EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.
The general election of 1784 which established Pitt in office was the
expression of a strong national feeling. Humiliated by the loss of its
colonies, irritated by the mismanagement of its affairs, and burdened
with the expense of an unsuccessful war, which added L114,500,000 to the
public debt, the nation listened with approval to Fox's denunciations
and got rid of North. It was with unbounded disgust that it saw Fox
enter into an alliance with the statesman whom he had denounced as the
prime cause of its misfortunes. During the late conflict in parliament
public feeling grew strong against him. The king's dismissal of a
ministry which commanded a large majority in the house of commons, and
his refusal to dismiss its successor at the request of the house needed
no pardon; they were endorsed by the declaration of the national will,
and he gained a hold on the affection of his people such as he had never
had before. His success must not make us forget the courage and the
political insight which he displayed during this critical period. All
that made the crown worth wearing was at stake, for if Fox's party had
obtained a majority at the general election, George for the rest of his
life would have become a mere puppet in their hands. He won the game,
but he did not win all that he hoped for. Pitt, whom he chose as his
champion, was not a minister after his own heart, content to carry out a
royal policy. George freed himself from the danger of whig domination,
but he did so at the cost of resigning his hopes of establishing a
system of personal government, and accepted an independent prime
minister. He never liked Pitt, but he knew that Pitt stood between him
and Fox, and so for seventeen years was content that he should retain
office. Pitt's power was established by, and rested on, the will of the
nation. In 1784 England looked forward with hope to the rule of a young
minister, a son of the great Chatham, of stainless private character and
unimpeachable integrity, who was free from all responsibility for its
misfortunes, and was the victorious opponent of Fox, whom it regarded
with aversion. Nor did its hope fail of fulfilment.
[Sidenote: _LASTING CHANGES EFFECTED BY PITT._]
What the government did for England during the nine years of peace which
succeeded the election of 1784 may be said to have been done by Pitt.
His colleagues were not men of great capacity, and he received obedience
rather than counsel from them. So it was that the position of prime
minister, a title which North refused to accept, became finally
established. This unavowed change in the constitution settled the sphere
of political action open to the crown. Government by the crown through
departmental ministers acting independently of each other was no longer
possible. The principle of the homogeneous character of the cabinet and
of the prime minister's position in it were, as we shall see, decisively
settled in 1791 by the dismissal of the chancellor, who, relying on the
king's favour, wore out Pitt's patience by rebellion against his
authority. Pitt's strength of character and the king's dependence on him
caused the gradual extinction of the "king's friends" as a party
distinct from the supporters of the government. The leader of the party
Jenkinson, the secretary at war in North's ministry, had great
commercial knowledge; Pitt made him president of the new board of trade
which was constituted in 1785, and as Lord Hawkesbury and as Earl of
Liverpool he gave the prime minister his support. Pitt did not attempt
to reduce the crown to a cypher, and George exercised a strong and
legitimate influence in politics, as adviser of the cabinet, though Pitt
occasionally acted against his wishes.
Another change of lasting importance effected by Pitt was in the
character of the house of lords. In 1760 the whole number of peers,
including minors and Roman catholics, who were incapable of sitting in
the house, was only 174; the house was then the stronghold of the whig
oligarchy. During North's administration about thirty peers were created
or promoted. Under Pitt the invasion advanced far more rapidly.
Economical reform deprived the minister of the power of rewarding his
supporters with places and pensions, and Pitt used peerages and minor
honours in their stead. George, who did not approve of a large increase
in the peerage,[186] was forced to yield to his minister's exigencies.
In five years Pitt was responsible for forty-eight creations and
promotions, and by 1801 the number reached 140.[187] The house of lords
ceased to be a small assembly of territorial magnates, mostly of the
whig party; it became less aristocratic, for peerages were bestowed on
men simply because they were supporters of the government and were
wealthy; it became mainly tory in politics, and its size made it less
open to corrupt influence. As a body, however, it was inferior in
ability and in devotion to its legislative duties to the small assembly
of earlier days.
Under Pitt's leadership, England during the years of peace which
succeeded the American war regained her place in the politics of Europe.
