PITT AND HIS FRIENDS (1794-1805)
Nothing could be more playful, and at the same time more
instructive, than Pitt's conversation on a variety of topics
while sitting in the library at Cirencester. You never would
have guessed that the man before you was Prime Minister of the
country, and one of the greatest that ever filled that
situation. His style and manner were quite those of an
accomplished idler.--"Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 34.
The conflict of parties and interests is apt to thin the circle of a
statesman's friends; and in that age of relentless strife the denuding
forces worked havoc. Only he who possesses truly lovable qualities can
pass through such a time with comparatively little loss; and such was
the lot of Pitt. True, his circle was somewhat diminished. The
opposition of Bankes had been at times so sharp as to lessen their
intimacy; and the reputation of Steele had suffered seriously from
financial irregularities.[606] Pitt's affection for Dundas and Grenville
had also cooled; but on the whole his friendships stood the test of time
better, perhaps, than those of any statesman of the eighteenth century.
Certainly in this respect he compares favourably with his awe-inspiring
father. Not that Pitt possessed the charm of affability. On most persons
his austere self-concentration produced a repellent effect; and it must
be confessed that the Grenville strain in his nature dowered him with a
fund of more than ordinary English coldness. Such was the opinion not
only of the French _émigrés_, whom he designedly kept at arm's length,
but even of his followers, to whom his aloofness seemed a violation of
the rules of the parliamentary game. But it was not in his nature to
expand except in the heat of debate or in congenial society. In general
his stiffness was insular, his pre-occupation profound. Lady Hester
Stanhope, who saw much of him in the closing years, pictures his thin,
tall, rather ungainly figure, stalking through Hyde Park, oblivious of
all surroundings, with head uptilted, "as if his ideas were _en air_, so
that you would have taken him for a poet."[607]
The comparison is as flighty as Lady Hester's remarks usually were,
though the passage may depict with truth the air that Pitt assumed when
walking with her. No one else accused him of having affinities to poets.
In truth, so angular was his nature, so restricted his sympathies, that
he never came in touch with literary men, artists, or original thinkers.
His life was the poorer for it. A statesman should know more than a part
of human life; and Pitt never realized the full extent of his powers
because he spent his time almost entirely amongst politicians of the
same school. His mind, though by no means closed against new ideas,
lacked the eager inquisitiveness of that of Napoleon, who, before the
process of imperial fossilization set in, welcomed discussions with men
of all shades of opinion, and encouraged in them that frankness of
utterance which at once widens and clarifies the views of the
disputants. It is true that Pitt's private conversations are almost
unknown. They appear to have ranged within political grooves, with
frequent excursions into the loved domains of classical and English
literature; but he seems never to have explored the new realms of
speculation and poetry then opened up by Bentham and the Lake Poets. A
letter of the poet Hayley to him will serve to suggest the extent of his
loss in limiting his intercourse to a comparatively small coterie:
Felpham, near Chichester, _Sept. 9_[?].[608]
DEAR PITT,
Why are you slow in doing the little good in your power? Yes:
great as you are, the real good you can do must be little; but
that little I once believed you would ever haste to do with a
generous eagerness and enthusiasm, and therefore I used to
contemplate your character with an enthusiastic affection. That
character, high as it was, sunk in my estimation from the
calamitous delay concerning the promised pension of Cowper, a
delay which allowed that dear and now released sufferer to sink
into utter and useless distraction before the neglected promise
was fulfilled. Will you make me some amends for the affectionate
concern I suffered for the diminution of your glory in that
business by expediting now a pension eagerly but ineffectively
solicited by many _great people_, as I am told, for a most
deserving woman, the widow of Mr. Green, the consul at Nice?...
Deserve and receive a kind and constant remembrance in the
benedictions of a recluse who has still the ambition to live in
your regard by the good which he would excite you to perform. At
all events forgive this very unexpected intrusion and
importunity from the old and long sequestered admirer of your
youth,
W. HAYLEY.
Hayley's letter is a trifle too presumptuous in tone even for an old
friend; but it affords one more proof of Pitt's neglect of literary men,
though it is but fair to remember that in 1793-4 he was hard pressed by
the outbreak of war with France and the struggle to keep the Allies
together. Still, the greatest of statesmen is he who, in the midst of
world politics, neither neglects old friends, nor forgets the claims of
literature and art. In this connection it is painful to add that he
allowed the yearly stipend of the King's Painter, Sir Joshua Reynolds,
to be reduced from £200 to £50. On Reynolds soliciting the secretaryship
to the Order of the Bath, he was told that it had been promised to an
official of the Treasury. Another request, proffered through his patron,
the Duke of Rutland, also proved fruitless, and he had reason to write
with some bitterness--"Mr. Pitt, I fear, has not much attention to the
arts."[609] His neglect of literature and the arts was the more
unfortunate because George III and his sons did not raise the tone of
the Court in this respect, witness the remark of the King to Gibbon at a
State function. "Well, Mr. Gibbon, it's always scribble, scribble, I
suppose."[610]
Apart from these obvious limitations in Pitt's nature, there was a
wealth of noble qualities, which ensured life-long devotion from those
who penetrated the protective crust and came to know, not the
statesman, but the man. In him the qualities that command respect and
excite affection were happily balanced. To a manly courage which never
quailed in the hour of disaster, and a good sense that provided sage
counsels alike in private and public affairs, he added the tenderer
gifts. His affection once given was not lightly withdrawn. He looked
always on the best side of men, and to that noble failing, if failing it
be, most of his blunders may be ascribed. Even when his confidence was
abused, he was loth to take revenge, so that Canning expressed regret at
his reluctance to punish those who betrayed him.[611] Such a man will
often make mistakes, but he will also inspire the devotion that serves
to repair them. Moreover, even his opponents were forced to admit the
conscientiousness of his conduct. On this topic the testimony of his
friend Wilberforce is of value; for they had differed sharply as to the
rupture with France in 1793; and, somewhat later, Wilberforce lamented
the relaxation of Pitt's efforts against the Slave Trade. Yet their
differences did not end their friendship; on 30th November 1797 the
philanthropist wrote as follows to Sir Richard Aclom on the subject of
the reformation of morals:
... There is one point only on which I will now declare we
perfectly coincide, I mean, that of a general moral reform being
the only real restorative of the health of our body politic. But
I hesitate not to say that, tho' the Government is in its system
and principle too much (indeed ever so little is, as I think,
too much) tainted with corruption, yet it is more sound than the
people at large. You appear to feel the disposition of the
public to yield an implicit assent to Ministers without stopping
to investigate the causes of that disposition (which are chiefly
to be found in the violence of the Opposition and the
established predominance of party). I will frankly avow no man
has lamented this more than myself; I may indeed say more than
this. I have endeavoured both in public and in private to fight
against it. But selfishness has diffused itself thro' the whole
mass of our people, and _hinc illae lacrymae_. You mistakenly
conceive, as do many others, that I am biassed by personal
affection for Mr. Pitt. When we meet, I will rectify your error
on that head....[612]
Again, on 20th February 1798, Wilberforce wrote to William Smith, an
active Abolitionist and now prominent in the Opposition, deploring the
dilatoriness of Pitt, but maintaining that his patriotism was purer and
more disinterested than that of anyone not under the direct influence of
Christian principles. He adds these words:
I speak not this from the partiality of personal affection. In
fact for several years past there has been so little of the
_eadem velle et eadem nolle_ that our friendship has starved for
want of nutriment. I really love him for his public qualities
and his private ones, though there too he is much misunderstood.
