PITT AND NAPOLEON
I made a mistake about England, in trying to conquer it. The
English are a brave nation. I have always said that there are
only two nations, the English and the French; and I made the
French.--NAPOLEON TO MACNAMARA (1814), _Lord Broughton's
Recollections_, i, 180.
The two protagonists now stood face to face--Napoleon, Emperor of the
French, President of the Italian Republic, Mediator of the Swiss
Republic, controller of Holland, absolute ruler of a great military
Empire; Pitt, the Prime Minister of an obstinate and at times half-crazy
King, dependent on a weak Cabinet, a disordered Exchequer, a Navy
weakened by ill-timed economies, and land forces whose martial ardour
ill made up for lack of organization, equipment, and training. Before
the outbreak of war in May 1803, Napoleon had summed up the situation in
the words--"Forty-five millions of people must prevail over sixteen
millions." And now after a year of hostilities his position was far
stronger. In Hanover the French troops were profitably installed on the
Elector's domains. Soult's corps occupied the Neapolitan realm, thus
threatening Malta, the Ionian Isles, the Morea, and Egypt. The recent
restitution of several colonial conquests by England not only damaged
her trade, but enabled her enemy to stir up trouble in India. There,
thanks to Wellesley's dramatic victory at Assaye, the Union Jack waved
in triumph; but at other points Napoleon might hope to gain the long
contested race for Empire.
So convinced was Pitt of the need of fighting out the quarrel thrust
upon us by Napoleon's aggressions, that he waved aside an offer of
Livingston, American envoy at Paris, to effect a reconciliation. During
a brief visit to London, Livingston sent proposals to this effect
through Whitworth, who declined to meet a man hitherto remarkable for a
strong anti-British bias; and Pitt approved this repulse.[680]
Nevertheless, on 5th June Livingston, accompanied by Fox and Grey,
called on Pitt at Downing Street; but his proposals proved to be merely
the outcome of informal conversations with Joseph Bonaparte, who was
known to be far more peacefully inclined than his brother. Joseph's
notions were that Malta should perhaps be garrisoned by Russians, and
must in any case be relinquished by England; that France should withdraw
her troops from the Dutch and Swiss Republics, the status of which was
not defined.[681] Pitt set little store by these shadowy proposals,
doubtless seeing in them a way of discovering whether England was
concerting a league against France.
Already, in spite of many obstacles, he was taking the first steps in
that direction. An initial difficulty lay in the mental aberrations of
the King, whose conduct still caused intense anxiety or annoyance.[682]
Scarcely a day passed without a lapse into incoherence or violence.
Moreover, his conversation often showed a lack of discrimination, being
the same to the Queen, the physicians, or the servants. He made the most
capricious changes, turning off the Queen's favourite coachman, and
making grooms footmen, and footmen grooms, to the distraction of the
household. On assuming office, Pitt consulted the royal physicians and
received a reply, dated Queen's Palace, 16th May 1804, stating that the
King was equal to the discharge of important business, but must avoid
long conferences or any deviation from his usual habits, quiet being
essential. Thereupon Pitt and Lord Eldon wrote to the King urging this
prudent course. They frequently visited Buckingham House, where five
physicians were in almost constant attendance, a state of things viewed
with alarm by patriots and with eager hope by the Foxites and their
hangers on.[683]
Unfortunately George could not compose himself to rest. Such is the
tenor of hasty notes sent to Pitt by Villiers, now high in favour at Kew
and Windsor. They describe the King's fussy intervention in household
affairs, his orders for sudden and expensive changes in the palaces, his
substitution of German for English servants, his frequent visits to the
stables unaccompanied by the equerry, his irritability on the most
trifling occasions, and, alternating with this undignified bustle, fits
of somnolence which at times overtook him even on horseback. Then, too,
there were quarrels with the Queen, whose conduct, said Villiers, was
such as to aggravate these troubles and check the course of recovery.
Indeed, the King's violent headaches seemed to Dr. Milman to presage an
attack of apoplexy. At all times he showed a marked preference for the
company of servants and workmen, declaring the higher officials to be
"Court nuisances." Villiers therefore begged Pitt to request an
interview with the King, now at Kew, for he took no notice of letters.
On Midsummer day Villiers suggested means for assuring the veto of the
physicians on the projected visit to Weymouth, in view of the
extravagance and inconvenience of the plans to which it gave rise.
Among them was the collection of a large military force in Dorset,
George being convinced that the French would land there rather than in
Kent or Essex. Fortunately, the Duke of York dissuaded him from a step
so eminently favourable to Napoleon; for about this time the King wrote
to the Duke: "As I am no friend to obstinacy, I will agree to lessen the
demand from other districts" (_i.e._, for an "Army of Reserve" in
Dorset). The visit to Weymouth was also postponed; and Camden, Secretary
at War, countermanded the construction of huge barracks at that town,
which the King had ordered without consulting the Cabinet or the Duke of
York. On 1st August Villiers reported the refusal of the King to see the
Prince of Wales, with whom no complete reconciliation was possible.
George wished Villiers to come and reside near Windsor and manage all
his private affairs, and would take no refusal. But how, asked Villiers,
was he to do this on £330 a year? He therefore requested the advice and
help of Pitt.[684]
At Weymouth, late in the summer, the quarrels between the King and Queen
again became acute, as appears from confidential letters which Lord
Hawkesbury wrote to Pitt. The latter sided with the Queen and Princes on
some points; and indeed through these months the conduct of George seems
to have been so exasperating that the Princesses almost sank under the
ceaseless strain, for Queen Charlotte, too, was "ill and cross." In vain
did Pitt seek to effect a reconciliation between the King and the
Prince of Wales. The only result of his efforts was a formal and
fruitless interview. Last but not least of Pitt's Court worries was the
conduct of the Princess of Wales. Her wayward and extravagant habits
increased the aversion of the Prince, and produced scandals so serious
that Pitt urgently but ineffectually remonstrated with her at her
residence in Blackheath. Such were the diversions of a Minister on whom
almost singly rested the burden of defending his country at this crisis.
The eccentricities of the King seriously hampered British diplomacy. For
how could Russia and Austria bind themselves to an Administration which
might at any time be succeeded by one which was under the domination of
the Prince of Wales, Fox, and Sheridan? True, offers of a defensive
alliance were mooted at St. Petersburg to our ambassador, Admiral
Warren. But it was obvious even to that misplaced sailor, whom Pitt soon
recalled, that Russia merely aimed at securing English subsidies and
help for her garrison at Corfu, now threatened by Soult. The timid
conduct of Francis II, who, as if in imitation of Napoleon, assumed the
title of Hereditary Emperor of the Austrian Empire, further prescribed
caution; and only by slow degrees did the Czar Alexander feel his way
towards an understanding with England. His jealousy respecting Malta,
and the uncertainties at London and Windsor, held these natural allies
apart for many months. Pitt did not hurry matters, doubtless from a
conviction that the conduct of Napoleon must before long bring both
Russia and Austria into the field. Meanwhile, he withheld subsidies
which would have helped them to arm for an almost inevitable
struggle.[685] We need not therefore trace the course of these coy
advances until they led to definite overtures. Here as always Pitt
showed a dignified reserve and a cautious regard for British finances,
which refute the stories officially circulated at Paris as to his
lavishly bribing the Continental States to attack France. As usually
happens, the prosaic truth long remained hidden in British despatches,
while the piquant slander gained all but universal acceptance.
