yourself where I am to turn for support if _you_ do
not stand by me."[582] Meanwhile Pitt was inditing his famous letter of
31st January, to the King, of which this summary must suffice:
Pitt has heard with deep regret of the opposition displayed by
His Majesty to the proposals of Catholic Emancipation, which are
approved by the majority of the Cabinet and regarded as a
natural sequel to the Act of Union. The admission of Catholics
and Dissenters to certain offices, and of Catholics to
Parliament, now involves little or no danger to the Established
Church or to the Protestant interest, as the Catholics disclaim
the obnoxious tenets once held by them. A form of oath can be
devised to exclude those Dissenters who may have designs against
the constitution either in Church or State. The Irish Catholic
clergy may be attached to the Government by making their
maintenance partly dependent on the State. These changes would
adapt the constitution to present needs. Pitt therefore
earnestly commends the measure to the consideration of His
Majesty. Meanwhile no steps will be taken in the matter; but, if
on examination the measure should not be approved, Pitt will beg
to be allowed to resign, though in such a way as to occasion the
least possible difficulty. Finally he takes the liberty "of most
respectfully, but explicitly, submitting to Your Majesty the
indispensable necessity of effectually discountenancing, in the
whole of the interval, all attempts to make use of Your
Majesty's name, or to influence the opinion of any individual on
any part of the subject."
In the last sentence Pitt administered a telling and dignified rebuke
for the outrageous behaviour of the King at the _levée_. A reply came on
the morrow, couched in pompously ungrammatical terms, which sufficiently
refute the rumour that it was composed by that polished talker,
Loughborough. George declared that his Oath bound him to support the
Established Church; that State officials must be in active communion
with that Church. He therefore refused to discuss the present proposals,
which tended to destroy the groundwork of the Constitution. Respecting
the suggested truce of silence he wrote as follows: "Mr. Pitt once
acquainted with my sentiments, his assuring me that he will stave off
the only question whereon I fear from his letter we can never agree--for
the advantage and comfort of continuing to have his advice and exertions
in public affairs I will certainly abstain from talking on this subject
which is the one nearest my heart." The meaning of these words is not
easy to fix; but apparently the King meant to say that his silence on
the subject was conditional on Pitt promising never to bring it forward
again. Now, Pitt had made no such promise. He required that, while the
King was examining the proposals of his Cabinet, he would abstain from
setting his counsellors against it. George III evaded this request,
thereby leaving himself free to talk at large against Catholic
Emancipation while he was supposed to be examining its details. We may
be sure that this sentence clinched Pitt's resolve to resign at the
earliest possible moment.[583]
He said so in his reply of 3rd February to the King. He expressed both
regret at the King's resolve on this question, and a desire to consult
his convenience, though continuance in office even for a short time
became very difficult in view of the King's refusal to undertake to
discountenance the use of his name during the interval. In every respect
the accession of another Minister was to be desired. Pitt closed this
painful correspondence with a letter, also of 3rd February, requesting a
pension of £1,500 a year for Long, one of the secretaries of the
Treasury, whose private means were so slender as to leave him in
discomfort if he should resign. The King briefly assented to Pitt's
retirement and to Long's pension. To Long's services the King accorded a
few words of thanks: to those of Pitt not a word. This is the more
remarkable as Pitt was then suffering from an attack of gout which
depressed him greatly; but, as we shall see, the King in private
expressed his deep obligations, and requested him to keep in office
until all the new appointments were settled.[584] This involved a delay
of nearly six weeks, which were among the most trying of his career.
On 5th February the King succeeded in persuading Addington to form a
Ministry. Accordingly on the 10th he resigned the office of Speaker,
being succeeded by Sir John Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale. There is
no ground for the insinuation that Addington snatched at office. He took
it without eagerness but from conscientious conviction; and Pitt, with
the usual generosity of his nature, assured him of his support as a
private member. Of Pitt's colleagues Grenville, Dundas, Spencer, and
Windham offered their resignations; so also did Cornwallis and
Castlereagh at Dublin. Portland retained the Home Secretaryship. Of late
he had wavered on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, perhaps owing to
the arguments of Loughborough. Westmorland and Chatham also kept their
positions of Lord Privy Seal and Lord President. The retention of office
by the latter aroused some comment; but as the earnest desire of Pitt
was to disarrange the Ministry as little as possible, he probably
approved conduct which outsiders condemned as unbrotherly.