But how can I expect that he should love me much, who have been
so long rendering myself in various ways vexatious to him, and,
above all, when, poor fellow, he never schools his mind by a
cessation from political ruminations, the most blinding,
hardening, and souring of all others?[613]
These passages explain why the personality of Pitt attracted all that
was purest and most patriotic in the public life of England. Men might
disagree with particular actions, but they saw in him the saving genius
of the State; and this was the dominant feeling until the year 1801 when
events scattered his following and reduced public life almost to a state
of chaos.
His character, then, was strong in the virtues of steadfastness and
loyalty, on which the social gifts can root deeply and bear perennial
fruit. Of these he had rich store. His conversations possessed singular
charm; for his melodious voice, facile fancy, and retentive memory
enabled him to adorn all topics. His favourite themes were the Greek and
Latin Classics. The rooms at Holwood or Walmer were strewn with volumes
of his favourite authors, on whom he delighted to converse at length.
Grenville declared to Wellesley that Pitt was the best classical scholar
he had ever met. Yet, with the delicate tact which bade him enliven, not
dominate, the social circle, he refrained from obtruding those subjects
on occasions when they would be neither known nor appreciated. Equally
good was his knowledge of English literature; so that in the company of
kindred spirits, the flow of wit and learning, imagination and
experience, must have rivalled that of the Literary Club over which Dr.
Johnson held sway.
Unfortunately, only the merest scraps survive; but the testimony of
Pitt's friends suffices to refute the Whig legend as to his cold and
calculating selfishness, which filled even the hours of leisure with
schemes for making himself necessary to the King and country.[614] On
the contrary, he was fond of society, throwing himself so heartily into
the conversation that the _savant_ was merged in the wit, the Prime
Minister in the genial companion. His jests were of that Attic flavour
which seasons without stinging; and this was the outcome, not of
calculation, but of a kindly disposition, which delighted to throw off
political cares amidst the tide of mirth which he helped to carry to the
full. He also felt increasingly the charms of country life, and at
Holwood was never more happy than when labouring along with his
gardeners in the effort to enhance the beauty of his grounds. This
strenuous work, together with horse exercise and occasional bursts with
the West Kent or Dover hunt, provided the recreation which enabled his
naturally weak and gout-ridden frame to withstand the wear and tear of
official life up to his forty-seventh year.
In town he delighted to visit friends in an informal manner, and was
never more pleased than when he could have games with children. His romp
with young Napier and the two Stanhopes when they succeeded in corking
his face, has been already described; but it appears that even in 1805,
when beset by manifold cares, he often dropped in at Broom House,
Parson's Green, the residence of Sir Evan Nepean, and would "take a
chair in a corner, and, laying aside state and gravity, would gambol and
play with the boys."[615] At times his repartees were piquant. When his
friend and admirer, the Duchess of Gordon, who had not seen him for some
time, met him at the _levée_ and asked whether he talked as much
nonsense as of yore, he laughingly replied: "I do not know whether I
talk so much nonsense: certainly I do not _hear_ so much."[616]
Is it surprising that a character so benevolent, and social gifts of so
much charm, should attract men about him? Of those who came forward to
fill the gaps of the circle, only two, Wellesley and Canning, were men
of powers so exceptional as to claim more than passing notice. Though
descended from families domiciled in Ireland, they differed widely,
except in versatility and devotion to Pitt. Wellesley's nature was
Saxon in its inner hardness. Like his younger brother, the future Duke
of Wellington, he rarely displayed signs of emotion; but his
temperament, though cold at the heart, thrilled at the approach of great
and perilous enterprises, amidst which he rivalled his brother in
activity and resourcefulness. Accordingly, his Viceroyalty of India
moved Bonaparte to envy, patriotic Britons to rapturous applause, and
the parsimonious Directors of the Company to carping criticisms. Those
who deny to Pitt the gift of choosing able and inspiring men, forget
that he made Wellesley Governor-General of India, and supported him in
his quarrels with the India House. As Earl of Mornington, Wellesley had
helped the Irish Administration in various ways, and became closely
acquainted with the Grenvilles. His first letter to Pitt, dated Dublin,
January 1785, expresses thanks for assistance and for the offer of
support in case the annoyances of his situation drove him to England.
Thus, Mornington was first attracted to Pitt by his loyalty to
subordinates; and, later, after his return to England, respect for the
Minister ripened into admiration and love of the man.
They had much in common. Manly in bearing, persistent of purpose, and
prompt in decision, they were also richly dowered with social gifts.
Like Pitt, Mornington had classical attainments and literary gifts of no
mean order; and his high spirits and powers of repartee must have
brought new energy to the jaded statesman. Entering Parliament as member
for Windsor, he found his duties far from congenial. On some occasions
nervousness marred the effect of his speeches; and his constituents
involved him in so much expense and worry as to prompt a request, in the
autumn of 1794, for the intervention of Pitt, seeing that his rival,
Isherwood, had "the means of supplying the rapacity even of the electors
of Windsor." On 4th October he thanked Pitt for relieving him from
further obligations to "the worthy electors of that loyal borough"; but
he continued for a time to sit in Parliament. Meanwhile his fine
presence and lively converse brought him into favour with the Prince of
Wales. On 4th August 1793, writing at Brighthelmstone, he heartily
congratulated Pitt on the surrender of Valenciennes, which sanguine
persons hoped might hasten the end of the war. But, he added, "I own my
most sanguine expectations cannot reach the notion of our being able to
bring down the power of France in one campaign to the level to which I
think it must be reduced for our safety and for that of the rest of the
world. H.R.H. the Prince of Wales has been pleased to be most gracious
to me.... I suppose you have heard of his dinner on the capture of
Valenciennes. We sat from five till half-past ten, and many were very
drunk, particularly H.R.H. He really did the honours most admirably...."
In the next letter, of the early part of August 1796, Mornington sends a
quatrain of Latin Elegiacs which he had composed at Dundas's house, on
the exploits of Wurmser in relieving Mantua, of Davidovitch at Roveredo,
and Quosdanovitch at Brescia (not Verona), which seemed to presage the
ruin of Bonaparte.
Mantua Vurmisero gaudet, Rovereda Davido,
Et Verona tibi, Quosdanovice, patet.
Vae mihi (raptor ait Gallus) ne forte per Alpes
Heu! Bona pars in rem cogar abire malam.[617]
For some time Mornington had felt the charm of Indian history; and the
blend of energy with romance in his being may have prompted Pitt's
selection of him as Viceroy in 1797. After a most tedious voyage he
reached the Hooghly in time to foil the blow which Tippoo Sahib,
Bonaparte's prospective ally, aimed at Madras. In his letter to Pitt,
written there on 20th April 1799, he expressed a hope of the capture of
Seringapatam, and continues thus: "I assure you that my nerves are much
strengthened by all the exertions which I have been obliged to make, and
in this land of indolence I pass for rather an active, stout, hardy
fellow and can now fast till four o'clock (save only a bit of biscuit
and a glass of port). I am happy to hear that you are better than you
have ever been in your life. There is no comfort in mine but the distant
hope of seeing you all again safe, well, and quizzing in England. I have
only one request to make to you if you do not mean to abridge either my
doleful days or the period of my Government--do not suffer that
_cantancerous_ [_sic_] fellow, Sir J[ames] Craig, to be made
commander-in-chief in Bengal. Send me a sober discreet decent man, but
do not allow the etiquette of throwing inkstands to be revived at the
Council Board."[618]
On 12th May, after announcing to Pitt the capture of Seringapatam,
Mornington adds: "If Buonaparte should now chuse to visit Malabar, I
think he will find supper prepared for him before he has reached
Calcutta." Reviewing the events of his Viceroyalty he writes on 8th
August: "I suppose you will either hang me or magnificently honour me
for my deeds (mine they are, be they good or bad). In either case I
shall be gratified; for an English gallows is better than an Indian
throne; but these words must be buried in your own breast; for here I
pretend to be very happy and humble; although I am as proud as the D.