Pitt's first thought was to enhance the value of England's friendship by
strengthening her navy and enabling her to take the offensive if an
occasion offered. The French royalist refugee, General Dumouriez, in a
long Memoir which he drew up for the Cabinet, pointed out that nothing
was more perilous than a perpetual defensive, as it allowed the enemy
quietly to perfect his plans for attack at any point over the whole
field.[686] Pitt was well aware of this danger. In fact, his policy of
military pinpricks, while apparently wasteful and inconclusive, had
prevented that concentration of the enemy's force which alone could
ensure the capture of London. Once more, then, he aimed at strengthening
the regular army, reducing the Militia to its usual quota, and raising a
large force of Volunteers. On 5th June 1804 he brought forward his
proposal for repairing the defects of Yorke's Army of Reserve Act. They
arose from the following provisions. A man, when drawn to serve in that
force, must either come forward, find a substitute, or pay a fine of £20
for each year of default. A penalty also fell on every parish failing to
supply its quota. The consequence was that parishes and individuals
offered high bounties in order to escape the fine--sometimes as much as
£40 or £60 per man.[687] These bounties naturally drew the best recruits
to the Army of Reserve, to the detriment both of the army and navy.
Another source of loss to the line regiments was the addition to the
strength of the Militia, the net result being that 9,000 more recruits
were required annually for the regular forces. These therefore suffered
from the competition of the second and third lines of defence; and in
this competition (then unusually severe) has always lain the crux of the
British military problem.
Pitt sought to solve the problem by reducing the Militia (now 74,000
strong) to the old standard of 52,000 men, transferring the surplus to
the Army of Reserve. He also suggested various inducements to men in the
latter force to enter the line regiments. Further, he proposed to lessen
the penalties levied on defaulters. While maintaining the principle of
compulsory service, at least for a considerable part of the population,
he lessened the inducements which told in favour of the Army of Reserve
and against the Line. Further, in place of the irritating plan of
recruiting by the compulsion of the ballot, Pitt made the parish
authorities responsible for the supply of their quota. If, even so, the
parishes could not find the men, the commander of the district was
empowered to raise them by the ordinary means of recruiting. He further
proposed to associate in each district the battalions of the Army of
Reserve with those of the Line, in the well-grounded hope of increasing
_esprit de corps_ and stimulating the flow of men into the first line of
defence.
The chief critic of these proposals was Sheridan who, on 18th June
brilliantly declaimed against the formation of a great Regular Army, as
alien to the spirit of our people, and by all the arts of rhetorical
necromancy sought to raise the spectre of a Standing Army. When others
bemoaned the threatened increase of taxation and Windham and Craufurd
("Craufurd of the Light Division") criticized the measure severely, the
Opposition cherished the hope of defeating the Ministry. The debate
dragged on till 4 a.m. when 265 members supported Pitt against 223 Noes.
The Bill became law on 29th June. Undoubtedly it failed to answer his
hopes. Recruits did not come in, probably because most parishes were
thenceforth content to pay the smaller fines now imposed. Grenville even
ventured to assert that the Regular Army was smaller at the beginning of
1805 than a year earlier. Certainly the numbers were deficient; and Pitt
accordingly on 31st March 1805 brought in a Bill to attract men from the
Supplementary Militia into the Regular Army by a bounty of ten guineas
per man. This brought forward 11,000 men, but at the expense of the
Militia.[688] Thus Pitt did not solve the military problem. Who indeed
has solved it?
Most fortunately for England, the Emperor had made serious
miscalculations respecting the flotilla now preparing at the ports
between Ostend and Etaples. First he armed his gun-boats heavily so that
they might fight their way across against a fleet. On finding this to be
impossible, he had to face the delay and expense of reconstruction. Next
the harbours at and near Boulogne proved to be too shallow and too small
for the enlarged flotilla. The strengthening of the French fleet was
also a work of time. England therefore gained a year's respite. Indeed
not a few experienced naval officers scouted an invasion by the flotilla
as impossible. General Moore also believed that Napoleon would never be
so mad as to make the attempt, which must end in our glory and his
disgrace. Only by continuing to threaten us could he do harm.[689]
Another sceptic was Lord Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty, who, in
a letter of 14th October, urged Pitt during his stay at Weymouth to
represent to the King the importance of attacking the flotilla at
Boulogne, if only in order to show the impracticability of Napoleon's
scheme. Experienced officers, said Melville, reported that the flotilla
must embark the troops in the outer road; yet the work of getting that
vast concourse of boats out of the inner harbour could not be
accomplished in less than four, five, or perhaps even six tides. We must
therefore attack them during this tedious operation. "Our officers and
seamen," he continues, "have a perfect confidence that they can attack
them under their own batteries, and put them into immediate
confusion.... Their confidence is founded on the experiment they have
already made of entering in the night the Bay of Boulogne and sustaining
for many hours the whole fire of the enemy's batteries without a single
man being hurt." Moreover, the British fire-ships, being like ordinary
ships, will take the enemy by surprise and cause irremediable
confusion.[690] Apparently the King and Pitt thought an attack not only
too risky, in view of the failures at Boulogne in 1801 and on 3rd
October 1804, but also needless, if the flotilla were no more formidable
than Melville pronounced. While inspecting the "Royal Sovereign" at
Portsmouth on 6th October the King wrote to Pitt enjoining great
caution, as a failure would be very discreditable.[691]
I do not propose to discuss here the much debated question whether
Napoleon intended to invade England, or to wear us out by threats of
invasion.[692] Suffice it to say that no responsible Minister could
ignore those formidable preparations. Pitt therefore strove might and
main to raise martial enthusiasm by attending drills and reviews of
Volunteers. A cynical phrase in Grenville's letter of 25th August 1804
dwells on the ridiculous figure which he cut, riding from Downing Street
to Wimbledon Common and thence to Cox Heath in Kent "to inspect military
carriages, impregnable batteries, and Lord Chatham's reviews. Can he
possibly be serious in expecting Bonaparte now?" The sneer is a sign of
the strained relations between the cousins. Assuredly, if Bonaparte had
come, Grenville and his Foxite allies would have impeached a Minister
who left his country defenceless. Pitt showed a good example to country
gentlemen by drilling his corps of Volunteers at Walmer, so that it
became a model of efficiency. There was the greatest need at that point,
for the coast between Ramsgate and Dungeness presented exceptional
facilities for a landing except under the guns of Sandown, Deal, Walmer,
and Dover. Pitt's attention was specially directed to the open shelving
beach between Folkestone and Dungeness.
In truth, the district of Romney Marsh, which is not normally marshy,
offered the maximum of attractions to an invader, who, after beaching
his boats and entrenching himself behind a fosse, would find few, if
any, physical obstacles to his advance into the level tract between
Ashford and Tonbridge. As this route was undefended, Pitt and Camden, by
the month of October 1804, decided on the construction of the Hythe
Military Canal. On 24th October Pitt attended a meeting of the
"surveyors, lords, bailiffs and jurats" of Romney Marsh held at
Dymchurch, Generals Sir David Dundas and Moore, and Colonel Brown being
also present. It was agreed that the proposed canal from Sandgate to Rye
would be beneficial to Romney Marsh, and landlords were urged forthwith
to put their property at the disposal of Government, trusting to receive
compensation assessed by a duly qualified local jury. On Pitt's
recommendation the matter was passed at once, and he returned to Walmer
Castle.[693] By the end of 1804 the work was well in hand, the expense
of cutting the fosse of ten feet deep being estimated at £150,000.
Batteries and martello towers were designed for its protection
especially around Hythe and Dymchurch. At the latter place were sluices
for flooding the marsh. Criticisms have fallen freely upon Pitt's canal,
the report gaining currency that it was intended for the conveyance of
military stores. Its true purpose was to isolate the most vulnerable
part of the coast and to form a barrier which would at least delay an
invader until reinforcements arrived. In its original condition it was
an excellent first line of defence of South Kent; and, unless the French
flotilla brought over pontoons, it formed a barrier not easily
penetrable, which fully justified its comparatively small cost.
The same remarks apply to the martello towers. The responsibility for
them rests mainly with Colonel Twiss and Captain Ford, who in the summer
of 1803 recommended their construction at exposed points of the shore,
at a cost of about £3,000 apiece. The experience of our troops in
Corsica showed that such towers, even when held by small garrisons,
could hold at bay a greatly superior force.[694] The towers were begun
soon afterwards; but those in Pevensey Bay were not undertaken till
1805-6. The first points to be defended were those nearest to France.