His attention, however, was chiefly devoted to domestic affairs. He was
eminently skilful in finance; he restored the public credit and freed
trade from artificial impediments. The corruption of parliament, of
which both whigs and tories had been guilty, was brought to an end; many
abuses and sinecures were abolished and public life became purer. Though
at first Pitt sustained some defeats in parliament, due both to mistakes
of his own and to the absence of party consolidation among his usual
supporters, his power rapidly increased until it became absolute in both
houses. He showed supreme ability in the management of parliament. With
much of his father's haughtiness of manner he combined a tactfulness and
self-control which his father never exhibited. He had nothing of Fox's
winning power, yet he became extremely popular in the house of commons,
for he showed himself worthy to lead men and able to lead them
successfully. His temper was sweet, his courage, patience, and
hopefulness unfailing, and his industry unwearied. That he loved power
is surely no reproach to a statesman who used it as he did with
single-hearted devotion to his country. For wealth and honours he cared
nothing. He was always poor, and soon became deeply in debt, chiefly
because he was too much occupied with public affairs to control his
household expenditure. While he disdainfully distributed titles and
ribbons among a clamouring crowd, he refused all such things for
himself. Some measures of reform which he advocated in early days he
dropped when he found that the country did not care for them, and in
later days altogether abandoned a liberal policy, for he was called on
to give England that which is infinitely more important than liberal
measures, the preservation of its constitutional and social life from
the danger of revolution.
[Sidenote: _THE WESTMINSTER SCRUTINY._]
When parliament met on May 19, 1784, the ministry carried the address in
the commons by 282 to 114. Pitt, however, soon found that he could not
reckon on this majority on every question. In the Westminster election
Fox had been opposed by Admiral Lord Hood, created an Irish baron after
the battle of the Saints, and Sir Cecil Wray. The poll was kept open for
forty days and there was much rioting and irregularity of every kind,
for which both sides appear to have been responsible. Fox's friends, and
above all the beautiful Duchess of Devonshire and other whig ladies,
canvassed eagerly for him, and the duchess is said to have bought a
butcher's vote with a kiss. George watched the contest with anxiety, for
Fox's attack on the constitutional rights of the crown had deepened his
animosity towards him. So strong were his feelings that, on hearing that
Fox was gaining votes, he wrote to Pitt that "the advance could only be
by bad votes, yet similar means must be adopted against him rather than
let him get returned". He had heard with delight that 300 Quackers
(_sic_) would vote for Hood and Wray.[188] At the close of the poll Hood
stood first and Fox second. Great was the triumph of the Foxites, and
the Prince of Wales, Fox's pupil in debauchery, was pleased to exhibit
his opposition to his father by taking a prominent part in it; he wore
Fox's colours, was present at banquets in his honour, where he gave the
toast of "True Blue and Mrs. Crewe," one of Fox's lady canvassers, and
got disgustingly drunk. Nevertheless the victory was disputed, for the
high-bailiff granted a scrutiny, and instead of returning Hood and Fox
as elected, merely reported the number of the votes. In this he was
clearly wrong, for he made no proper return to the writ. If a scrutiny
was to be held, it should have been completed before the day fixed for
the return. It was his duty to make a return on that day; a decision as
to the lawfulness of the election pertained to the house of commons.
His action deprived Westminster of representation, and would have shut
Fox out of the house had he not already been returned for Kirkwall.
Fox petitioned the house to order the high-bailiff to make a proper
return. Pitt opposed the petition, and the house ordered that the
scrutiny should proceed, though in two divisions on the question his
majority fell to 97 and 78. Eight months later, in February, 1785, the
scrutiny was still proceeding and was likely to last two years longer.
Against the king's judgment,[189] Pitt persisted in maintaining it; his
majority sank to 39, then to 9, and on March 4 he was in a minority of
38. The high-bailiff was ordered to make an immediate return, and Hood
and Fox were returned as elected. In this matter Pitt did not display
his usual tactfulness. Excusably enough in so young a man, he allowed
himself to be swayed by personal feeling, and his feeling was
ungenerous. With the exception of a small knot of friends like Dundas,
he kept himself aloof from his supporters and was ignorant of the
annoyance with which they regarded this attempt to deal harshly with a
defeated foe.[190] A bill passed that session ordered that polls were
not to last more than fifteen days, and that any scrutiny should be
closed six days before the return to the writ was due. Fox sued the
high-bailiff for neglecting to return him and obtained L2,000 damages.