The following letter from Chatham, dated Winchester, 6th February, is of
interest. After expressing his regret at Pitt's resignation, he
continues: "Upon the measure itself of granting further indulgence to
the Catholics I have neither time, nor indeed would it be of any use, to
say anything at present. I will only observe that if, by being on the
spot, I could in any degree have contributed even to put off the
extremity to which the agitation of it has led, I should think I had
done much, and I should be most unhappy in having been absent; otherwise
I consider myself as fortunate in having avoided a discussion which
could only have been painful to me in many respects. As things stand, I
shall certainly think it my duty to come to town in a few days, and I
will defer, till we meet, any further remarks; I will only add that if
your part is irrevocably taken, the King could not have acted more
wisely than in having recourse to the Speaker.... I see all the
difficulty and delicacy of your situation."[585]
Far less charitable were the sentiments of Dundas in the following
letter:
Wimbledon, _7 Feb., 1801_.[586]
I know not to what stage the Speaker's endeavours to form an
Arrangement have proceeded; but it is impossible for me not to
whisper into your ear my conviction that no Arrangement can be
formed under him as its head that will not crumble to pieces
almost as soon as formed. Our friends who, as an act of
friendship and attachment to you agree to remain in office, do
it with the utmost chagrin and unwillingness; and among the
other considerations which operate upon them the feeling that
they are embarking in an Administration under a head totally
incapable to carry it on and which must of course soon be an
object of ridicule is uppermost in their minds. Add to this
that, though they will not certainly enter into faction and
opposition, all the aristocracy of the country at present
cordially connected with Government, and part of it under you,
feel a degradation in the first Minister of the Country being
selected from [_sic_] a Person of the description of Mr.
Addington without the slightest pretensions to justify it, and
destitute of abilities to carry it on. Depend upon it I am not
exaggerating the state of the case; and a very short experience
will prove that I am right; and the Speaker will ere long feel
that he has fallen from a most exalted situation and character
into one of a very opposite description. Save him from it if not
too late. Yourself excluded from it, I am afraid nothing
permanent can be formed; but if the Speaker was to advise the
King to call upon the Duke of Portland to form an
Administration, I am persuaded His Grace at the head of it, with
either Steele, Ryder, Lord Hawkesbury, or even Mr. Abbott as his
Chancellor of the Exchequer, would fill the public eye
infinitely more than anything that can be found upon the plan
now in agitation. By the answer I have received from the King to
my resignation I must entreat you without delay to send for my
correspondence with Lord Westmorland in order that I may be sure
of what my recollection suggests, that I refused to give the
promise of the Government at home that what was then proposed
was the ultimatum of concession.
The last sentence of Chatham's letter refers to the difficulties of
Pitt's position. These have nearly always been overlooked. Yet his
decision turned finally on a question of honour. It is true that neither
Pitt nor Cornwallis gave a distinct pledge to the Irish Catholics that
the Cabinet would press their claims if they would support the Union.
But no such pledge could have been given without exasperating the King
and the privileged phalanx at St. Stephen's Green. Therefore, when the
critics of Pitt demand to see the proof that he made a promise, they ask
for what, in the nature of the case, could not be forthcoming.
Cornwallis and Castlereagh were aware of the need of extreme caution in
making overtures to the leading Catholics; and they afterwards denied
that they gave a distinct pledge. Nevertheless, some of their agents
induced the Catholics of the south and west of Ireland, to act in a
"highly useful" manner, which averted an otherwise dangerous opposition.