In the winter of 1804-5 there was need to strengthen the coast defences;
for the declaration of war by Spain placed the whole of the coast line
from the Texel to Toulon at Napoleon's disposal for shipbuilding. There
seemed therefore every prospect of our being finally overwhelmed at sea,
a consummation which the French Emperor might have ensured had he
refrained from irritating the monarchs of Russia and Austria.
Fortunately for England, his nature was too restless and domineering to
admit of the necessary concentration of effort on the naval problem; and
that besetting sin, megalomania, marred prospects which then seemed
easily realizable. Playing with coolness and patience, he had the game
in his hands in 1804, when as yet there was little prospect of an
Anglo-Russian alliance.
An offensive alliance of Spain with France was the natural result of the
treaty of 1796 between the two Powers. In vain did the luxurious
Charles IV and his pampered minion, Godoy, Prince of the Peace, seek to
evade their obligations. Under threat of a French invasion they gave way
and agreed to pay 72,000,000 francs a year into the French exchequer,
and to force the hand of Portugal. That little Power purchased immunity
for a time by paying an annual subsidy of 12,000,000 francs to France.
Spain also repaired French warships which took refuge at Ferrol in July
1804, and allowed reinforcements to their crews to travel thither
overland. When Pitt and Harrowby remonstrated on this conduct, Spain
armed as if for war; and in answer to inquiries from London, Godoy
alleged certain disputes with the United States as the cause of his
alarm. The arrival in London of Frere, our ambassador at Madrid, on 17th
September 1804 revealed the unreality of this excuse; for he reported
that Spain had previously decided to yield on that question. As the
Spanish fleet was evidently preparing to cooperate with that of
Napoleon, Pitt resolved to deal the blow which Chatham was not allowed
to deliver in 1761. The weak point of Spain was her treasure fleet;
there was an inner fitness in wrenching from her the gold which was soon
to go into Napoleon's coffers.
On Tuesday, 18th September, the Cabinet assembled, Eldon, Camden,
Hawkesbury, Melville, Mulgrave, and Pitt being present. In view of the
news brought by Frere, and other tidings from Rear-Admiral Cochrane off
Ferrol, Ministers decided to order Cochrane closely to blockade that
port, preventing both French and Spanish ships from sailing out. Admiral
Cornwallis, then blockading Brest, was to reinforce Cochrane, thereby
assuring the capture of the Spanish treasure ships bound from South
America to Cadiz.[695] Pitt at once reported this decision to Harrowby,
then in attendance on the King at Weymouth, and urged a speedy
ratification of it.[696] Hence without delay the order went forth which
enlarged the area of strife. The four frigates despatched for the
seizure of the treasure-ships were not so superior in force to the
convoying corvettes as to avert a conflict. One of the Spanish ships
blew up: the others surrendered (5th October 1804). Resenting this
outrage, Spain declared war on 12th December.[697] Pitt did not consider
the capture of the treasure-ships as necessarily involving war, but
rather as a sharp warning, called for by the hostile conduct of Spain;
for on 23rd September he wrote to Harrowby stating that they must wait
for the Spanish answer to our ultimatum, and in the meantime Spanish
merchantmen might leave British ports unmolested.[698]
The seizure of the Spanish treasure-ships caused resentment at St.
Petersburg until the causes of Britain's action were more fully known.
But the event did not long delay a good understanding. The prospect of
Sicily falling a prey to the French army of occupation in South Italy
alarmed both the Czar Alexander and Pitt. The former was bound by a
Convention signed in 1798 to befriend the Neapolitan Court; and it was
also to his interest to prevent France dominating the Mediterranean and
expelling the Russians from Corfu. He therefore demanded from Napoleon
the evacuation of Italy and North Germany, a suitable compensation for
the King of Sardinia for the loss of his mainland possessions, and the
recognition of the complete neutrality of the Germanic Empire. Far from
complying with these demands, Napoleon kept his troops in South Italy
and Hanover, and early in November seized Sir Horace Rumbold, British
ambassador at Hamburg. At once Pitt and Harrowby made effective use of
this incident to prove the impossibility of peace with Napoleon. The
Russian and Prussian Courts sent sharp remonstrances to Paris; and, to
humour Frederick William, Napoleon ordered the release of the envoy,
though in the most grudging way possible. This violation of
international law served to counterbalance our irregular action against
Spain.
In short, Napoleon's evident resolve everywhere to carry matters with a
high hand convinced the Czar that war was inevitable; and he prepared to
espouse the cause of Britain, not so much from sympathy with her as from
detestation of her restless adversary.[699] On 20th November Pitt wrote
from Downing Street to Harrowby, who was then taking the waters at Bath,
expressing joy that the views of Russia coincided entirely with ours,
especially as to the reduction of the French Power within its ancient
limits. He added these noteworthy words: "The restoration of the
[French] monarchy may become in the course of events an object to be
distinctly aimed at, but it certainly cannot be made a substantive
object in the first instance; and it is very satisfactory to see that in
this important point there is no apparent difference in our
sentiments."[700] The hope of ending Prussia's subservience to Napoleon,
and of inspiring Francis of Austria with a manly resolve, proved futile.
Frederick William and Haugwitz hoped to creep into Hanover, under the
French Emperor's cloak, and Austria had not yet suffered enough
humiliation to lead her to fling down the gauntlet. True, she signed a
compact with Russia on 6th November 1804; but it was timidly defensive
in tone. Alexander therefore held back in the hope that events would
compel her to take sides against Napoleon.
Far less calculating was Gustavus IV of Sweden. With the chivalrous zeal
of his race he stood forth the first among the European monarchs as the
declared ally of England. After the execution of the Duc d'Enghien by
the French Emperor, he informed "Monsieur" Napoleon Bonaparte of the
rupture of all relations between them; and now, on 3rd December 1804, an
Anglo-Swedish Convention was signed, placing at our disposal the Isle of
Rügen and the fortress of Stralsund in Swedish Pomerania, in return for
a subsidy of £80,000. This sum served but to whet his appetite for
subsidies, his demands almost equalling in extravagance his Quixotic
summons to a royalist crusade.
Pitt therefore based his hopes on the statesmanlike policy of the Czar,
who in that month despatched to London one of his confidants, a clever
but viewy young man, of frank and engaging manners, Count Novossiltzoff.
Ostensibly the mission was for scientific purposes; but French agents
discovered that he took with him a plan of a Coalition against
Napoleon.[701] This seems to have led the Emperor to take a step similar
to that of Christmastide 1799. On 2nd January 1805 he wrote a letter
direct to George III, proposing terms of peace. The King at once
expressed to Pitt his astonishment that "the French usurper" had
addressed him in this objectionable manner, and highly approved the
draft of an answer which Pitt had thoughtfully forwarded to Windsor. In
it Pitt declared that His Majesty could not enter upon the proposed
overtures for peace until he had communicated them to the Powers with
which he had confidential ties, especially to the Emperor of Russia. At
the King's command, he sent a copy of this answer to St. Petersburg. At
London, then, as also at Paris, Napoleon's offer was deemed a diplomatic
device for getting news, though it also enabled him to represent himself
as the friend of peace and Pitt as its worst enemy.
While the French Emperor played his game with the advantages conferred
by a daring initiative, superior force, and unquestioned authority at
home, Pitt had to employ all possible means to conciliate allies abroad
and half-hearted friends at Westminster. His position was far from
secure. True, the King had now recovered almost his usual health; but in
Parliament the Ministry with difficulty repelled the bitter attacks of
Fox, Sheridan, Grenville, and Windham. The speech of Grenville on the
seizure of the Spanish treasure ships was of singular bitterness. Though
aware of the provocations of the Spanish Court, he chose to represent
that affair as a cowardly, and almost piratical attack on an unprepared
Power. Pitt had expected some such misrepresentations. He knew that the
Opposition would strain every nerve to overthrow him; and in the
Christmas Vacation he made timely overtures through Hawkesbury for the
support of Addington. The two old friends met on 23rd December 1804, at
Hawkesbury's residence, Coombe Wood, near Richmond Park. The host
contrived to be absent when Pitt entered the room, and he advanced with
the cordial greeting: "I rejoice to take you by the hand again."