[Sidenote: _PITT'S FINANCE._]
In spite of this mistake Pitt's position was strengthened by his success
in dealing with finance. National credit was low; the public debt of
Great Britain had grown from L126,043,057 in 1775 to L240,925,908,[191]
and the 3 per cent. consols were at about 57. Heavy expenses entailed by
the late war were still to be met, the civil list was in arrear, and the
revenue was grievously diminished by smuggling. In order to make
smuggling less profitable, Pitt largely reduced the duties on tea and
foreign spirits, and made up the loss on the tea duties by a
"commutation tax," an increased duty on houses according to the number
of their windows. He also made smuggling more difficult by a "hovering
act," which subjected to seizure vessels hovering off the coast with any
considerable quantity of tea or spirits. A deficit of L6,000,000 he
supplied by a loan, and in raising this loan he abandoned the old evil
practice of allotment among selected subscribers and opened it to public
competition. A second point on which he made a new departure was his
declaration that all sound finance should be directed towards
extinguishing debt and that consequently "a fund at a high rate of
interest was better for the country than those at low rates". The
unfunded debts were large, those ascertained amounted to L14,000,000,
and as outstanding government bills were at a discount of 15 to 20 per
cent., these debts depressed the funds. Pitt at once funded nearly half
as an instalment. Lastly the required charges exceeded revenue by over
L900,000, an enormous sum for that time, and he proposed to make up the
deficiency by taxation.
The number of the new taxes is a third point specially to be noted in
his budget. One proposed tax, on coals, he withdrew in deference to
general opinion, and substituted others in its place. The rest met with
little opposition. As they finally stood they were laid on candles,
bricks and tiles, hats, pleasure horses and horses entered for races,
British linens and cottons, ribbons and gauzes, ale-licences, shooting
licences, paper, hackney coaches, gold and silver plate, exported lead,
postage, and imported raw and thrown silk. His speech on the budget,
during which he moved 133 resolutions, at once placed his talents as a
finance minister beyond dispute; it was admirably lucid and was
conciliatory in tone. He also carried some regulations checking the
abuse of the privilege of franking letters. In those days a letter which
bore on the outside the signature of a member of parliament was carried
post-free, and franks were given away with the utmost profusion. It was
calculated that the new regulations, without abolishing the privilege,
would increase the revenue by L20,000. The next year, 1785, Pitt
completed the funding of unfunded debt, choosing according to his
principle the 5 per cents. which, though entailing an immediate loss,
afforded an easy means of paying off debt. He was able to declare that
the revenues were in a flourishing state, and to speak of the
institution of a fund for the repayment of the national debt as in the
near future. He was, however, still obliged to raise L400,000 by new
taxes. Among these were an increased tax on male servants, graduated
according to the number kept, and two which excited much hostile
criticism, the one a tax on female servants, also graduated, two
shillings and sixpence on one, five shillings a head on two, and ten
shillings a head on three or more, and the other a tax on shops. Both
these taxes were unpopular; the shop tax was repealed in 1789 and the
tax on female servants in 1792.
In 1784 the East India company was applying to parliament for help, and
as its affairs were under investigation it was unable to declare a
dividend. Pitt carried bills authorising a dividend of 8 per cent., and
granting the company relief from obligations to the exchequer which the
late war made specially onerous. He then brought in his new bill for the
government of India. This measure, which was not materially different
from his bill of six months before, entirely subordinated the political
power exercised by the directors to a board of control consisting of
unpaid commissioners, a secretary of state, the chancellor of the
exchequer, and other privy councillors, appointed by the crown. The
patronage of India was to be retained by the directors, but the
governor-general and the presidents and members of councils were to be
appointed and to be removable by the crown. In all matters of peace and
war the governor-general and his council were to be supreme over the
minor presidencies. Regulations were made to prevent extortion by the
officers of the company, and a special court was instituted for the
trial of those charged with delinquencies. The bill was violently
opposed by Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Hastings's enemy, Francis, chiefly
on the grounds that government and patronage ought not to be divided,
that the nominal sovereignty of the directors and the extensive power of
the board of control would lead to confusion, and that the
governor-general ought not to have absolute authority in matters at a
distance. After several divisions, Pitt carried the second reading in
the commons by a majority of 211; he accepted some amendments in
committee, and the bill finally passed both houses without a division.
Thus was established that system of double government which lasted until
1858.