and as wretched as his dam. I think you will enjoy 'Le Citoïen Tipou'
and 'Citoïen Sultan' in the papers found at Seringapatam. I admire your
conduct with respect to the Union [with Ireland]. I hope you will
persevere, but I _trust_ you will not _trust_ Ireland to my old friend
Hobart. He used to be a good humoured fellow; but from what I have heard
of his reign here, he is utterly unfit to govern anywhere."[619]
Pitt did not receive this letter by 6th November, when he informed
Wellesley that the King, as a mark of high approbation, conferred on him
the title the Marquis Wellesley, suitable arrangements being also in
contemplation for his family. An Irish marquisate was far from the
magnificent reward which the Viceroy desired; and on 28th April 1800 he
expressed his anguish of mind at receiving only an Irish and pinchbeck
reward for exploits neither Irish nor pinchbeck. Nevertheless, while
requesting a speedy recall so that he might hide his chagrin in
retirement, he uttered no vindictive word against Pitt. Despite its
morbid expressions, the letter is that of a friend to a friend. On 27th
September Pitt wrote in reply one of the longest of his private letters.
With equal tact and frankness he reviewed the whole question, proving
that Wellesley's services were not undervalued, that the bestowal of an
English marquisate would have been an advance of four steps in the
peerage for what was after all a short Viceroyalty; and that the present
honour equalled that conferred on Cornwallis at the end of his term. The
question was whether Wellesley should receive an English earldom or an
Irish marquisate; and the latter was deemed preferable. Further, if the
notion prevailed at Calcutta that Wellesley had been slighted, it might
be due to a suspicion that he himself harboured it. Pitt then begged
Wellesley to regard this frankness as the best proof of real
friendship.[620]
Wellesley showed his good sense by acquiescing, and their letters though
rare, became thoroughly cordial. Writing at Patna on 6th October 1801,
he gently reproached Pitt for his long silence, especially for not
explaining the reason of his resignation; he also expressed the hope
that he approved his remaining at Calcutta until a successor was
appointed. He added that his state progress up the Ganges to Patna had
been favoured by an easterly gale of unusual strength which the natives
ascribed either to his happy star or to an Order in Council. As for his
health, it was better than in "the reeking House of Commons." Again at
the beginning of 1804 he expressed regret that Pitt had neither written
nor vouchsafed any sign of approbation at recent events, including the
victory of Assaye, which assured British ascendancy in the East.
At last, on 30th August 1804, three months after resuming office, Pitt
apologized for his neglect on the ground of excess of work in preparing
to meet a French invasion, in which he had so far succeeded as to hope
that the attempt might be made. At that time he expected Wellesley to
come home in order to escape the petty cabals of the Company's
Directors; but he left the decision entirely to him. Pitt's next letter,
at Christmastide, breathes a profound hope for Wellesley's speedy
arrival as a means of lightening the then heavy burden of political
life. Wellesley, however, on 25th March 1805, announced his chivalrous
resolve to remain in India another season owing to financial troubles
and disputes with the Company. To Dundas, in May 1805, he wrote: "I
imagined myself to be one of the best friends of the Company, but I hear
that I am a traitor, and a conspirator, and an interloper. Time
discovers truth, and I must leave the Honourable Courts' opinions to
that test."[621] In August, after transferring his duties to Cornwallis,
he set sail for England, and landed in time to have a few last words
with Pitt. The interview must have been deeply affecting. At its
conclusion Pitt fainted away. Of all the estimates of Pitt none breathes
deeper devotion than that of Wellesley. Was it not because he at last
saw the pettiness of his own pride and petulance when contrasted with
the self-abnegation of him who was truly the Great Commoner? And did not
even his meteoric career in the East pale before the full-orbed
splendour of the quarter of a century of achievement which made up the
public life of Pitt?
The other enthusiastic friend was typically Irish in temperament. Celtic
in vivacity and charm, feminine in sensitiveness, Canning was dowered
with virile persistence and pugnacity. In histrionic and versifying
power he rivalled his countryman, Sheridan, who never forgave him for
deserting the Whigs and going over to Pitt. The loss was indeed serious;
for the young orator was far more than a _frondeur_. As editor of the
"Anti-Jacobin," conjointly with Hookham Frere, he covered with ridicule
the detractors of their country, and helped on the revival of national
spirit which began in 1798. But he also possessed great administrative
talents, displaying as Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs an insight
into character in which his chief, Grenville, was signally lacking.
Canning's letters to Pitt on the negotiation at Lille in 1797 show signs
of those inductive powers which appear at their zenith in his
brilliantly correct inference ten years later that the Danish fleet must
be snatched from the clutch of Napoleon.
The statuesque calm of Pitt's personality charmed and overawed this
impressionable Irishman from the time of their first interview in the
summer of 1792. Always versatile and sometimes shifty, he seems
instinctively to have felt in him the needed counterpart. As the Czar
Alexander leaned on the rock-like Stein in the crisis of 1812, so
Canning gained strength and confidence from reliance on Pitt. He on his
side took a keen interest in his disciple, discerning in him the
propagator of the Pitt doctrine and tradition. At times the fostering
care became fatherly. A case in point was Canning's marriage with a
wealthy Scottish heiress (July 1800). Pitt regarded this event as
essential to his success as the future leader of the party. Indeed, so
absorbed was he in his own thoughts during the ride to the church as not
to notice a pert remark of Canning's friend, Hookham Frere. The
clergyman, Frere, and he were in a coach driving along Swallow Street
towards Brook Street when a carter who saw them called out: "What! Billy
Pitt! and with a parson too!" Thereupon Frere burst out with the daring
jest, "He thinks you are going to Tyburn to be hanged privately!" But
Pitt was too pre-occupied to notice the gibe. Again, after the
ceremony, in the vestry Pitt was so nervous as to be unable to sign as a
witness, and Canning had to whisper to Frere to sign without waiting for
him.[622] They ascribed his strange inaction to extreme regard for
Canning. But surely another explanation is more natural. How could a man
of keenly affectionate nature share in that ceremony without feeling
deeply his own lonely lot? Three and a half years ago poverty and debt
had stepped in to part him and Eleanor Eden. Was it not the wraith of
his buried love which now hovered before him, blotting out the sight of
the carter, deafening his ears to the jest, and palsying his hand?
* * * * *
Pitt's resignation of office sorely tried his friends; for, without
informing them of the inmost reasons that prompted that step, he pressed
them to remain in office under his successor, Addington. As we have
seen, some of them refused. Of those not holding Cabinet appointments,
Rose and Long, joint Secretaries of the Treasury, Lord Granville
Leveson-Gower, a Lord of the Treasury, and Canning, joint Paymaster of
the Forces, decided to resign. Pitt's silence and his urgent requests to
his friends to remain in office were of course open to misconstruction;
and several of his supporters echoed the malicious assertion of Frere,
that his aim was for Addington to take office as a _locum tenens_, and
sign a discreditable peace, whereupon he (Pitt) would come back to power
and find his former supporters in their old places. Malmesbury gave
colour to the story by stating that Addington described himself as
_locum tenens_, a remark utterly inconsistent with all that is known of
his complacent pride. Nevertheless the slander gained general currency,
and, even now, despite convincing refutation, dies hard. That Canning
and others resented Pitt's silence and his pressure to remain in office
is undeniable; but, while saying nothing as to the cause of his own
conduct, he explained clearly to Canning that, as a friend, he was
gratified by his conduct in resigning, however much he deplored his
action on public grounds. Of course the _tu quoque_ retort was
inevitable; but Canning's curiosity was not gratified.[623]
For a time he talked of breaking with Pitt, and sent him a copy of a
letter to Frere couched in those terms. Pitt replied calmly on 26th
April 1801 that on reviewing his conduct he found it neither unkind nor
unfair. While lamenting that Canning should thus have misunderstood his
conduct, he expressed a resolve to forget the incident and a hope that
their friendship might endure. Serenity such as this is the best cure to
Celtic susceptibility. But other grievances were discovered, and on 12th
July Canning dashed off to Frere a furious missive full of dashes and
underlinings, charging Pitt with showing to him "confidence just enough
to mislead and not enough to guide"; on which promising theme he fired
off clause upon clause of an incoherent sentence which fills thirty-five
lines of print and then expires in a dash. What it was all about is far
from clear, except that Canning believed Pitt to have done "scrupulously
and magnanimously _right_ by everybody but _me_."[624] Before long the
sensitive youth was moving heaven and earth to bring back Pitt to power.