Converse of three hours ensued between them alone. Addington demurred to
Pitt's request that he should retire to the Upper House. Finally,
however, he agreed to do so, accepting the title of Viscount Sidmouth,
taking also the Presidency of the Council, which the Duke of Portland,
for reasons of health, wished to relinquish, though he finally agreed to
remain in the Cabinet without office. Lord Hobart, now Earl of
Buckinghamshire, also entered the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster in place of Lord Mulgrave, who now succeeded Lord Harrowby at
the Foreign Office. Pitt further promised to promote some of Addington's
supporters, including his brother-in-law, Bragge Bathurst.
These changes were resented by several of Pitt's supporters, especially
by Rose. We have already noticed his contempt for Addington's financial
shifts; and he now, on 8th January 1805, wrote to Bishop Tomline
deploring Pitt's junction with "a man whose imbecility and falsehood,
under Mr. Pitt's own sanction," had weakened the country. Pitt would now
gain a few votes, no additional talents, and an increase of rancour in
the Opposition. "We shall," adds Rose, "drag on a wretched existence and
expire not creditably. What next will happen God only knows."[702]
Canning was equally annoyed at the new Coalition.[703] His sharp tongue
and still sharper pen had deeply annoyed Addington. Who, indeed, would
not have resented this reference in the "Apothecary's Hall (First of
April)":
When his speeches hobble vilely
How "Hear him" bursts from brother Hiley!
When his faltering periods lag
Hark to the cheers of brother Bragge!
Sarcasms on Hawkesbury had also annoyed that susceptible Minister; so
that in June 1804 Canning offered to resign his Treasurership of the
Navy. The matter was patched up, only to be opened once more in the
winter. Pitt sought to mediate between the bard and his victim, but
failed to elicit from Canning an apology as complete as Hawkesbury
demanded. Finally, on 18th January, Canning informed Pitt that, as
Hawkesbury had left his letter unanswered for three days, he declined to
take the further steps which Pitt recommended.[704] Is it surprising
that the health of the Prime Minister began to suffer? Friends noted
with concern his thinness and a hacking cough. Nevertheless, he rode out
successfully the squalls of the session of 1805, beating off the onset
of Sheridan against his Defence Bill, and defeating an inopportune
motion of Fox for Catholic Emancipation.
On this subject Pitt secretly sympathized with Fox, but his hands were
tied both by his promise of March 1801 to the King not to bring up the
subject during his reign, and recently by his union with Addington. The
Irish Catholics knew of these difficulties; and at meetings held by
their leading men at the house of James Ryan, a wealthy Dublin merchant,
in the autumn of 1804, both Lord Fingall and Counsellor Scully
deprecated a petition to Parliament as alike useless and embarrassing.
Scully urged that they must conciliate one whose "opinions had literally
proved of great weight in the Catholic cause.... The Catholics owe him
[Pitt] respect for his enlarged and manly conceptions of the necessity
of relieving them, and the dignified energy with which he publicly
expressed those conceptions." A Committee was chosen to consider the
matter and communicate with Pitt. It included Fingall, Sir Thomas
French, Scully, and others. At the third meeting at Ryan's house, on
17th November, Keogh sharply blamed Fingall for opposing the petition,
and commented adversely on the silence of Pitt. Scully inferred from it
"that he is favourably disposed, but in some way, to them unknown, not
in a situation in which he can freely act," or even explain his
reticence; but no Catholic wished to embarrass him.[705] Nevertheless,
the petition was resolved on; and it is clear that Fox encouraged the
petitioners rather from the hope of embarrassing Pitt than of carrying
Catholic Emancipation.[706]
In March 1805 Scully came to London, and saw Fox, Nepean, and Grey. Pitt
received him and others of the Irish deputation at Downing Street on the
12th. Scully noted in his diary: "He [Pitt] wore dirty boots and
odd-fashioned, lank leather breeches, but otherwise well dressed and
cleanly, his hair powdered, etc. He was very courteous and cordial in
words and looks, but his carriage was stiff and strait, perhaps
naturally so. His face cold and harsh, rather selfish, but acute and
sensible. We took our seats after much reciprocal ceremony." Pitt
declined Fingall's request that he should present the Catholic petition,
though he admitted that the measure would be most salutary whenever the
proper time would arrive; but he added with a smile that he could not
tell when that would be. The deputation failed to move him from this
position, and thereafter committed its cause to the Opposition.[707]
Despite excellent speeches by Fox and Grey, and by Grenville and Holland
in the Lords, the motions for Catholic Emancipation were rejected by
large majorities. The speech of Pitt on 14th May, to which reference has
already been made, naturally lacked energy and fire; he opposed Fox's
motion solely on the ground of present expediency.[708]
The worst trial of the session was the impeachment of his old friend,
Lord Melville. As Treasurer of the Navy in Pitt's former Administration,
he had been guilty of a serious irregularity in not preventing Deputy
Treasurer Trotter from using the sum of £10,000 for private speculation.
Suspicions having been aroused on this and other grounds, a Commission
was appointed to sift the matter to the bottom. The tenth Report dealing
with these charges came out on 17th or 18th March; and Wilberforce, who
then chanced to be with Pitt, noted how eagerly, without waiting to cut
open the pages, he sought to tear out the secret. It proved to be highly
unfavourable to Melville. In vain did Wilberforce and Bankes seek to
persuade Pitt to adopt a judicial attitude on this question. Though his
friendship with Melville had cooled, yet it was still strong, and he
finally agreed with Lord Sidmouth to press for a committee of inquiry.
Only so could he count on the support of the Addingtonians. On 8th
April, then, he resolutely defended Melville against the aspersions of
Whitbread, maintaining that the evidence before the Commission was far
from conclusive, and moving that a select Committee of the House should
make further investigations.
The debate was long and stormy. Petty, Tierney, George Ponsonby, and Fox
censured Melville severely. Canning with his wonted brilliance,
Castlereagh with the usual laboured infelicity, sought to strengthen the
defence; but it had almost collapsed when, about 4 a.m. of 9th April,
Wilberforce arose. At once Pitt bent forward and sent an eager glance
down the Treasury bench at his old friend; for the verdict of a
conscientious and independent member at such a time is decisive.
Speaking with the calm of deep conviction, the member for Yorkshire
declared against Melville, whereupon Pitt sank back with signs of deep
pain. The division showed 216 for and 216 against the motion of censure.