The session closed with a motion by Dundas for the restoration of the
Scottish estates forfeited for the rebellion of 1745. The bill was
unanimously approved by the commons. Thurlow, who for some reason,
possibly merely from jealousy of Pitt, adopted a generally malcontent
attitude, spoke against it in the lords, but it passed there also
without a division. Before the end of the year Pitt's success was
declared by the accession to his ministry of old Lord Camden as
president of the council in the place of Lord Gower, who took the office
of privy seal, vacated by the appointment of the Duke of Rutland as
viceroy of Ireland in the previous February. Shelburne, who was deeply
offended by his continued exclusion from office, was created Marquis of
Lansdowne with the promise that, if the king made any dukes outside his
own family, he should be one of the number. He was not appeased by this
promotion, and remained hostile to Pitt, who would have been weakened by
his alliance and lost nothing by his hostility. Temple, who also aspired
to a dukedom, was created Marquis of Buckingham, and was encouraged to
hope that his ambition might in the future be fully satisfied. The
session closed on August 20. Parliament did not meet again until January
25, 1785, and from that time the custom of beginning the regular session
before Christmas has been discontinued.
[Sidenote: _PITT'S PARLIAMENTARY REFORM BILL._]
As Pitt had already twice brought forward motions for parliamentary
reform, in 1782 and 1783, the friends of the cause looked to him to
promote it as head of the ministry. The question was not at that time
exciting much public interest. The king was personally opposed to
reform, and it was not until March, 1785, that Pitt obtained his assent
to the introduction of a bill. He promised the king that if it was
rejected he would not resign, unless "those supposed to be connected
with government" voted against it. George took the hint, and while he
expressed dislike of the bill to Pitt, assured him that he would not use
any influence against it. Pitt did his best to insure the success of his
bill, and even persuaded his friend Wilberforce to return from abroad to
support it. He brought forward his motion on April 18. After defending
himself from the charge of innovation by pointing out that in past ages
changes had frequently been made in the representation, he laid down
that the representation of boroughs should depend not on locality but on
the number of voters. He proposed to disfranchise thirty-six decayed
boroughs, and to add their seventy-two members to the representation of
counties and of London and Westminster. The boroughs were to be
disfranchised at their own request, which was to be obtained by the
purchase of their franchise from a fund provided by the state. In the
future any other borough which was, or became, so decayed as to fall
below a standard fixed by parliament, was to be allowed to surrender its
franchise for an adequate payment, and its right would be transferred to
populous towns. He further proposed to extend the franchise to
copyholders, and in towns to householders.
According to his plan L1,000,000 sterling was to be set aside for
compensation; 100 members would eventually be chosen by free and open
constituencies instead of by individuals or close corporations, and some
99,000 persons would receive the franchise. North spoke ably against the
motion, dwelling on the coldness with which the country regarded the
question; only eight petitions for reform were presented, and none came
from Birmingham or Manchester. Fox opposed it on the ground that the
franchise was a trust, not a property, and that to offer to buy it was
contrary to the spirit of the constitution; and Burke objected to the
alteration which it would make in the representation of interests by
increasing the influence of the country gentlemen. Pitt allowed that the
scheme of purchase was a "tender part"; it was, he said, "a necessary
evil if any reform was to take place". Leave to bring in the bill was
refused by 248 to 174. Pitt had not yet secured an organised majority.
Connexion and influence had not wholly given way to a system of parties
founded on general agreement on political questions. There is no reason
to suppose that the king broke his promise to Pitt, but his dislike of
reform must have been well known, and probably had much weight. Pitt
made no more attempts at parliamentary reform, and for the next seven
years the question was of little importance in English politics.
[Sidenote: _REFORM DEMANDED IN IRELAND._]
The chief conflict of the session was fought over Pitt's scheme for
establishing free-trade with Ireland. An agitation for parliamentary
reform in Ireland brought into prominence a spirit of discontent. The
Irish parliament did not represent even the protestant population; the
house of lords was composed of a large number of bishops, generally
subservient to the crown, and of lay lords, many of them lately ennobled
for political service; the house of commons of 300 members, scarcely a
third of them elected by the people. Flood urged reform on a strictly
protestant basis, and the cause of reform was supported by a convention
of volunteers assembled at Dublin under Lord Charlemont. The Bishop of
Derry, Lord Bristol, a vain and half-crazy prelate, advocated the
admission of catholics to the franchise, and tried to excite the
volunteers, who were then no longer exclusively protestant, and were
recruited from the rabble, to extort reform from parliament by force. He
attended parliament with an escort of volunteers and in regal state, and
appeared in a purple coat and volunteer cap fiercely cocked. His
seditious behaviour, the claim made for the catholics, and the violence
of the democratic party caused a division among the volunteers and among
the advocates of reform generally. Charlemont and Flood himself checked
the violent party in the convention, which was dissolved peacefully.