But, even in December 1803, when his whole soul was bound up in him, he
reproached him with lover-like vehemence for having inspired a
derogatory article in the "Accurate Observer." Apparently the wounded
friend had no proof whatever that Pitt had sped or barbed the shaft.
Among those who won Pitt's confidence in his closing years was Spencer
Perceval, an able young barrister, who entered Parliament in 1796 as
member for Northampton, and showed considerable skill in finance and
debating powers of no mean order. "He spoke (says Sinclair) without the
disagreeable cant of the Bar, was never tedious, was peculiarly distinct
in matters of business, and explained his financial measures with
clearness and ability. His style was singularly acute, bold, sarcastic,
and personal." The same authority avers that Pitt, on being asked--"If
we lose you, where could we find a successor?"--answered at once,
"Perceval." The reply is remarkable; for Perceval, besides opposing
Catholic Emancipation, displayed little tact in dealing with men and a
strangely narrow outlook. Probably it was his power of hard work, his
grasp of finance, and his resolute disposition which led Pitt to prefer
him to Canning, who in other respects was far better qualified to act as
leader.
I must here notice charges which have been brought against Pitt, that
his creations of peers, or promotions in the peerage, which by the year
1801 exceeded 140, were fraught with evil to the Upper House, lowering
the intellectual level of its debates, and impairing the balance of
parties, with results damaging to the constitution.[625] It has even
been suggested that the friction between the two Houses in the years
1830-1911 resulted in no small degree from the reckless conduct of Pitt
in this respect. Vague and sweeping assertions like these can neither be
substantiated nor refuted. But the only definite part of them, namely,
that Pitt's creations degraded the House of Lords, is obviously
overstrained. At no period was the tone of its debates higher than in
that of Pitt's supremacy, witness those on Warren Hastings, the disputes
with Spain and Russia, and the Great War. They have not the brilliance
of those of the Commons in the days of Burke, Fox, Pitt and Sheridan;
but they often excel them in statesmanlike qualities; and a perusal of
them reveals the fact that the ablest of the Lords were, not those of
the old governing families, which at that period showed signs of
decadence, but those for whose creation Pitt was mainly responsible.
Malmesbury, Buckingham, Grenville, Auckland, Carrington, Minto, and at a
later period, Sidmouth and Castlereagh, excelled in ability and weight
the representatives of the older nobility. Far from degrading and
weakening the peerage, Pitt strengthened it by an infusion of new blood
which was sorely needed at that time of strain and stress. Further, it
must be remembered that Burke's Economy Bill had abolished many of the
sinecures which were considered due for steady support in Parliament;
and, while at Bath in the year 1797, he admitted that his reform was
accountable for the large increase of peerages, thenceforth the chief
hope of the faithful.[626] Pitt's correspondence also shows that he
frequently repulsed the insistent claims of his supporters for titles, a
theme on which piquant letters might be adduced.
Surely, too, it is unjust to say that Pitt entirely altered the
political complexion of the Upper House. During the greater part of his
career the so-called political differences were based mainly on personal
considerations; and throughout the struggle against France, Whigs and
Tories, with the exception of a small coterie, were merged in the
national party which recognized in Pitt the saviour of British
institutions. The charge that he was largely responsible for the
friction between the two Houses after 1830 needs little notice; for that
friction was clearly due to the progress of democratic principles and
the growth of an enormous industrial community in these islands. Both of
those developments told strongly against the parity of political
influence of the two Houses of Parliament. Amidst the torpor of the
previous age the prerogatives of the Peers had gone unchallenged. After
the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution a challenge was
certain to come; and in this, as in many other respects, the conduct of
Pitt was such as to strengthen our institutions. By adding to the House
of Lords a considerable number of commoners he enabled it to withstand
the storms of the Revolutionary age and the inevitable conflicts of the
future.
* * * * *
To revert to the year 1801, there occurred early in the autumn an event
of high import. The struggle of eight years between Great Britain and
France ended in stalemate. The collapse of the Armed Neutrality League
together with the capture of Malta and the surrender of the French
garrisons in Egypt left the Union Jack triumphant at sea and the
tricolour on the Continent. Each State had need of rest to restore its
finances and consolidate its conquests. Therefore, though Bonaparte had
at the end of March 1801 sharply repelled the pacific overtures of the
Addington Cabinet, yet negotiations were resumed at the close of summer,
a fact which proves that the First Consul was influenced, not by spite
to Pitt and goodwill to his successor, but by the constricting grip of
the Sea Power. Hawkesbury, Grenville's successor at the Foreign Office,
asserted that shortly before the end of the negotiation Pitt sat up with
him through part of a night discussing finance, and finally advising the
cessation of hostilities.
Not that Pitt directed the negotiations; for both Addington and
Hawkesbury were proud and sensitive men, and Pitt at some points
criticized the conditions of the Preliminaries of London (1st October
1801). They were as follows: Great Britain agreed to restore to France,
Spain, and the Batavian, or Dutch, Republic all their possessions
recently conquered by her, with the exception of Trinidad and Ceylon,
ceded to her by Spain and the Dutch respectively. She also retired from
Elba and restored Malta to the Knights of St. John, under conditions to
be further specified. The French restored Egypt to the Sultan, and
evacuated Naples and the Papal States. Portugal was also saved from
danger of partition. Nothing was said respecting the resumption of
trade between England and France; and no assurance was forthcoming as to
the independence of the Republics bordering on France. By his recent
compact with Austria the First Consul agreed to respect their
independence; but England had no definite ground for complaint if it
were violated.
While the London rabble shouted itself hoarse with joy at the advent of
peace, Grenville, Windham, and Canning saw disgrace and disaster ahead.
Pitt thought otherwise. At the small house in Park Place which he had
leased for his visits to London, he wrote to Long on 1st October,
describing the terms as not all that could be wished but "highly
creditable, and on the whole very advantageous." Finding that Grenville
considered them disastrous, he on the 5th expressed concern at their
disagreement. Though regretting the surrender of the Cape, and the
uncertainty of the fate of Malta, he considered the acquisition of
Ceylon and Trinidad most beneficial; and he hailed with satisfaction a
peace which saved Turkey and Portugal from spoliation. He therefore
suggested an interview for the sake of reconciling their differences. To
this Grenville somewhat coolly assented, remarking that the differences
were fundamental and could not be concealed, and that his confidence in
the Addington Cabinet was irretrievably destroyed by a treaty which
ceded to France Martinique, Malta, Minorca, the Cape, Cochin China, and
all the Dutch settlements. Clearly, then, Grenville looked on the Dutch
Republic and Spain as dominated by Bonaparte, who would seize Minorca,
Malta, and the Cape whenever it suited him. He also wrote to the King
expressing regret that he could no longer support Addington, whose
conduct towards France and Russia was "marked throughout by a tone of
unnecessary and degrading concession."[627]
Here, then, the two cousins began sharply to differ. On 3rd November,
during the debates on the Peace, Pitt rose to rebut the censures of
Thomas Grenville on a policy which implied the surrender of the
Mediterranean to France. He deprecated these sweeping criticisms; for he
had ever been ready to frame a treaty which, though falling short of our
just pretensions, was not inconsistent with honour and security. The
present terms did not fulfil all his wishes; but the difference between
them and the best possible terms was not worth the continuance of war.