Castlereagh explained this to Pitt early in January;[587] and the
scrupulous Minister must have considered these promises as a debt of
honour. That some of the leading Irish Catholics viewed them in the same
light appears in an account of a representative meeting held at Ryan's
house in Marlborough Street, Dublin, on 27th October 1804. Ryan then set
forth the condition of his co-religionists at the time of the Union, and
referred to the stipulations made to them by Government. Others,
including Lord Fingall and a barrister, Scully, followed; and after two
more meetings, they resolved to petition Pitt, who had by that time
returned to office, it being known that he was at heart favourable to
their claims.[588] But in his speech of 14th May 1805 on this topic, he
said, "I did not make a distinct pledge. On the contrary, I believe the
line of argument I took was, that if it should be thought right to give
what the Catholics required, it might be given with more safety to the
Empire."[589]
What the stipulations were is not clear; for with this exception the
Irish Records are disappointingly silent. But it is clear that Canning
finally came to consider them binding on an honourable man. In his great
speech on Catholic Emancipation in March 1827, while admitting that Pitt
in 1800 made no definite promise to the Catholics, he added these
notable words: "The Catholics were made to believe, and that belief was
a powerful inducement to them to lend their aid towards the
accomplishment of the measure [the Union] that in the Imperial
Parliament the question which so nearly concerned them would be more
favourably entertained.... There is no tribunal, however solemn, before
which I am not prepared to depose to my firm belief in the sincerity of
Mr. Pitt's wishes and intentions to carry it." This passage once for all
refutes the charges of insincerity which certain of Canning's
biographers have brought against Pitt.
Light is thrown on this topic by notes of Bishop Tomline. Pitt consulted
his former tutor at this crisis; for on 6th February he wrote warning
him of his approaching resignation on grounds which he desired to
explain. He added: "I am in the firm persuasion that an Arrangement can
be formed to which I can give a cordial general support, and which may
keep everything safe."[590] The bishop thereupon came to town and saw
much of Pitt, whose conduct he thus describes: "I never saw Mr. Pitt in
more uniformly cheerful spirits, although everyone about him was
dejected and melancholy. He talked of his quitting office with the
utmost composure, gave the King the highest credit for the notions on
which he acted, and also fully acquitted those who were supposed to have
influenced his sentiments and conduct. He felt some dissatisfaction at
the conduct of one who was _not_ a Cabinet Minister, and was under great
obligations to Mr. Pitt, who had by intrigues and misrepresentations and
every unfair means in his power endeavoured to influence people's
opinion on the question and to excite alarm and prejudice against him."
The reference here is to Lord Auckland, but nothing definite is known as
to his conduct. The bishop then states that Pitt's equanimity was
surprising, inasmuch as his resignation would reduce his income to less
than that of a country gentleman and necessitate the sale of Holwood.
Nevertheless, no hasty word fell from him even in the most confidential
conversation; but he talked cheerfully of living in privacy for the rest
of his life, and expressed satisfaction that men who were attached to
the constitution would carry on affairs of State. The safety of the
country seemed to be his only concern. Tomline then describes the cause
and the circumstances of Pitt's resignation:[591]
While the business of the Union was going on, Lord Cornwallis
had informed the Ministers in England that the support of the
Catholics to the measure would in a great degree depend upon the
intention of Ministers to remove those disabilities under which
they at present laboured. This produced in the Cabinet a
discussion of the question of Catholic Emancipation, as it is
called, and Lord Cornwallis was authorized to declare that it
was intended by Government, after the Union should have taken
place, to grant to the Catholics some further indulgences; but
he was not authorized to pledge the Government to any particular
measure, nor was any plan of this kind settled by the Cabinet.
When the King's Speech was to be drawn up for the opening of the
Imperial Parliament, the Catholic Question naturally occurred
and gave rise to a good deal of discussion in the Cabinet. Mr.
Pitt, Lord Grenville, Lord Spencer, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Wyndham
declared themselves in favour of Catholic Emancipation; and the
Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Portland and Lord Westmorland
against it. Lord Chatham and Lord Liverpool did not attend the
Council, the former being at Winchester as military commander of
that district and the latter was confined to his house by
illness.