The Speaker, Abbott, turned deathly white, and after a long and trying
pause gave the casting vote against the Government. Then the pent up
feelings burst forth. The groups of the Opposition united in yells of
triumph; one member gave the "view holloa," and others shouted to Pitt
to resign. He meanwhile pressed forward his hat to hide the tears which
stole down his cheeks. Fitzharris, son of Lord Malmesbury, and a few
devoted friends formed a phalanx to screen him from the insolent stare
of Colonel Wardle and others who were crowding round the exit to see
"how Billy Pitt looked after it"; and he was helped out of the House in
a half unconscious state. The blow told severely on a frame already
enfeebled by overwork and worry.[709]
Whitbread's further motion for impeachment was rejected (11th June), but
a similar motion succeeded a fortnight later. Public opinion, however,
soon began to veer round and pronounce the conduct of the Opposition
rancorous. Melville's relative, Sir Charles Middleton, in a letter to
Wilberforce, denounced it as sheer persecution, seeing that the nation
had suffered no loss, and Melville had served it many years with
indefatigable zeal. As for Melville, he retired to his Highland seat,
"Dunira," and in the last letter which he wrote to Pitt, dated 11th
November 1805, expressed gratitude for Pitt's recent message that his
energy at the Admiralty had largely contributed to the triumph at
Trafalgar. Melville's feelings further appeared in the postscript, that
Nelson's death was "enviable beyond expression," as placing "his fair
fame beyond the reach of caprice, envy, or malevolence."[710] Pitt did
not live on to see the vindication of his old friend. On 12th June 1806,
after a trial of twelve days in Westminster Hall, the Peers acquitted
Melville on all the ten counts, the prosecution failing to prove that he
had benefited by Trotter's irregular use of the sum of £10,000. It is
worth noting that Whitbread in his final attack declared his belief that
Pitt in similar circumstances would have died rather than connive at
such an irregularity.[711] This statement may be set against the Bacchic
outburst of Creevey, after the hostile vote in Parliament, that Pitt had
betrayed Melville in order to save himself from ruin.[712]
Pitt, seconded in this by Grenville, urged the appointment of Middleton,
whose sagacity and long experience at the Admiralty had of late
furnished the First Lord with invaluable counsel. True, he was eighty
years of age, but neither had his frame lost vigour nor his mind
alertness. Seeing that his reputation as a naval expert was unequalled,
Pitt little expected to encounter the stiff opposition of Lords Sidmouth
and Buckinghamshire to the appointment, which they designed for
Buckinghamshire, Hawkesbury, or Charles Yorke. The King, too, probably
influenced by Sidmouth, expressed his disapproval of Middleton,
preferring those just named, or Castlereagh, or even Chatham. In a
matter which concerned the safety of the nation Pitt was inexorable,
facing for several days the threats of resignation of his two colleagues
and the disapproval of the King. Finally he carried his point, the two
lords being pacified by the assurance that Middleton's appointment would
be temporary. The King also consented to raise him to the peerage as
Lord Barham, adding, however, the proviso that he should attend the
Cabinet only during the discussion of naval affairs. In this grudging
way did the Monarch and Sidmouth permit Middleton to reap the reward of
life-long service and the nation to benefit by his unique experience.
Only of late has the work done by Barham during the Trafalgar campaign
been duly set forth; and it is therefore possible now to estimate the
service rendered by Pitt in insisting on his appointment even at the
risk of the secession of the Addingtonian group.[713]
Before referring to naval affairs, we must glance at the efforts of Pitt
to frame a Coalition of the Powers against France. In the middle of
January 1805 he had important interviews with Novossiltzoff, the envoy
whom the Czar Alexander had despatched to London on an important
mission. For this ardent young reformer Alexander had drawn up secret
instructions which the curious may read in the Memoirs of his Minister,
Czartoryski.[714] They illustrate the mingling of sentimentality and
statecraft, of viewiness and ambition, which accounts for the strange
oscillations of Muscovite policy between altruistic philosophy and
brutal self-seeking. At present the Russian Janus turned his modern face
westwards. Alexander insisted on the need of tearing from France the
mask of liberty which she had so long and so profitably worn. Against
the naturalism of Rousseau, which supplied Napoleon with excellent
reasons for every annexation, Alexander resolved to appeal to historical
rights and the Balance of Power. Yet he also resolved to uphold the
rights of all the peoples concerned. They must be reconciled to their
rulers so as to harmonize the claims of legitimacy and liberty. Thus,
the King of Sardinia, when restored to his throne at Turin, was to be
induced to grant a Constitution. The Germanic System was to be rescued
from chaos by the grant of free federal institutions. The independence
of the Italian, Helvetic, and Dutch Republics was a matter of urgency,
those States being also strengthened against French aggressions.
Finally, Russia and England were, if possible, to secure the friendship
of Turkey.
With these aims Pitt declared his entire concurrence, a just and
lasting peace being the first of British interests. He developed these
notions in a remarkable document of date 19th January 1805. We may be
sure that it is his; for, an accident having befallen the Earl of
Harrowby at the close of 1804, Lord Mulgrave took his place at the
Foreign Office, and a new comer would not have ventured to impose his
own views as to the future of Europe. Pitt now recurred to his plans of
the year 1798 for assuring the repose of the Continent. In brief, they
were the aggrandisement of Austria in Northern Italy and of Prussia in
the Low Countries so as to form barriers against France. The Italian
Republic must therefore be divided between the Hapsburgs and the King of
Sardinia, the latter also absorbing the Genoese Republic, which had
forfeited all claim to consideration. Pitt did not enter into details
respecting Belgium; but probably he intended to offer it to Prussia, in
order to still her cravings for Hanover. Such was his proposal to the
Court of Berlin in October 1805.[715] Conscious, perhaps, that the
present plans were not consonant with the benevolent idealism of Russian
policy, which, however, stole sidelong glances at Constantinople, Pitt
declared that only by these arrangements could the peace of Europe be
secured. They were therefore "not repugnant to the most sacred
principles of justice and public morality." In order further to curb the
aggressions of Napoleon, the Great Powers were mutually to guarantee
their possessions, thus laying the foundation of a system of public
right.[716]
This scheme clearly foreshadows the system of alliances and compromises
carried out by Castlereagh in the Treaty of Chaumont nine years later.
Pitt also assented to the Czar's proposal that the final settlement
should be guaranteed by international agreements forming a basis for the
new European polity, a suggestion in which lies the germ of the Holy
Alliance. It would be absurd to hold Pitt responsible for the strange
and unforeseen developments of the years 1815-25. But it is to be
regretted that fear of Napoleon should have obliterated his earlier aim
of forming a defensive league of the weaker States. His cure for the
evils of French domination was scarcely better than the evils
themselves. The installation of the Hapsburgs at Venice and Milan, of
Victor Emmanuel I at Genoa, of Frederick William of Prussia at
Brussels, could not permanently improve the lot of the Italian and
Belgian peoples. So soon as we formulate the question we see that, as in
1798, Pitt left their welfare out of count. He aimed merely at piling up
barriers against France, and trusted to some vague arrangement with the
Czar for safeguarding the political rights of the bartered peoples.
Pitt's reliance on the statics of statecraft rather than on the dynamics
of nationality tells against the credibility of the oft-repeated story
that he prophesied the liberation of Europe by the enthusiasm and
efforts of the Spaniards. Wellington afterwards told the Spanish
general, Alava, that Pitt, on hearing of the disaster of Ulm, made this
prophecy at a dinner party at which he (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) was
present. Difficulties of time and place militate against the anecdote,
which, moreover, is out of harmony with the sentiments expressed in
Pitt's speeches, letters, and despatches.[717] Further, his experience
of Spain was such as to inspire him with deep distrust; and, finally,
the cast of his mind was so far objective as to forbid the indulgence of
speculations on the little-known topic of nationality. Distrusting novel
theories, he sought to utilize forces of tried potency. He worked by
diplomatic methods through Governments, not through the tumultuary
efforts of peoples. Dependence on a nation so backward as the Spaniards
would have seemed to him madness. Even if he could have seen the
surprising events of May-June 1808, he would probably have distrusted
the spirit which prompted them. In truth, he lacked the sympathetic
instinct which led Canning at that crisis to side with the Spanish
patriots and thus open a new chapter in the history of Europe.
Yet it is but just to remember that Pitt the diplomatic bargainer of
1805 differed from Pitt the upholder of weak States in 1790, only
because the times had completely changed. Against the destructive
schemes of Joseph II, Catharine II, and Hertzberg he worked on the whole
successfully. But now Poland was gone; Sweden and Turkey were safe; the
German tangle had been cut by the Secularizations of Church domains in
1803. Now the danger was from the West. France had swallowed up her
weaker neighbours. Napoleon dominated Spain, Italy, Switzerland, the
Rhenish States, and the Netherlands. Russian policy, subversive under
Catharine, was in a European sense conservative under Alexander. Then
the most damaging thrusts to the European fabric came from Vienna and
St. Petersburg. Now they came from Paris. Pitt therefore sought to
construct a rampart out of the weak States bordering on France. As the
Barrier Treaties of a century earlier were directed against Louis XIV,
so now Pitt sought to inaugurate an enlarged Barrier policy as a
safeguard against Napoleon. The efforts of at least half a million of
trained troops being available, the time had apparently come for a final
effort to preserve the Balance of Power before it was irretrievably
impaired.