Flood's motions for reform were rejected, and the volunteer movement
lost political importance. Pitt regarded parliamentary reform in Ireland
as certain if it were adopted in England, and was prepared to welcome
it, but was at that time determined to maintain the exclusion of the
catholics from the franchise. The Irish administration was opposed to a
change of system, and the Duke of Rutland, the viceroy, a young man of
great ability, held that the state of the country would render it
dangerous. The defeat of Flood's last attempt at reform, in 1785, left
the Irish parliament as before without "the smallest resemblance to
representation".[192]
In face of the threatened interference in politics of an armed force, of
discontent and disloyalty, and foreseeing difficulties in the future
between the independent Irish parliament and the imperial government,
Rutland prophesied in 1784 that "without an union Ireland would not be
connected with Great Britain in twenty years longer".[193] Pitt hoped to
pacify discontent by benefiting Irish trade, and to unite the two
countries by a community of interest. His plan, to which he attached
more importance than to Irish reform, though commercial in character,
was based on a lofty political conception; it was designed to promote
"the prosperity of the empire at large".[194] North's concessions to
Ireland in 1779 and the subsequent establishment of Irish legislative
independence left both countries at liberty to regulate each its own
trade. Ireland admitted English goods free or at low duties; and England
shut out most Irish manufactures, though admitting linen, the
manufacture of which was encouraged by a bounty, and, for her own
convenience, woollen yarn free of duty. Ireland, too, though enabled to
trade directly with the English colonies, could neither send their
products to England nor buy them from England. Pitt designed to
establish perpetual free trade between England and Ireland, and as
Ireland would be the gainer by the change, he proposed that in return
she should contribute a fixed sum to the naval defence of the empire.
Rutland, who saw that sending money to England would be violently
opposed, suggested that the contribution should be spent on a portion of
the navy to be kept on the Irish coasts. In words which it is well to
remember, Pitt pointed out that "there can be but one navy for the
empire at large, and it must be administered by the executive in this
country".[195] The resolutions he sent over to be presented to the Irish
parliament provided that the contribution should come from the surplus
which the grant of free trade would create in the hereditary revenue of
the crown, for, as that revenue was chiefly made up of customs and
excise, the payment would be in exact proportion to the benefits
conferred by the change.
[Sidenote: _PITT'S RESOLUTIONS ON IRISH COMMERCE._]
As, however, Ireland had a heavy debt, which was largely due to the
extravagance of government, Grattan insisted that the contribution
should depend on the yearly equalisation of the revenue with the
expenses. The Irish government yielded to his demand, and with that
change the resolutions were carried. Pitt brought them before the
English house of commons on February 22 in a speech of remarkable power.
Fox, who had long been hoping "to make his harvest from Ireland,"[196]
opposed them as injurious to British manufacture. The manufacturers at
once took the alarm; a petition with 80,000 signatures was sent up from
Lancashire against the resolutions, and a "chamber of manufacturers,"
with Wedgwood as president, vigorously protested against them. English
manufactures, it was asserted, would be undersold and ruined by goods
produced by cheap labour in Ireland. After evidence had been heard on
the matter for twelve weeks, Pitt saw that he must modify his scheme. On
May 12 he brought forward a new set of resolutions less generous to
Ireland, and providing that in commercial legislation the Irish
parliament should perpetually be bound by the parliament of Great
Britain. Fox, North, and Sheridan vehemently opposed them, and Fox
denounced the whole plan as an attempt to lure Ireland to surrender her
liberty. "I will not," said he, "barter English commerce for Irish
slavery; that is not the price I would pay, nor is this the thing I
would purchase." Nevertheless after long and warm debates, Pitt
triumphantly carried his resolutions. The speeches of Fox and Sheridan
found a loud echo in the Irish parliament; Grattan, in an impassioned
speech, condemned the new resolutions, and they passed the commons only
by 127 to 108. So strong an expression of adverse feeling forced Pitt to
abandon his scheme. Thus was his wise and hopeful attempt to encourage
Irish trade and strengthen the bond between the two countries wrecked by
the factiousness of the opposition, the selfishness of the manufacturers
in England, and the susceptibility of the Irish liberal party. Fox's
opposition to free trade with Ireland brought him a temporary return of
popularity in the manufacturing districts.