The King was of course informed of this division in the Cabinet
and took a decided part by talking against the question freely
and openly to everyone he saw. On Wednesday, the 28th of
January, the King said to Mr. D[undas] at the _levée_ in such a
voice that those who were near might hear him--"So here is an
Irish Secretary come over to propose in Parliament the
Emancipation of the Irish Catholics, as they call it"--and then
he declared himself in the strongest degree hostile to the
question. This was of course reported to Mr. Pitt. On the Friday
(the 30th) the King sent for the Speaker to the Queen's House
and conversed with him a long time. Upon my mentioning this
circumstance to Mr. Pitt, he said he knew what happened at that
interview and seemed perfectly satisfied with it. He had before
told me (namely, the first night he saw me, Saturday, Feb. 7th)
that he knew nine days before that he should be under the
necessity of resigning. On the 31st Mr. Pitt wrote his first
letter to the King. Two letters only passed on each side, which
see. Mr. Pitt did not see the King till at the _levée_ on
Wednesday the 11th [February]. The King spoke to him in the most
gracious manner--"You have behaved like yourself throughout this
business. Nothing could possibly be more honourable. I have a
great deal more to say to you."--"Your Majesty has already said
much more than the occasion calls for."--"Oh no, I have not; and
I do not care who hears me: it was impossible for anyone to
behave more honourably." After more conversation of the same
kind the King desired to see Mr. Pitt in the closet. The _levée_
continued, and, some little time after, Mr. Pitt said to the
King: "Your Majesty will pardon me if I take the liberty of
saying that I fear I shall not be able to attend Your Majesty in
the closet."--"Oh yes: you must; I have just done." The King
went to the closet and Mr. Pitt attended him. Nothing could
exceed the kindness of the King towards Mr. Pitt: he was
affected very much and more than once. The conversation lasted
more than half an hour; and in the course of it the King said
that, tho' he could no longer retain Mr. Pitt in his service, he
hoped to have him as his friend. Mr. Pitt, with strong
expressions both of duty and attachment and love to His Majesty,
submitted that any intercourse of that kind might be injurious
to His Majesty's Government; for that it was very important that
his new Ministers should appear to act by themselves and for
themselves, and that if he was frequently with His Majesty,
unfavourable conclusions might be drawn concerning his
interference or influence. This seemed to satisfy the King, and
they parted. At the _levée_ the King spoke in the highest terms
of Mr. Pitt's conduct throughout the business of his
resignation, and said that it was very different from that of
his predecessors.
This narrative needs little comment, except on the phrase that the
Cabinet had promised to grant the Catholics "some further indulgences."
Probably the schism occurred on the extent of those concessions, Pitt
and the majority desiring the admission of Catholics to Parliament and
to offices of trust, while Loughborough and the minority refused to do
more than grant some measure of support to the Irish priests.[592] The
King probably opposed both concessions; and Pitt seems to have ascribed
his strenuous opposition more to the intrigues of Auckland than to those
of Loughborough. In this he was probably mistaken. The best judge on
this question, the monarch himself, certainly looked on the Chancellor
as a traitor. But in truth the crisis could not be avoided. The King
acknowledged as much in his effusive comments on the extremely
honourable conduct of Pitt, but he also most firmly declared that he
could no longer retain him in his service. This was in effect a
dismissal. On 18th February, George wrote a brief letter expressing his
sorrow at the close of Pitt's political career and his satisfaction that
Parliament had passed the Ways and Means without debate. Thus did he
close his correspondence with a Minister who had devotedly served him
for more than seventeen years.
* * * * *
There is little need to notice the hasty and spiteful comments of Lord
Malmesbury, that Pitt was playing a selfishly criminal game by
resigning, with the evident aim of showing his own strength and being
called back to office on his own terms.[593] The Malmesbury Diaries at
this point consist chiefly of hearsays, which can readily be refuted.
But this calumny spread widely, and Fox finally barbed it with the hint
that the substitution of Addington for Pitt was "a notorious juggle,"
the former being obviously a dummy to be knocked down when it suited
Pitt to come back fancy-free about the Catholics. Fortunately, the
correspondence of statesmen often supplies antidotes to the venomous
gibes of bystanders; and a case in point is a phrase in Grenville's
letter of 13th February to Minto: "There was no alternative except that
of taking this step [resignation] or of agreeing to the disguise or
dereliction of one's opinion on one of the most important questions in
the whole range of our domestic policy."[594]
Pitt has been sharply censured for his excessive scrupulousness in
resigning at so serious a crisis. But the verdict must depend on three
main issues, the importance of the question at stake, that of the
services rendered by the Irish Catholics, and the nature of the promises
made to them. Now, no one will deny that in the days when France was
striving to effect the independence of Ireland--for Bonaparte was
thought to be pressing on the war with that aim in view[595]--the
question of the Union stood paramount. It was the most important problem
confronting Parliament since the Union with Scotland in 1707; and the
difficulties encountered were greater than those raised by the Scots.