For a time the Russian and British Governments seemed in complete
accord. Novossiltzoff, on his return to St. Petersburg, wrote to Pitt on
20th March 1805 (N.S.), describing the entire concurrence of his master
with the principles on which they had agreed at London. In about eight
days he would leave for Berlin to put forth his utmost endeavours to
gain the alliance of that Court. He would then proceed to Paris to
present the Czar's ultimatum. A refusal was expected; but his master
believed it more dignified to take all reasonable means of ensuring
peace. The orders for mobilizing the Russian troops would go forth at
the time of his departure for Berlin. Before his arrival at Paris, he
hoped to receive from London full powers authorizing him to speak for
Great Britain as well as for Russia.[718]
All this implied the closest union and sympathy. But now Alexander
showed the other side of his nature. He sought to drive a hard bargain
with Pitt. Firstly, he strove to obtain the promise of a larger British
force to form an integral part of a Russian expedition for the
deliverance of the Kingdom of Naples. In view of the paucity of our
disposable forces, Pitt had sought to limit the sphere of action to
Sicily and the neighbouring parts of Calabria, the defence of Sicily,
the key of the Mediterranean and the outwork of Egypt, being now and
throughout the war one of the cardinal aims of British policy. An
expedition under General Sir James Craig was about to set sail for Malta
and Messina; and the Czar required that, when strengthened, it should
act in any part of South Italy, under a Russian general. After wearisome
correspondence, a compromise was arrived at; and on 19th April 1805
Craig set sail from Portsmouth on his perilous voyage over seas now and
again swept by French and Spanish warships. By good fortune he escaped
these many dangers, and reached Malta, there setting free seasoned
troops for operations in South Italy. The hardihood of Pitt in sending
forth this expedition has often provoked criticism. But it was worth
while to run serious risks to save Sicily from the grip of Napoleon, and
to wrest from him the initiative which he had hitherto enjoyed
unchallenged. Besides, the Czar insisted on that effort, and made it
almost a _sine quâ non_ of his alliance. In a military sense the results
were contemptible; in the diplomatic sphere they were very great.[719]
Twelve days before Craig set sail, Czartoryski worried or coaxed the
British ambassador at St. Petersburg, Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, into
signing a provisional treaty of alliance. The Czar now promised to set
in motion half a million of men (half of them being Austrians, and only
115,000 Russians) so as to drive the French from Italy, Switzerland,
Germany, and the Low Countries, England subsidizing the allied forces at
the rate of £1,250,000 a year for every 100,000 men actually employed.
The liberated lands were to have the right of building their own
fortresses and choosing their own constitutions. But firstly, Alexander
would seek to restore peace to Europe; and to this end he would consent
to Napoleon placing his brother Joseph on the throne of North Italy,
either in Piedmont or in the Italian Republic, shadowy realms being
outlined in the Peninsula for the consolation of the dispossessed King
of Sardinia. But the sting of the proposal was in its tail. Alexander
suggested that, to secure the boon of peace, England should restore her
maritime conquests in the war, and also Malta if Napoleon insisted on
this last, the island being then garrisoned by Russians. In its blend of
hazy theorizings on general topics with astute egotism in Russian
affairs, the scheme is highly characteristic, peace being assured by
means which would substitute Muscovite for British rule at Malta; while
in the event of war, Great Britain was to pay at the rate of £6,250,000
a year for campaigns that would aggrandise the continental States at
the expense of France.[720]
What must have been the feelings of Pitt when he perused this Byzantine
offer? While prepared to give way on some parts of the January
proposals, he was determined to hold fast to Malta. The island had not
been named by him and Novossiltzoff, its present destiny being assumed
as irrevocably fixed. But now Alexander swung back to the aims of his
father, the domination of the Central Mediterranean from the impregnable
fortress of Valetta. Probably some of the Knights of the Order of St.
John who had sought refuge in Russia gained the ear of Alexander in the
spring of 1805, and produced the startling change in his policy just
described. Whatever the cause, Pitt's answer could be none other than a
firm refusal. In Count Simon Vorontzoff, Russian ambassador at London,
he found a secret sympathizer, who entered heartily into his plans for
the salvation of Europe, foreseeing that only by the retention of Malta
for the Union Jack could the Mediterranean be saved from becoming a
French lake; and that if either Gower or Pitt wavered on this question,
the country would disown them.[721] Official etiquette, of course,
compelled him to proffer Alexander's demand, and to declare that, unless
Pitt gave way about Malta, there was an end of all hope of the alliance.
Here Pitt intervened with the statesmanlike remark: "It will not save
Europe. The Mediterranean, the Levant and Egypt, will be in the power of
France the moment a British squadron ceases to have for base a good port
protected by formidable fortifications.... So, whatever pain it causes
us (and it is indeed great) we must give up the hope of seeing the
alliance ratified, since its express condition is our renunciation of
Malta. We will continue the war alone. It will be maritime."
Thus Malta, the final cause of the Great War, now promised to limit that
war. Vorontzoff prevailed on Pitt to defer reporting his refusal to St.
Petersburg. But on 27th May he stated that the last ray of hope had
disappeared, as neither Court would give way. On 5th June, then,
Mulgrave penned for Gower a despatch summarizing Pitt's reasons why
England must retain Malta. She was ready to restore her valuable
conquests in the East and West Indies, but the key of the Mediterranean
she must not and would not surrender. Neither would she relax her
maritime code as the Emperor of Russia now insisted; for experience had
shown it to be necessary for the equipment of the British fleets and the
crippling of the enemy's naval construction. In the maintenance of these
fleets lay the only hope of assuring the salvation of Europe. A more
convincing exposition of the importance of Sea Power has never gone
forth from a Government office.[722]
The deadlock was therefore complete. But now, as happened more than once
in the development of the Coalitions, Napoleon himself came to the
rescue. Whether he was aware of the breakdown of the Anglo-Russian
negotiation is uncertain; but his remark to Fouché--"I shall be able to
strike the blow before the old Coalition machines are ready"--and his
conduct in Italy in the months of May and June 1805 bear the imprint of
a boundless confidence, which, on any other supposition, savours of
madness. He well knew that no continental ruler but Gustavus of Sweden
desired war with him. Austria maintained her timid reserve. Alexander
was ready to negotiate with him through the medium of Novossiltzoff, who
was now at Berlin awaiting permission to proceed to Paris. The
predilections of Frederick William of Prussia for France were notorious;
for Hanover was his goal; and he and his counsellors saw far more hope
of securing it from Napoleon than from King George.[723]
Prudence and patience were therefore peculiarly necessary for Napoleon
at this juncture. He had the game in his hands if he would but
concentrate all his energies against England and leave severely alone
the land which then most interested Russia and Austria, namely, Italy.
But, either from the ingrained restlessness of his nature, which chafed
at the stalemate at Boulogne, or from contempt of "the old Coalition
machines," or from an innate conviction that Italy was his own political
preserve, he now took two steps which aroused the anger of the Russian
and Austrian Emperors. On 26th May 1805 he crowned himself King of Italy
in the cathedral of Milan, thereby welding that populous realm
indissolubly to his Empire. On 4th June he annexed outright the Genoese
or Ligurian Republic. Both acts were flagrant infractions of his Treaty
of Lunéville with Austria of four years before; and they contemptuously
overturned the Balance of Power which Alexander was striving to
re-establish. The results were soon apparent. "This man is insatiable,"
exclaimed Alexander; "his ambition knows no bounds; he is a scourge of
the world: he wants war; well, he shall have it, and the sooner the
better."