If both Trinidad and Malta could not be retained, he commended Ministers
for choosing Trinidad; for the sight of the Union Jack at Malta would
have hurt the pride of France. With regard to the Cape of Good Hope he
deemed it a far more important possession than Hawkesbury had
represented, though inferior to Ceylon. He deplored our failure to
restore the House of Savoy to its capital, Turin; but the chief object
of the war, the security of Great Britain, had been attained. True, the
restoration of the French monarchy would have furnished a better
safeguard for peace; but we had never insisted on it as essential,
though it might have been assured if the Allies had fulfilled their
duties. As to the future, if the First Consul aimed at founding a
military despotism, he probably would not select England as the first
object of his attack; and we had every prospect of enjoying a long
peace. Remembering, perhaps, that he made the same prophecy early in
1792, he uttered this warning: "I am inclined to hope everything that is
good; but I am bound to act as if I feared otherwise." In none of his
speeches did Pitt display less foresight. The preference of Trinidad to
Malta and of Ceylon to the Cape is curious enough; but the prophecy as
to a long period of peace and the probable immunity of England from
Bonaparte's attack argues singular blindness to the colonial trend of
French policy since the year 1798. Despite acrid comments by Fox and
Windham, the speech carried the day and firmly established Addington in
power.
The sequel is well known. In the interval of six months, during which
the aged and gouty Cornwallis sought to reduce the Preliminaries of
London to the Treaty of Amiens (27th March 1802), Bonaparte remodelled
the Batavian, Ligurian, and Cisalpine Republics in a way wholly at
variance with the Treaty of Lunéville. Against these breaches of faith
the Addington Cabinet made no protest; and the treaty in its final form
provided a complex and unsatisfactory compromise on the Maltese
question.[628] Canning and Windham strove to elicit from Pitt a public
expression of his disapproval of the treaty; but their efforts were in
vain. On 20th April 1802 Canning, while at his country seat, South Hill,
Bracknell (Berks), wrote thus to Windham:[629]
... Do not suppose that this is because I have the slightest
doubt as to the impression which may be made by pointing out the
gross faults and omissions, the weakness, and baseness, and
shuffling, and stupidity, that mark this Treaty even beyond the
Preliminaries that led to it. But I think people do not want to
be convinced of this; that they will not take it kindly, but
rather otherwise, to have it forced upon their observation;
that, if parted to a division, they will vote for the Treaty
with all its imperfections upon its head.... Now as to Pitt
himself. He cannot and does not think of this as he did of the
Preliminary Treaty. But debate it; and he will, he must, debate
as warmly for it. He can take no distinction without seeming to
abandon Addington; and that he will not do. He cannot object to
any part of the Peace in public, without weakening the grounds
upon which he contends peace upon the whole to be preferable to
war, and _that_ he will not do. ... Leave it possible for Pitt
to say six or eight months hence that the Preliminaries promised
well, but that the Treaty did not come up to them. I do not
promise you that he ever will say this. But I am fairly
persuaded that, if you force from him a public approbation of
the Treaty, you defer for at least as many months as have passed
since the debates of October, the chance of his coming to see
things almost as you and I see them....
_April 27 1802._
Since I wrote to you, I have seen Lord Grenville, and I think
the plan of action, which he tells me had been concerted between
you and him, so perfect, that I retract everything in what I
wrote to you (if anything there were) which could be construed
as making against it. To debate "about it and about it," as much
as you will, to move for papers, to move for taking the Treaty
into consideration--all this may be done with great and good
effect, but a condemnation of the Treaty, such as would force
P[itt] into a defence of it, and identify him with the makers of
it, is what of all things is to be avoided. I hope you think
so.--Whether P[itt] _will_ save us I do not know. But surely he
is the only man that _can_.
All was in vain. Pitt, having promised to support Addington, deemed
himself in honour bound to fulfil that pledge. But, as the events of the
year 1802 showed more and more the imbecility of the Addington Cabinet,
torturing doubts preyed upon his mind. His friends, especially Canning,
now began to discern the pathos of his position, but sought to draw him
from his seclusion at Walmer. An opportunity occurred in the month of
May. Pitt's birthday was on the 28th. Would not all who foresaw ruin
for England in the supremacy of "the Doctor" welcome a demonstration on
behalf of his predecessor? For more than a year Pitt's friends had been
puzzled and abashed by his unexplained retirement, witness the
uncharitable surmise of the usually benevolent Dr. Burgh--"Can I see
Addington climb upon the stooping neck of Mr. Pitt, and not believe that
it is done in hostility or in a masked confederacy? If the former, how
am I to estimate the man who comes in? If the latter, what judgement can
I form of the man who goes out?"[630] Slander also was busy in the guise
of that gadfly, Nicholls, who proposed to thank the King for dismissing
him. By way of retort Pitt's friends triumphantly carried a motion of
thanks to Pitt for his great services, against a carping minority of
fifty-two; but members were heard to mutter their preference for
Addington over all "the d--d men of genius."
Was it not time to arouse the country from sloth? The England of 1802
seemed to Wordsworth
a fen of stagnant waters.
While he invoked the memory of Milton, Canning resolved to appeal to
Pitt. In a day or two he threw off a poem which, though slighted by him,
gained a wider vogue than any of his effusions, "The Pilot that
weathered the Storm." The last and best stanza is as follows:
And O! if again the rude whirlwind should rise,
The dawning of peace should fresh darkness deform,
The regrets of the good and the fears of the wise
Shall turn to the pilot that weathered the storm.
The song was enthusiastically received by the company assembled at the
Merchant Taylors' Hall; and the reference to the recall of Pitt roused
the company to a high pitch of excitement. The song, as a whole, is
laboured and strained. The only stanza which happily weds phrase and
thought is the last. The others form a lumbering prelude to this almost
Sibylline cadence.
Despite these efforts to sow discord between Pitt and Addington, they
remained on excellent terms;[631] and the support given by the former to
the Peace of Amiens ensured to the Minister an overwhelming victory at
the polls in the General Election of the summer of 1802. Pitt was of
course returned by the University of Cambridge, "with every mark of zeal
and cordiality"--so he wrote to Rose on 10th July. The rest of the
summer he passed either near London or at Walmer. It is unfortunate that
he did not visit France, as Fox, Romilly, and many others now did.
Probably his sharp rebuff to Bonaparte's overture at the end of 1799,
and his subsequent diatribes against him precluded such a step. But he
also needed rest and quiet. On 8th June he wrote to Windham: "The sea
air and the contrast of the scene to that which I left behind me in
London have, as usual, done me a great deal of good."[632] He set to
work to improve the grounds adjoining the castle, and invited Addington,
who was then spending some weeks at Eastbourne, to come over and see the
changes. Further, he leased a large farm near Walmer, and expressed a
hope that he might spend the rest of the year in farming. The splendour
of that summer and the bounteous crops of corn evidently captivated
Pitt. The supreme need of England was more corn. A man who could not
serve her at Westminster could serve her by high farming. This was
Pitt's forecast, unless "the _pacificator_ of Europe takes it into his
head to send an army from the opposite coast to revenge himself for some
newspaper paragraph."[633]
At this time, too, he finally succeeded in disposing of Holwood. The
sale was inevitable; for Pitt's finance had long been a source of deep
anxiety. So far back as 18th October 1800 Rose informed the Bishop of
Lincoln that bailiffs threatened the seizure of Pitt's furniture in
Downing Street for debts of £600 and £400. Then, referring to Pitt's ill
health, he wrote: "I conceived till this morning [it] was owing to the
state of public matters; but I am now strongly inclined to think he is
agitated by the state of his own affairs. Bullock came to me this
morning and forced upon me such a history of debts and distresses as
actually sickened me.... Something must be done before Pitt returns to
town. His expenses in the last years were nearly £26,000. I am quite
certain Holwood must be parted with."[634]
Pitt's private finance is involved in mystery. His official stipend was
£6,000 a year; and as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports he drew £3,000
more. Yet he was now insolvent. Among his papers systematic accounts
are extant only for the latter half of the years 1794 and 1799. Even
these are not complete, especially for the household at Walmer Castle.