The services of the Irish Catholics to the cause of the Union are not
easy to assess; but Castlereagh, a cool judge, rated them high. In such
a case a man of sensitive conscience will deem himself bound to those
who, in reliance on his sense of honour, acted in a way that ensured the
success of his measure. Above all, in so tangled a situation the final
decision will depend on the character of the statesman. Walpole would
have waived aside the debt of honour. Pitt resolved to discharge it.
It is scarcely necessary to notice another slander, that Pitt resigned
because, in his inability to procure peace from France, he intended to
put Addington in office merely for that purpose, to be ousted when it
was fulfilled. No evidence is forthcoming in support of this version,
which found no small favour with Continental historians of a former
generation; but it is now clear that the split occurred solely on
Catholic Emancipation. Those Ministers who approved it resigned; while
its opponents remained in office, namely, Portland, Chatham, and
Westmorland. The same is true of the subordinate offices. The new
Cabinet decided to grant only occasional relief and a "compassionate
allowance" to the Irish priests.[596] In several other matters its
policy differed from that of Pitt; and Addington soon made it apparent
that he was no stop-gap.
But now this clear issue was to be blurred in the blinding glare of the
King's lunacy. The causes of the malady of February 1801 were partly
physical, partly mental. While still agitated by the dismissal of his
trusted Minister, the King, two days later, went to church on the day
appointed for the National Fast. That day of supplication for delivery
from the perils of the time was shrouded in gloom and snow. He remained
a long time in church and took a chill. Nevertheless, with his wonted
energy he persisted in transacting business with Addington, until the
stress told on the brain. On the 16th slight feverish symptoms began to
develop. Yet Addington saw him often about new appointments, until on
Sunday the 22nd the symptoms caused some concern. Willis, son of the man
who had so much control over him during the illness of 1788-9, now came
to the Queen's House, and resumed the old regimen. Dr. Gisborne was also
in attendance. From the notes of Tomline we glean curious details about
the illness. The bilious symptoms were very pronounced, and after the
23rd the King became worse. His manner became nervous and "hurried." He
went up to Willis and shook him eagerly by the hand. When the Queen and
princesses rose to leave, he jocosely extended his arms so as to stop
them; whereupon Willis stepped forward, and, looking at him earnestly,
told him he was very ill. The King at once said with a deep sigh: "I
see, I cannot deceive you. I have deceived all the rest. They think me
well; but I cannot deceive you." He then burst into an agony of weeping,
threw himself into Willis's arms, and said: "You are right. I am ill
indeed. But oh! for God's sake, keep your father from me, and keep off a
Regency."
After weeping for a quarter of an hour, he walked about the room with
Willis for an hour and a half. In the evening he grew worse. At 2.30
a.m. he went to bed, while the Duke of Kent and Willis watched by the
door. As in the previous seizure, intervals of calm and reasonableness
alternated strangely with fits of delirium or even of violence. Now and
again he spoke collectedly, and at such times those about him rejoiced
to hear the familiar "What, what," wherewith he prefaced his
remarks.[597]
Frequently he declared that he would uphold the Church of England; or
again his thoughts started away from the loathed spectre of a Regency.