Novossiltzoff left Berlin for St. Petersburg; and his despatches of 10th
July to Vorontzoff and to Hardenberg, Foreign Minister at Berlin, prove
conclusively that it was Napoleon's annexation of Genoa which ended all
hope of peace on the Continent.[724] The French Emperor himself admitted
as much a few years later when he visited Genoa. Looking down on that
beautiful city, he exclaimed: "Ah! It was worth a war." In order to work
French patriotism up to the necessary pitch he on 30th May 1805 ordered
Fouché to have caricatures made at Paris depicting John Bull, purse in
hand, entreating the Powers to take his money and fight France. Insults
to Russia and England make up the rest of that angry and almost
illegible scrawl.[725] In his heart he knew that the war sprang from his
resolve to make the Mediterranean a French lake and Italy an annexe of
his imperial fabric.
The sequel may be told very briefly. On 28th July the Court of St.
Petersburg agreed to Pitt's version of the Anglo-Russian compact; and on
9th August the British ambassador at St. Petersburg pledged his country
to join the two Empires if Napoleon rejected the conditions of peace
still left open to him. In that case Gower promised to assure the
advance of five months' subsidy at the rate mentioned above.[726] It is
needless to say that Napoleon rejected all thought of compromise; and
Austria began to hurry her troops up the banks of the Danube for the
Bavarian campaign.[727] Thus Pitt won the diplomatic game. Or rather,
his opponent gave it to him by the last reckless move at Genoa. The
wrath of Alexander at this affront obliterated his annoyance at the
retention of Malta by Great Britain; and both he and the Emperor
Francis now prepared to enter the lists against Napoleon.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, Pitt sought to strengthen his Ministry in view of the
desertion of the Addingtonians. Two of them, Hiley Addington and Bond,
spoke bitterly against Melville during the debates of June, which led
Gillray to represent them as jackasses about to kick a wounded lion. So
annoyed was Pitt as to refuse them promotions which they expected,
whereupon Sidmouth and Buckinghamshire tendered their resignations. The
old friends parted sorrowfully after a final interview at Pitt's house
on Putney Heath (7th July). Camden now became President of the Council,
and Castlereagh Minister at War, Harrowby re-entering the Cabinet as
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
As the prospect of further taxation was calculated to depress Pitt's
supporters and inspirit the Opposition, he proceeded to Weymouth in the
middle of September to lay before the King an important proposal. The
formation of a truly national Administration being more than ever
essential, he besought George to admit certain members of the parties of
Fox and Grenville, especially in order to facilitate the passing of the
next Budget. The Monarch, however, was obdurate, asserting that Pitt had
done well in the past session and would probably fare better still in
the next. On 22nd September he repeated these statements to Rose, whom
he called to him on the esplanade, and was quite unconvinced by his
arguments that in the present state of parties the Budget could scarcely
be passed, and that, if Pitt chanced to be laid up with a fit of gout
for two or three weeks, there would be an end of the Administration. The
King would not hear of any change, and proved more intractable on this
topic than in the year before, during his stay at Cuffnells.[728] In
fact, in Rose's manuscript is a statement, prudently omitted from the
published Diaries, that George, on returning to his residence at
Weymouth, declared his resolve rather to risk a civil war than to admit
Fox into his councils.[729] Thus ended Pitt's last effort to form a
national Administration fitted to cope with the gigantic power of
Napoleon.
It is difficult to realize the multiplicity of the cares which pressed
upon Pitt. Rose feared that he would soon succumb to the burden; for,
apart from the defence of a weak Government against a strong Opposition,
Pitt transacted very much of the business of the War Office and Foreign
Office, besides assisting the Admiralty and the Commander-in-Chief. No
one in Europe, with the exception of Napoleon, worked so hard; and Pitt,
besides being ten years older than the Emperor, had far less physical
strength. We may judge, then, of the effect produced by a life such as
Lady Hester Stanhope described in a passage of more than usual
credibility: "Ah doctor," she said in her Lebanon days, "what a life was
his! Roused from sleep (for he was a good sleeper) with a despatch from
Lord Melville; then down to Windsor; then, if he had half an hour to
spare, trying to swallow something; Mr. Adams with a paper, Mr. Long
with another; then Mr. Rose: then, with a little bottle of cordial
confection in his pocket, off to the House until three or four in the
morning; then home to a hot supper for two or three hours more, to talk
over what was to be done next day:--and wine, and wine. Scarcely up next
morning, when 'tat-tat-tat,' twenty or thirty people one after another,
and the horses walking before the door from two till sunset, waiting for
him. It was enough to kill a man--it was murder."[730]
One who knew Pitt well gave wise advice to his secretary, William Dacre
Adams. "Attend to your meals regularly even if you sit up or rise the
earlier for it to get through the business. I have often been told that
half Mr. Pitt's complaints were originally brought on by fasting too
long and indeed only eating when he found it convenient, which ruined
the tone of his stomach."[731] These statements explain the reason for
the collapse of Pitt's strength late in the year. Hester's concluding
remark is somewhat hysterical, but it is nearer the truth than the
charge that Pitt was greedy of power. He killed himself by persistent
overwork on behalf of a nation which did not understand him, and in the
service of a Monarch who refused to allow him to strengthen his
Administration.
It is impossible now to feel one's way along all the threads which Pitt
held in his hands. But occasionally a chance reference reveals his
connection with designs of vast moment. The following is a case in
point. Castlereagh wrote to him, probably on 20th August 1805, in terms
which show that Pitt took a leading part in one of the decisions bearing
on the fate of the naval campaign which culminated at Trafalgar. The
daring and wisdom of his naval policy in 1805 has lately been fully
vindicated.[732] But the following letter throws new light on the
complex problem which arose after the indecisive success gained by
Admiral Calder over Villeneuve's French and Spanish fleets off Cape
Finisterre on 22nd July, and while the subsequent movements of those
fleets were not yet definitely known. Baird's expedition at Cork was
destined for the reduction of the Cape (ever Pitt's pre-occupation) so
soon as the way was fairly safe.
Downing St _Tuesday_ 3 P.M.[733]
MY DEAR SIR,
I have just seen Lord Hawkesbury and Lord Barham, Adml
Cornwallis having anticipated your intentions by detaching 20
sail of the line off Ferrol, and the wind being now favourable,
it appears to us that no time should be lost in ordering Sir D.
Baird to sail. As Ld H. and Ld B. seem to entertain no doubt
of your approving of this step, I shall send the orders without
delay. I shall remain in town tonight and be at your disposal as
best suits your engagements.
Ever yours,
CASTLEREAGH.
The most interesting words in this letter are "your intentions." They
seem to imply that the plan of detaching part of Admiral Cornwallis's
fleet off Brest to the assistance of Calder off the North West of Spain
was originally Pitt's own, not Lord Barham's, as has been hitherto
supposed. They must not be pressed too much; for the advice of Barham,
First Lord of the Admiralty, must have been paramount. Nevertheless the
proposal was evidently Pitt's as well as Barham's. The fact that
Cornwallis anticipated it bespeaks the resolve alike of Ministers and
the admiral at all costs to stop Villeneuve off Finisterre and prevent
the naval concentration in French waters on which Napoleon laid so much
stress. The success of the British counter-stroke is well known.