Those for the house in Downing Street are the fullest; but, for the last
six months of 1799, they amount to £3,789 at Downing Street, and £2,382
at Holwood, the latter sum including a charge of £1,163 for farm
expenses which cannot much have exceeded the income.[635] The Walmer
accounts vary according to the duration of Pitt's residence. Those for
the summer and autumn of 1794 amount only to £458. Evidently, then, Pitt
benefited by the King's gift of the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports. But
he gave £1,000 in 1793 to start the Dover Volunteer corps and doubtless
other sums towards the Fencibles of the other Cinque Ports.
At all times the servants at Downing Street and the farm at Holwood were
a heavy drain. The amount of the servants' private bills charged to Pitt
at Downing Street is disgraceful. Pitt kept a good table and a good
cellar, as the customs of the age required; but neither these expenses
nor his heavy outlay on his tailor would have brought about a crisis,
had not his town servants and tradesmen plundered him. Morse, the
tailor, charged at the rate of £130 to £140 a quarter for Pitt's
clothes. Now Pitt was neat and punctilious in his attire, but he was no
dandy. As for the farm at Holwood, accounts for straw and manure were
charged twice over, as some friendly accountant pointed out. Probably,
too, his experiments in landscape-gardening were as costly as they had
been to Chatham; for lavishness was in the nature both of father and
son. Pitt once confessed to his niece, Hester Stanhope, that he never
saw a house and grounds without at once planning improvements. In this
phrase as in the suggestive item on farm expenses we can see why the
sale of Holwood was necessary; but for various reasons it did not take
place until the autumn of 1802.
Meanwhile his friends bestirred themselves to prevent the scandal of an
execution. They succeeded in staving off a crisis until schemes of
relief were concerted, but here again there was much difficulty; for, on
hearing of the proposed private subscription on his behalf, he declared
that he would rather return to practice at the Bar than submit to such a
humiliation. Fox might allow friends to pay his gambling debts; but the
pride of Pitt scorned to accept help on behalf of liabilities even if
due to pre-occupation in public affairs. Rose deemed a sum of £25,000
necessary to his peace and quietness, seeing that the total liabilities
were £45,064. The letters which passed between Camden, the Bishop of
Lincoln, and Rose, evince deep affection for the shy, proud man. The
following is a _précis_ of a letter of Rose to Tomline which is among
the Pretyman MSS.:
Christchurch, _July 21, 1801_.
I am in great perplexity about Pitt's affairs. Joe Smith has
been strangely misled respecting them.[636] The unforeseen
demands have been very large. If Holwood fetches a good price,
the sum of £24,000 will set the matter at rest. Pitt's diamonds
have been sold for £680 to pay pressing claims. The unpaid bills
now amount to £9,618. Old debts come to £9,600 more. Mr. Soane
and Mr. Coutts might be asked to wait, as neither would suffer
from it. The debt due to Banker (£5,800) cannot surely be a
separate one of Pitt's; for I think he could give no security on
it. Probably it is a debt contracted jointly with Lord Chatham,
the whole of which Pitt may have to pay. Of the last sum which
in his own deep distress he borrowed on the security of Holwood,
he gave (I know) £1,000 to Lord Chatham. These are trifling
considerations compared with that of getting him to accept the
means of relief. They are as follows: (1) a vote from
Parliament; (2) a free gift from the King; (3) a private
subscription; (4) an additional office for life. The first and
second of these Pitt has peremptorily declined. The third he
refused in 1787 when the London merchants offered £100,000. The
fourth course would not be wholly creditable, but Pitt thinks it
the least objectionable. He dislikes the second and third
alternatives because the second (as he thinks) would give the
King a hold over him and the third would entitle the subscribers
to his favour. The notion of an execution by bailiffs in his
house is too painful to contemplate. I consider the first or
second alternatives the best.
The reference here to a gift, or loan, from Pitt to his brother prompts
the inquiry whether similar acts of benevolence may not explain his
difficulties. We find the second Earl of Chatham in August 1797
acknowledging a loan of £1,000 from Pitt. The bishop, replying to Rose
on 24th July 1801, states that the debt of £5,800 was to the best of his
knowledge a sum advanced through Thomas Coutts, the banker, to Lady
Chatham upon the Burton Pynsent estate. He adds that she ought to pay
interest to Pitt upon it, but did not. It seems that Pitt advanced
£11,750 in all on behalf of the Burton Pynsent estate. Here, then, was a
grievous family burden. Probably the debt was left by his father, and
may have been increased by his mother. So far back as November 1793 he
wrote to her stating his desire to help her at any time of need; and in
August of the following year, when she believed her end to be near, she
begged her sons to pay her "just debts," which were due, not to vain
expenses, but to outlays upon the farm which she at the time believed to
be for the best.[637] The eldest son could not help her, for he required
succour from Pitt. If, then, the farming experiments at Burton Pynsent
failed, the loss fell upon Pitt. We may infer, then, that his debts were
occasioned partly by rapacious servants and tradesmen in London, partly
by farming and gardening at Holwood, but also by the needs of his mother
and brother. The fact that Chatham paid not a shilling towards the
discharge of Pitt's liabilities proves that he was in low water; and as
no one, not even Tomline, knew of the source of Pitt's embarrassments,
they must have been of a peculiarly delicate character.
Tomline's decision, that Pitt could never accept a sinecure from
Addington, is indisputable. The words in which Pitt declared that he
could not accept the sum of £30,000 graciously offered by the King
breathe more independence than those in which he first expressed his
gratitude for the offer. There remained, then, the plan of a private
subscription. The Bishop of Lincoln mentioned it to him with admirable
delicacy on 6th August 1801, and gained his consent. The following were
the subscribers: Lords Bathurst, Camden, and Carrington, together with
Tomline, Rose, and Steele, £1,000 each. From Scotland came £4,000,
probably in equal parts from the Dukes of Buccleugh and Gordon, Dundas,
and the Chief Baron. Wilberforce, Long, and Joseph Smith each gave £500,
and another (Lord Alvanley?) £200. Bishop Tomline and Rose showed equal
activity and tact in raising this sum of £11,700, so that the details
remained unknown to Pitt.[638] Later on he felt pecuniary
embarrassments, partly owing to his share in maintaining the Cinque
Ports Volunteers, and at his death his debts amounted to £40,000.