On 2nd March the illness took so violent a turn that his life seemed in
danger; but, as was the case twelve years before, long spells of sleep
supervened and brought his pulse down from 136 to 84. His powers of
recovery surprised every one about him. By 6th March he was so far well
as to be allowed to see the Dukes of York, Kent, and Cumberland. Not
until 9th March did he undergo the more trying ordeal of seeing the
Prince of Wales. On that same day he requested to see Pitt, who very
properly declined, suggesting, with all deference, that Addington was
the proper person for an interview.[598]
Meanwhile, at or just after the crisis of the illness, Pitt gave a very
important pledge. If we may trust the far from convincing statements of
Lord Malmesbury, who had the story from Pelham, the King on 7th March
charged Willis to inform Pitt of the improvement in his health, and to
add the biting words: "But what has not _he_ to answer for who is the
cause of my having been ill at all?" Pelham further asserted that Pitt,
in a "most dutiful, humble and contrite answer," wrote down his resolve
to give up Catholic Emancipation.[599] Now it is almost certain that
Pitt sent no such letter, for none exists either at the Public Record
Office, Orwell Park, or Chevening. Tomline asserts that Pitt sent by
Willis a verbal assurance that he would not agitate Catholic
Emancipation again during the King's reign; whereupon George III
exclaimed: "Now my mind will be at ease." The bishop, however, believed
that Pitt's assurance was reported in a more emphatic form than was
warranted; and the statesman does not seem to have considered himself
absolutely bound by it. Yet the written assurance sent by Rose to the
King on behalf of Pitt seems binding during that reign.[600]
Thus had the King conquered--by madness. No incident in the life of Pitt
is more unfortunate than this surrender. The King had made an ungenerous
use of the privileges of an invalid, and the pressure which he put on
Pitt passes the bounds even of the immorality of a sick-room. The
illness began with a chill due to his own imprudence; but he used its
later developments to extort a promise which otherwise would never have
been forthcoming. Nothing but the crisis in the King's illness led Pitt
to waver. For at the end of February he authorized Castlereagh to send
to Cornwallis at Dublin a declaration intended to reassure the Irish
Catholics. It pointed out that the majority of the Cabinet had resigned
owing to the impossibility of carrying Catholic Emancipation at the
present juncture. He (Pitt) still resolved to do his utmost for the
success of that cause; and therefore begged them to refrain from any
conduct which would prejudice it in the future. Cornwallis delivered
this and another paper to the titular Archbishop of Dublin and Lord
Fingall for circulation among their friends and found that it produced
good results.[601] Far different, of course, was the effect produced on
those few who knew of Pitt's private promise to the King. They
contrasted it with the contrary promise to the Irish Catholics and drew
the most unfavourable inferences, forgetting that between 27th February
and 2nd March the King's illness had taken so dangerous a turn as
perhaps to justify the use of that political sedative.
While blaming Pitt for weakness in giving this pledge to the King, we
must remember that the prolongation of the reign of George III was the
first desire of all responsible statesmen. The intrigues of the Prince
of Wales and Fox for a Regency were again beginning; and thus there
loomed ahead an appalling vista of waste and demoralization. In these
circumstances Dundas and Cornwallis came to the conclusion that the
King's conscience must not again be troubled. Grenville seems to have
held firm on the Catholic Question.[602] But his colleagues now took an
opportunist view. Pitt had two or three interviews with the Prince of
Wales, late in February and early in March, and made it clear that the
Prince would be well advised to accept the Regency Bill drafted in 1789.
On the Prince asking whether this was the opinion of certain of Pitt's
colleagues, who then opposed that Bill as derogatory to his interests,
Pitt at once replied in the affirmative; and when the Prince further
objected to certain restrictions on the power of the Regent, Pitt
declared that no change would be acceptable. They parted courteously but
coolly; and we may be sure that the Prince never forgave Pitt for his
uncompromising assertion of the rights of Parliament.
So dark was the outlook at home and abroad that Pitt was persuaded,
probably by Dundas, Tomline, Rose, and Canning, to re-consider the whole
question with a view to continuance in office, provided that some
suitable position were found for Addington. The bishop penned some notes
of sharp criticism on the conduct of Addington, affirming that, if he
had been patriotic and sincere, he would have pressed Pitt to remain in
office. The following words are remarkable: "Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dundas and
myself had a long conversation upon this point at Wimbledon; and I am
satisfied that, if Mr. Addington had entered into the idea cordially,
Mr. Pitt's resignation might have been prevented." He adds that they
drew up a tentative scheme of a Cabinet, Pitt remaining as chief, while
Addington was to be a Secretary of State; but the latter rejected this
indignantly.[603] Pitt also finally deemed the plan "utterly improper,"
and threatened to hold aloof from those who would not support the new
Administration or croaked about its instability. The action of Dundas
and the bishop was unfortunate; for it gave rise to the report that Pitt
was intriguing with them for a shuffling of offices in which he would
again come out at the top; and, as usually happens, the meanest version
overshadowed the truth.
Fortune willed that the new Ministry, by far the weakest Ministry of
recent times, should win two brilliant successes and secure a not
inglorious peace. So bewildering a change seemed impossible in the dark
days of February-March 1801, when it was the bounden duty of every
strong man to remain at his post, and of under-studies to stand aside.
The fates and Addington willed otherwise. Pitt resigned on 14th March,
nineteen days before Nelson triumphed at Copenhagen.