Villeneuve, having been roughly handled by Calder, put into Ferrol, and
finally, a prey to discouragement, made off for Cadiz, thus upsetting
Napoleon's scheme for the invasion of England. In due course Nelson
returned to England for a brief time of rest at "dear, dear Merton," and
then set off on his last cruise. Before his departure he had an
interview with Pitt at Downing Street--the only occasion, I believe, on
which they met--and found in the ante-room Sir Arthur Wellesley, just
returned from India. At the end of the interview Pitt flattered the
great seaman by an act of attention which he thus described: "Mr. Pitt
paid me a compliment, which, I believe, he would not have paid to a
Prince of the Blood. When I rose to go, he left the room with me and
attended me to the carriage." By attentions such as these Chatham was
wont to stimulate the patriotism of our warriors; and on this occasion
his son played an equally inspiriting part. Imagination strives to
picture the scene, especially when England's greatest statesman and
greatest seaman passed through the ante-room where stood the future
victor of Waterloo.[734]
Never again were those three heroes to meet. Nelson departed for
Trafalgar. Pitt resumed the work which was wearing him to death, nerved,
however, by the consciousness that the despatch of Nelson to the
Mediterranean would foil Napoleon's project of making that sea a French
lake, "the principal aim of my policy" as he declared it to be. In that
quarter, then, Pitt won a decisive victory which was destined to save
not only that sea, but the Continent from the domination of France.
Whether a glimpse of the future course of events opened out to the
wearied gaze of the statesman we know not. All we know is that in
mid-December, when the "Victory" lay jury-masted and wind-bound for
three days off Walmer Castle, the Lord Warden was at Bath, in hope of
gaining health and strength for a struggle which concerned him even more
nearly than that in the Mediterranean, namely, the liberation of North
Germany and the Dutch Netherlands from the Napoleonic yoke.
FOOTNOTES:
[680] Pitt MSS., 102. Pitt to Whitworth, 28th May 1804; G. Rose,
"Diaries," ii, 136. See, too, Rose, "Despatches relating to the ...
Third Coalition," 27.
[681] Stanhope, iv, 199-201.
[682] Czartoryski, "Memoirs," ii, 35.
[683] "Creevey Papers," i, 28.
[684] Pretyman MSS.
[685] Rose, "Despatches relating to the ... Third Coalition" (Royal
Hist. Soc., 1904), 14-19; also Rose, "Napoleonic Studies," 364-6, for
the tentative Russian overture of November 1803.
[686] Rose and Broadley, "Dumouriez and the Defence of England against
Napoleon," 260.
[687] Fortescue, v, 204-13. Half of the fine went to the overseers of
the parish, who were bound under penalties to provide a parochial
substitute.
[688] Fortescue, v, 239, 240.
[689] "Creevey Papers," i, 29.
[690] Pitt MSS., 157.
[691] Pretyman MSS. See "Ann. Reg." (1805) for the failure at Boulogne
on 3rd October 1804.
[692] See Desbrière, "Projets ... de Débarquement, etc.," vol. v; J.
Corbett, "The Campaign of Trafalgar," chs. ii, iii, ix.
[693] "Kentish Gazette," 26th October 1804. Apparently Moore agreed to
the scheme, despite his opinion quoted above. For information on this
topic I am indebted to Lieutenant-Colonel Fynmore of Sandgate. In the
manoeuvres of 1910 regiments were told off to extemporize means of
crossing the canal in the quickest and most effective way.
[694] "W. O.," 76; "Diary of Sir J. Moore," ii, 71-4.
[695] Pretyman MSS.
[696] Harrowby MSS.
[697] Mahan, ii, ch. xv, _ad fin._; "Ann. Reg." (1804), 555; "Mems. of
R. P. Ward," i, ch. vii. For the subsequent plan of Ministers to attack
Ferrol, from which Moore dissuaded them, see "Diary of Sir J. Moore,"
ii, ch. xxi.
[698] Harrowby MSS.
[699] Rose, "Third Coalition," 32, 53, 61, 65, 67, 71, 75.
[700] Harrowby MSS.
[701] Lefebvre, "Cabinets de l'Europe," ii, 33.
[702] Pretyman MSS.
[703] Stanhope, iv, 244-8.
[704] See the letter in "Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies."
[705] "H. O." Ireland (Corresp.), 99.
[706] "Mems. of Fox," iv, 45, 68, 72, 75.
[707] See an interesting account by Dr. Hunt, "Transactions of the Royal
Hist. Soc." (1908), pp. 7-16.
[708] Hansard, iv, 1013-22, 1060.
[709] Hansard, iv, 255-325; "Life of Wilberforce," iii, 219-23;
"Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 338, 347; "Lord Colchester's Diaries," i,
544-9.
[710] Chevening MSS.
[711] "Trial of Lord Melville" (1806), 256-9, 370, 378.
[712] "Creevey Papers," i, 34.
[713] "Barham Papers" (Navy Records Society), iii; Corbett, "Trafalgar
Campaign," 70-2; Stanhope, iv, 287; Pellew, ii 356-64.
[714] Czartoryski, "Mems.," ii, ch. vii.
[715] "F. O.," Prussia, 70; Rose, "Napoleonic Studies," 54-8; Rose,
"Napoleon," ii, 54.
[716] Garden, "Traités," viii, 317-23; Alison, App. to ch. xxxix.
[717] Toreno ("War of Independence in Spain," vol. i, _ad fin._) had the
story from Alava, who connected it with the arrival of the news of Ulm,
on 2nd November. Pitt said: "All is not lost if I can succeed in raising
up a national war in Europe, and this must have its commencement in
Spain." But Malmesbury ("Diaries," iv, 340), who was present, does not
name the incident, and states that Pitt disbelieved the news (see ch.
xxiv).
[718] Pretyman MSS.
[719] Rose, "Third Coalition," 25, 32, 44, 61, 66, 73, 76, 87, 97, etc.;
Mr. Julian Corbett, "The Trafalgar Campaign," chs. i, ii. For a critique
on Pitt's Mediterranean plans, see Bunbury's "Great War with France,"
183-95.
[720] Rose, "Third Coalition," 127-30.
[721] Czartoryski, "Mems.," ii, 74-6.
[722] Czartoryski, "Mems.," ii, 78; Rose, "Third Coalition," 155-64.
[723] _Ibid._, 232; Ulmann, "Russisch-preussische Politik"; Hansing,
"Hardenberg und die dritte Coalition."
[724] "Paget Papers," ii, 186; Sir G. Jackson, "Diaries," i, 304,
458-60; Rose, "Third Coalition," 180.
[725] "Lettres inédites de Napoléon," i, 50.
[726] Rose, "Third Coalition," 279-82. On 9th August Austria allied
herself to Russia.
[727] For a time her action was unknown at London; and Pitt and Mulgrave
outlined a plan of campaign turning largely on the liberation of South
and Central Italy. See Mr. Corbett, "Trafalgar Campaign," App. B.
[728] G. Rose, "Diaries," ii, 198-200.
[729] Pretyman MSS.
[730] "Lady Hester Stanhope's Mems.," ii, 63.
[731] Chevening MSS. See, too, G. Rose, "Diaries," ii, 235, as to Pitt's
reliance on "cordial medicines."
[732] By Mr. Julian Corbett, "The Campaign of Trafalgar." Mr. Corbett
has kindly helped me to fix the probable date of Castlereagh's letter.
[733] Pitt MSS., 121. In Pitt MSS., 111, is a hasty and undated note of
Pitt to Middleton (probably of February 1805) asking him to consider
"whether it might not be expedient to direct Sir John Warren to proceed
to Cape de Verde, and if he there found that Sir James Duckworth was
gone to the West Indies, but not upon certain information of the enemy
having preceded him, that Sir J. Warren should be ordered on to the
Cape, unless he received intelligence that the enemy had taken another
course." He adds that this suggestion arises out of the news received
from the Cape, where French troops were expected. In that case the
operations would be protracted. Pitt hoped that Warren would be back in
five months, that is by 1st June, before which time the French
preparations for the invasion of England would not be far advanced.
Evidently, then, Pitt sought Middleton's advice direct on the complex
problem of defending England and guarding the overland and the sea
routes to India at the same time. On this see Corbett, "Trafalgar
Campaign," 236-8.
[734] Wellington in 1834 told Croker that they met in the anteroom of
the Secretary of State, Castlereagh (Croker, "Diaries," ii, 234).