His relations to his bankers, Messrs. Coutts, continued cordial, though
on 24th April 1805 Thomas Coutts ventured to state that there was an
overdraft against him of £1,511, which, however, was redressed by the
arrival of his quarterly official stipends.[639] Pitt's loyalty to his
friends appears in his effort during his second Ministry to procure the
royal assent to his nomination of Bishop Tomline to the Archbishopric of
Canterbury shortly after the death of Dr. Moore early in 1805. The King,
however, who did not admire Tomline, and believed the Bishop of Norwich
to have prior claims, refused his reiterated requests. Pitt's second
letter to the King on this subject is couched in terms almost of
remonstrance.[640]
Reverting to Pitt's life at Walmer, we find that in the summer of 1802
he fell a prey to nausea and lassitude; so that Lady Hester Stanhope,
who visited him in September, found him very weak. Probably his
indisposition was due less to the exceptional heat of that season than
to suppressed gout aggravated by anxiety. As we saw, he invited
Addington to come over from Eastbourne and discuss public affairs. The
conference seems to have caused him much concern; for Tomline in July
1802 jotted down notes of a conversation with Pitt, in which Addington
is described as "without exception the vainest man he (Pitt) had ever
met with." Pitt's advice had often been asked before the Preliminaries
of Peace were signed, but afterwards he was neglected. Cornwallis, too,
had evidently believed that by the Treaty of Amiens all former treaties
with France were revived without being named; and probably Ministers
were under the same delusion. The last King's Speech was also annoying
to Pitt, who characterized Addington as "a man of little mind, of
consummate vanity and of very slender abilities." As to resumption of
office Pitt thought it impossible during the life of the King, except in
case of some great emergency.[641]
Equally frank were Pitt's confessions to Canning, who stayed at Walmer
in September-October 1802. He admitted that his resignation was due
partly to the manner in which the King opposed him on Catholic
Emancipation. But he quitted office with a clear conscience, leaving
full means for attacking Egypt and the Armed Neutrals, so that the
reproaches of desertion of duty were unjust. He pledged himself to
support Addington; and from this only Addington could release him. He
admitted that this was a mistake, now that current events showed
Bonaparte's ambition to be insatiable; but none the less he waved aside
Canning's reiterated appeals that he would apply to Addington for
release from the pledge, on the ground that such a step would seem an
intrigue for a return to power. "My ambition (he proudly said) is
character, not office."
Was a statesman ever placed in a more embarrassing situation? Pitt had
resigned office on a point of honour, and yet felt constrained to humour
the royal invalid by abandoning the very measure which caused his
resignation. Incautiously he pledged himself to support Addington,
thereby alienating some of his own supporters. He defended his pacific
policy until it led to a bad treaty followed by a series of
humiliations. By October 1802 Bonaparte was master of four Republics
bordering on France, and had annexed Piedmont and Elba, besides securing
Parma and Louisiana by profitable exchanges. Such a peace was worse than
a disastrous war. Yet Addington made no protest except against the
virtual subjugation of Switzerland. True, the Cabinet now clung to the
Cape and Malta as for dear life; but elsewhere the eye could see French
influence creeping resistlessly over Europe, while the German Powers
were intent only on securing the spoils of the Ecclesiastical States.
Well might Pitt write to Wilberforce on 31st October: "You know how much
under all the circumstances I wished for peace, and my wishes remain the
same, if Bonaparte can be made to feel that he is not to trample in
succession on every nation in Europe. But of this I fear there is little
chance, and without it I see no prospect but war." Worst of all, there
were sure signs that France and the other Powers distrusted and despised
Addington. Vorontzoff, the Russian ambassador, declared that he would
work hard to form an alliance with Pitt, but despaired of effecting
anything with his successor.[642] In truth, Pitt's excessive
scrupulousness at the time of his resignation had enclosed himself and
his country in a vicious circle from which the only means of escape was
war.
A prey to these harassing thoughts, Pitt left Walmer near the close of
October 1802 to take the waters at Bath. On the way he visited Sir
Charles Middleton at Teston in Kent, and sought distraction by inquiries
on farming. Middleton wrote to Wilberforce on 26th October: "His
inquiries were very minute and judicious; and it is incredible how
quickly he comprehended things, and how much further he reasons on them
than I can follow him.... I believe Mr. Pitt has it in his power to
become the first farmer in England if he thinks the pursuit worth his
time and attention."[643] The treatment at Bath suited Pitt so well that
he prolonged his stay. Rose, whom he invited to Bath in the second week
of November, thus describes to Bishop Tomline his manner of life:
Bath, _Nov. 21, 1802_.[644]
Mr. Pitt's health mends every day: it is really better than it
has been ever since I knew him. I am quite sure this place
agrees with him _entirely_, he eats a small [_illegible_] and a
half for breakfast, and more at dinner than I ever saw him at
1/2 past 4: no luncheon: two very small glasses of Madeira at
dinner and _less_ than a pint of port after dinner: at night,
nothing but a bason of arrowroot: he is positively in the best
possible train of management for his health.... He is positively
decided to have no responsibility whatever respecting what has
been done or is doing on the subject of foreign politics; he not
only adheres to his resolution of not going up for the opening
[of Parliament]; but will not attend even on the estimates
unless a necessity should arise: he writes to day both to Mr.
Addington and Lord Hawkesbury in a style that will not only
manifest the above, _but will prevent all further attempts to
draw him into confidential communication_. He has also made up
his mind to take office again whenever the occasion shall arise,
when he can come in properly, and has now no reluctance on the
subject. I dare not say more by the Post. If my letter is
opened, the Ministers will know the first part is true, and I
don't care about their learning the latter. Lord Grenville will
positively not take a line to render it difficult for Mr. Pitt
and him to act together; he will move no amendment to the
Address....
Rose, as we have seen, disliked Lord Auckland, who was joint
Postmaster-General; and if Pitt's letters were opened at the Post
Office, we can understand the thinness of his correspondence.[645]
Recently he had advised Addington not to retain Alexandria, Malta,
Goree, and Cape Town, but to trust rather to defensive preparations,
which might include a friendly understanding with other aggrieved
Powers. This surely was the dignified course. Even Malta was not worth
the risk of immediate war unless we were ready both with armaments and
alliances. The foregoing letter, however, shows that Pitt believed his
advice to be useless. Possibly he heard that the Cabinet had decided to
retain those posts; and finally, as we shall see, Pitt approved their
action in the case of Malta. Meanwhile matters went from bad to worse.
Ministers complained of Pitt's aloofness; but his friends agreed that he
must do nothing to avert from Addington the consequences of his own
incompetence. Even the cold Grenville declared Pitt to be the only man
who could save England. But could even he, when under an incompetent
chief, achieve that feat?
For by this time Addington had hopelessly deranged the nation's finance.
While giving up Pitt's drastic Income Tax, which had not brought in the
expected £10,000,000 but a net sum of £6,000,000, he raised the Assessed
Taxes by one third, increased Import and Export duties with impartial
rigour, and yet proposed to raise £5,000,000 by Exchequer Bills, which
were to be funded at the end of the Session or paid off by a loan. This
signal failure to meet the year's expenses within the year exasperated
Pitt. At Christmas, which he spent with Rose at his seat in the New
Forest, he often conversed on this topic; and his host thus summed up
his own conclusions in a letter to Bishop Tomline:
Cuffnells, _December 24, 1802_.[646]
... There is hardly a part of the Budget that is not too
stupidly wrong even for the doctor's dullness and ignorance. I
am sure Mr. Pitt must concur with me; and I have all the
materials for him.--Wrong about the increase of the revenue;
wrong as to the produce of the Consolidated Fund; scandalously
wrong as to what is to be expected from it in future by at least
£2,800,000 a year; wrong as to the money he will want this year
by millions....
During his stay at Cuffnells Pitt received a letter from Addington
urging the need of an interview. Viewing the request as a sign of
distress with which he must in honour comply, Pitt agreed to stay a few
days early in January 1803 at the White Lodge in Richmond Park, which
the King had for the time assigned to his favoured Minister. Addington
described him as looking far from well, though his strength had improved
and his spirits and appetite were good.[647] Apparently Pitt found the
instruction of his host in finance a subject as dreary as the winter
landscape. He afterwards told Rose that Addington mooted his entrance to
the Cabinet awkwardly during their farewell drive to town. But this does
not tally with another account, which is that Pitt, on the plea of
winding up the transfer of Holwood, suddenly left the White Lodge on 6th
January. On the 11th he wrote from Camden's seat, The Wilderness, in
Kent, that his views on foreign affairs were nearly in accord with those
of the Cabinet, but that he failed to convince Addington of his
financial error.