Meanwhile Pitt had endeavoured to place the nation's finance on a sound
footing. His Budget speech of 18th February has a ring of confidence and
pride. True, the expenses were unprecedentedly heavy. Great Britain had
to provide £12,117,000, and Ireland £3,785,000, for the army alone. The
navy cost £15,800,000; the Ordnance £1,938,000. The bad seasons or other
causes having lessened the yield of the Income Tax and the Malt Tax, he
proposed further imposts upon sugar, raisins, tea, paper, timber, lead,
and all exports without exception. He increased the Excise duty on
horses, even those used for agriculture, on stamp duties, and on the
postage of letters. He also urged that not less than £200,000 (the
normal amount) should be set apart for the reduction of the British
National Debt. Over against these depressing proposals he set the
notable fact that British commerce prospered more than ever, and that
the revenue showed remarkable buoyancy. From these extraordinary
symptoms he augured that the strength and spirit of the people were
equal to all the demands of the crisis; and he declared that the
attachment of the nation to its revered monarch and beloved constitution
furnished a moving spectacle to Europe. The House accepted these
crushing imposts without demur.
He found it more difficult to reconcile his followers to the sway of
Addington. As we have seen, Dundas had already expressed to Pitt his
scorn of him and his desire for a Portland Ministry. Rose also refused
to serve under a man whom he accused (unjustly, as we now know) of
worming his way to office; and the high-spirited Canning declined to
give to Pitt any pledge except that he would not laugh at the new Prime
Minister. It is clear that Canning, like his chief, disliked
resignation. As the gifted young Irishman wrote, it was not at all good
fun to move out of the best house in London (Downing Street) and hunt
about for a little dwelling.[604] Ryder and Steele kept their posts.
Singular to relate, the Mr. Pliable of so many Ministries was soon to be
turned out. Loughborough, on whose back Addington climbed to power,
forthwith received a direct intimation to withdraw. The Lord Chancellor
therefore closed his career, the King bestowing on him for his services
to religion the title Earl of Rosslyn. To finish with him, we may note
that his settlement near Windsor and his assiduous courting of the royal
favour finally secured an epitaph quite as piquant as any which George
bestowed. On hearing of Rosslyn's sudden death early in 1805, the King
earnestly asked the messenger whether the news was trustworthy; and, on
receiving a reassuring reply, he said: "Then, he has not left a greater
knave behind him in my dominions." The comment of Thurlow on this
gracious remark is equally notable: "Then I presume that His Majesty is
quite sane at present."
One of Pitt's friendships was severed by the crisis. As we have seen, he
deeply resented the part played by Auckland. To his letter of
remonstrance he replied very briefly that, widely as they differed on
the topic at issue, they differed quite as much as to the question on
which side there had been a failure of friendship, confidence, or
attention. The rupture became complete on 20th March, when Auckland
declared in the Lords that Pitt's resignation was involved in mystery
which the eye could not penetrate. The insinuation wounded Pitt deeply;
and his intercourse with Auckland entirely ceased. Pitt was not exacting
in his social intercourse; but no man of high feeling can endure secret
opposition, followed by a veiled insinuation that what he has done from
high principle resulted from motives that cannot bear the light. This is
an unpardonable sin that ends friendship.
* * * * *
With all his outward composure, Pitt must have felt deep distress at his
failure to complete the Union by the act of grace which he had in
contemplation. The time was ripe, indeed overripe, for a generous
experiment, whereby seven tenths of the Irish people would have gained
religious equality. If the populace of Dublin hailed with joy the St.
Patrick's cross on the new Union Jack,[605] we may be sure that
Irishmen, irrespective of creed, would have joined heart and soul in the
larger national unity which it typified. It is probable that Pitt, when
granting the franchise to Irish Catholics in 1793, resolved to make the
other concessions at an early date. But the cause of Catholic
Emancipation having been prejudiced by the unwise haste of Fitzwilliam
in 1795, and by raids and revolts soon after, the time of the Union was
the first which he could seize with any chance of success; and he hoped
to vitalize that Union by an act which would then have been hailed as a
boon. Such acts of grace are all too rare in the frigid annals of
British Parliaments. The Anglo-Saxon race builds its political fabric
too exclusively on material interests; and the whole structure is the
uglier and weaker for this calculating hardness. At the time of the
Union with Scotland, the counsellors of Queen Anne utterly failed to
touch the hearts of the Scots; and it was left to commerce sluggishly
and partially to mingle the two peoples. In contrast with this dullness,
how inspiring are the annals of France in the early and best days of the
Revolution. Then the separatist Provincial System vanished as a miasma;
and amidst the eager hopes and class renunciations of that golden day
the French people found a unity such as legislators alone can neither
make nor unmake. With the insight of a statesman Pitt now sought to
clinch legislation by sentiment. He desired to vivify the Union with
Ireland by a concession which would come with all the more graciousness
because he had not introduced it into the legal contract of marriage.