This, then, was still the rock of offence. Nevertheless, Pitt begged
Rose not to attack the Cabinet on that topic, as it would embarrass him.
If it were necessary on public grounds to set right the error, he (Pitt)
would do so himself on some fit occasion. Malmesbury and Canning did
their utmost to spur him on to a more decided opposition; and the latter
wrote him a letter of eight pages "too admonitory and too fault-finding
for even Pitt's very good humoured mind to bear."[648] Pitt replied by
silence. In vain did friends tell him that Ministers had assured the
King of his intention to bring forward Catholic Emancipation if he
returned to office. In vain did Malmesbury declare that Pitt must take
the helm of State, otherwise Fox would do so. In vain did Rose predict
the country's ruin from Addington's appalling ignorance of finance. Pitt
still considered himself in honour bound to support Addington. At the
close of January he held friendly converse with him, before setting out
for Walmer for a time of rest and seclusion. Canning's only consolation
was that Bonaparte would come to their help, and by some new act of
violence end Pitt's scrupulous balancing between the claims of national
duty and of private obligations. The First Consul dealt blow upon blow.
Yet even so, Canning's hopes were long to remain unfulfilled. As we saw
in the former volume, the relations of Pitt to Addington had for many
years been of an intimate nature; but occasions arise when a statesman
ought promptly to act upon the maxim of Mirabeau--"_La petite morale est
ennemie de la grande._" In subordinating the interests of England to the
dictates of a deep-rooted but too exacting friendship, Pitt was guilty
of one of the most fatal blunders of that time.
FOOTNOTES:
[606] Wraxall, iii, 458. For Pitt's earlier friendships see my former
volume.
[607] "Mems. of Lady Hester Stanhope," iii, 187.
[608] From Mr. Broadley's MSS. Hayley's efforts on behalf of Cowper have
been described by Professor E. Dowden, "Essays: Modern and Elizabethan"
(1910). Ultimately a pension of £300 a year was assigned to Cowper: the
authorization, signed by the King and Pitt, and dated 23rd April 1794,
is now in the Cowper Museum, Olney, Bucks, so the secretary, Mr. Thomas
Wright (editor of Cowper's Letters), kindly informs me.
[609] "Rutland Papers," iii, 229, 241 (Hist. MSS. Comm.). So, too,
Tomline said that Pitt had no ear for music, and little taste for
drawing or painting, though he was fond of architecture, and once drew
from memory the plan of a mansion in Norfolk, with a view to improving
it (Lord Rosebery, "Tomline's Estimate of Pitt," 34).
[610] "Glenbervie Journals," 195.
[611] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 26; G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 4.
[612] Pitt MSS., 189.
[613] "Life of Wilberforce," ii, 270.
[614] The estimate of Pitt by Wellesley, summarized above, refutes the
ungenerous remark of Lecky (v, 72) that he took little delight in books
and "was a politician, and nothing more." Lecky was perhaps misled by
the ignorant libel on Pitt in Wraxall, iii, 223.
[615] "Diary of D. Scully," quoted by Dr. Hunt, "Transactions of Royal
Hist. Soc." (1908), p. 12.
[616] Lord Rosebery, "Tomline's Estimate of Pitt," 33.
[617] _I.e._, Mantua rejoices in Wurmser, Rovereda in Davidovitch,
Verona is open to Quosdanovitch. "Woe is me," says the greedy Gaul,
Bonaparte, "I shall have to be off through the Alps and go to the dogs."
[618] Pitt MSS., 188.
[619] Pitt MSS., 188. Hobart married Pitt's early love, Eleanor Eden,
and became Minister at War under Addington. For Mornington's comments on
his factious conduct at Madras, see "Dropmore P.," iv, 384, 476; v, 268;
vi, 338.
[620] Stanhope, iii, 232; Rosebery, "Pitt," 213-7.
[621] Pitt MSS., 188.
[622] Gabrielle Festing, "J. H. Frere and his Friends," 31.
[623] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 8; Pellew, i, ch. xi; G. Festing,
"Hookham Frere," 42-4; R. Bell, "Canning," 176; H. W. V. Temperley,
"Canning," 62-3.
[624] Stanhope, iii, 315; Festing, 47-51.
[625] May, "Constit. Hist.," i, 232-8; Lecky, v, 27.
[626] Wraxall, ii, 286.
[627] Stanhope, iii, 352; "Dropmore P.," vii, 49-51. For new letters of
Canning and Grenville, see "Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies."
[628] See Rose, "Life of Napoleon," i, ch. xiv, for details.
[629] B.M. Add. MSS., 37844.
[630] "Private Papers of Wilberforce," 110.
[631] For the passing misunderstanding of February 1802, see Pellew, ii,
489-92, with Pitt's letters.
[632] B.M. Add. MSS., 37844.
[633] Pellew, ii, 75, 76.
[634] Pretyman MSS. Bullock paid the servants and supervised the
accounts at Downing Street. Pitt was then staying with Addington near
Reading.
[635] Omitting shillings, the details for Downing Street and Holwood for
July-December 1799 are respectively: Table, £344, £231; Cellar, £169,
£126; Housekeeping, £531, £156; Private Account, £357, £--; Servants'
Wages, £251, £69; Servants' Board Wages, £329, £80; Servants' Bills,
£353, £15; Liveries, £41, £--; Taxes, etc., £747, £77; Farm, £--, £784;
Farm Labourers, £--, £379; Garden, £--, £125; Stable, £155, £--; Job
Horses, £165, £--; Incidentals, £347, £340. (Pitt MSS., 201.)
[636] Joseph Smith (no relative of "Bob Smith," Lord Carrington) became
Pitt's private secretary in 1787. His letters, published along with "The
Beaufort Papers" in 1897, throw no light on Pitt's debts.
[637] Ashbourne, 162. See, too, ch. xv of this work.
[638] G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 429; ii, 215.
[639] Pitt MSS., 126. Coutts and five other bankers each subscribed
£50,000 to the "Loyalty Loan" in 1797 and invested £10,000 on behalf of
Pitt.
[640] Stanhope, iv, 233, 252; Ashbourne, 351-4.
[641] Pretyman MSS.
[642] "Private Papers of Wilberforce," 34; G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 508.
[643] "Letters of Wilberforce," i, 256.
[644] Pretyman MSS.
[645] Auckland, while ambassador at The Hague, was suspected of too
great inquisitiveness as to the British despatches which passed through
that place. On 20th July 1790, Aust, of the Foreign Office, wrote to Sir
R. M. Keith at Vienna that Keith's new cipher puzzles "our friends at
the Hague," and that Auckland's curiosity is "insatiable" (B.M. Add.
MSS., 35543). See, too, a note by Miss Rose in G. Rose "Diaries," ii,
75.
[646] Pretyman MSS.
[647] Pellew, ii, 113. Lord Holland, writing early in 1803 to his uncle,
General Fox, then at Malta, says that there are three parties in
Parliament, besides many subdivisions, "Grenville and Windham against
peace and nearly avowed enemies of the present Government; the old
Opposition; and Addington [_sic_]. Pitt, as you know, supports
Addington, but the degree of intimacy and the nature of his connection
with Ministers are riddles to every one." (From Mr. Broadley's MSS.)
[648] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 168; G. Rose, "Diaries," ii, 6-9;
Pellew, ii, 113.