But the outcome of it all was, for himself resignation, for the two
peoples the continuance of their age-long feud.
FOOTNOTES:
[572] "Dropmore P.," iv, 337.
[573] "Dropmore P.," v, 82; "Malmesbury Diaries," ii, 507. Sir John
Macpherson called Loughborough by far the cleverest man in the country
("Glenbervie Journals," 54).
[574] Campbell, viii, 172; G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 300.
[575] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 21; "Auckland Journals," iv, 114-25.
[576] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iv 8-12.
[577] _Ibid._, iii, 418; iv, 13, 17-20.
[578] Pellew, i, _ad fin._ The original is in "H. O.," Ireland
(Corresp.), 99, together with nine others for or against Catholic
Emancipation, some with notes by Castlereagh.
[579] The first Imperial Parliament met on 22nd January; but time was
taken up in swearing in members and choosing a Speaker. Addington was
chosen. The King's Speech was fixed for 2nd February.
[580] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iv, 17-20; G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 303.
[581] _Ibid._, iv, 81.
[582] G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 309; Pellew, i, 287. Addington afterwards
destroyed those letters of the King to him which he considered
unsuitable for publication.
[583] Grenville agreed with Pitt's letter to the King, but doubted the
possibility of precluding discussion on the question, as it was already
in the papers. He assured Pitt that he would act closely with him
(Grenville to Pitt, 1st February 1801; Pretyman MSS.). Pitt afterwards
declared that his resignation was largely due to the manner in which the
King opposed him.
[584] "Lord Colchester's Diaries," i, 224.
[585] Pitt MSS., 122.
[586] Pretyman MSS.
[587] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iv, 8-12. Both Grenville and Windham
declared in Parliament in May 1805 that hopes were held out to the Irish
Catholics, and that their support of the Union was the result (Hansard,
iv, 659, 1022).
[588] "H. O.," Ireland (Corresp.), 99.
[589] Hansard, iv, 1015.
[590] Pretyman MSS.
[591] Pretyman MSS.
[592] In "H. O.," Ireland (Corresp.), 99, are long reports of the Irish
Catholic bishops, dated November 1800, on the state of their dioceses.
The bishops' incomes did not average more than £300 a year. The
Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam reckoned the total number of parish
priests and curates at 1,800, of whom 1,400 were seculars and 400
regulars. The benefices numbered 1,200; each required the services of
two priests. The destruction of the seminaries in France and the poverty
of the Irish made it impossible to supply or support 2,400 clergy. Other
papers follow for and against Catholic Emancipation. See also
"Castlereagh Corresp.," iii, _ad fin._
[593] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 3, 8, 9, 14.
[594] "Dropmore P.," vi, 445. Mulgrave, who knew Pitt well, was
convinced of his sincerity in resigning. His letter of 9th February 1801
(quoted by R. Plumer Ward, "Memoirs," i, 44) refutes the insinuations of
Sorel (vi, 101) that Pitt resigned because he could not make peace with
France.
[595] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iii, 285.
[596] "Lord Colchester's Diaries," i, 286.
[597] Pretyman MSS.
[598] G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 313, 330; "Lord Colchester's Diaries," i,
244.
[599] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 31, 32.
[600] G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 360; Stanhope, iii, 304, 305.
[601] "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 343-9.
[602] _Ibid._, iii, 346; "Lord Colchester's Diaries," i, 243. The writer
in the "Edinburgh Review" for 1858, who censured Pitt, failed to notice
the entire change in the political situation brought about by the King's
acute malady.
[603] Pretyman MSS.
[604] Bagot, "Canning and his Friends," i, 180.
[605] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iv, 14.