Pitt's command of the house of commons was still uncertain. In February,
1786, he was defeated on a bill for fortifying the dockyards at Plymouth
and Portsmouth. His defeat was largely due to the unpopularity of the
Duke of Richmond, the author of the plan, who had not gained in general
esteem by deserting his former party, and to the old prejudice against
increasing the military power of the crown. Yet it illustrates Pitt's
position at the time. It was a "loose parliament"; the majority voted
every man as he had a mind; Pitt had yet to bind his party together, and
his cold and repellent manners still hindered him from making
friends.[197] His power was strengthened in this session by the general
approval elicited by his bill for the reduction of the national debt by
means of a sinking fund. In forming his plan he received much help from
Price, a nonconformist minister, distinguished as a writer on financial
questions. When introducing his bill he was able to show that the public
revenue would exceed the expenditure by about L900,000, which he
proposed to raise to L1,000,000 by some new taxes not of a burdensome
nature, ample resources existing to meet a temporary excess in naval and
military expenditure caused by the late war. That the revenue would
continue to improve seemed assured by the increase in the customs due to
Pitt's measures against smuggling. Government might reckon on at least
L1,000,000 surplus, and that sum he proposed to make the foundation of
his new sinking fund. Unlike the sinking fund established by Sir Robert
Walpole in 1716, which had from time to time been diverted to other
purposes, his fund was to be kept inviolate in war as well as in peace,
and applied solely to the discharge of debt. To secure this, he proposed
that in every quarter of each succeeding year L250,000 should be paid to
six commissioners of high position, and should be used by them in the
purchase of stock. The interest of such stock, together with the savings
effected by the expiration of annuities, was to be invested periodically
in the same way. The fund thus created would then accumulate at compound
interest and become a sinking fund for the extinction of the national
debt.
The bill passed both houses without a division. The highest expectations
were founded upon it, for people generally, in common with Pitt himself
and Price, regarded the new fund as an infallible means of discharging
the national debt solely by the uninterrupted operation of compound
interest. That the application of surplus revenue to the payment of debt
is sound finance, and that to treat surpluses designed for that purpose
as a separate fund is a convenient arrangement need no demonstration.
There is not, however, anything magical or automatic in the operation of
compound interest, nor can the separation of a sinking fund from general
revenue have any real efficacy. Reduction of national debt, whatever
arrangements may be made for it, can only be effected by taxation.
During the years of peace, when the revenue was in excess of
expenditure, Pitt's sinking fund acted as a convenient mode of reducing
the debt. In 1792 a second fund of 1 per cent. on all loans was
established, and by 1793 the commissioners had reduced the debt by about
L10,000,000. Then came the war with France; the revenue fell short of
the expenditure, and Pitt met the deficiency by large loans raised at
great expense. Yet in order to preserve the benefit which, it was
believed, was derived from the uninterrupted operation of compound
interest, the payments to the sinking fund were regularly continued, so
that the state was actually borrowing money at a high rate of interest
in order to reduce a debt at a low rate of interest. No member of the
opposition saw the fallacy involved in Pitt's scheme. He is said,
probably with truth, to have himself discovered it later, but he
maintained the fund, which was useful as a means of keeping the duty of
reduction of debt before the nation and of helping it to face with
hopefulness the rapid accumulation of debt during the war with France.
[Sidenote: _COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE._]
In 1787 Pitt laid before parliament a treaty of navigation and commerce
with France. The treaty of Versailles in 1783 provided that
commissioners should be appointed to make commercial arrangements
between the two countries. The French cabinet invited Shelburne to
proceed in the matter, and he was about to do so when he was driven from
office. Fox was opposed to a treaty. Pitt appointed a commissioner in
April, 1784, but nothing further was done. It was a critical matter, for
a commercial treaty with France was certain to give some offence at
home, and Pitt may for that reason alone have been willing to delay
action until his position was more secure. In 1785 the French council of
state, irritated by the large influx of British manufactures which were
smuggled into France, issued _arrets_ restraining trade with Great
Britain. Pitt was too wise to retaliate. His opportunity had come, and
he entrusted the negotiations to Eden, who deserted the opposition and
accepted a seat on the new board of trade. Eden had a thorough knowledge
of commercial affairs, and carried out his mission as envoy to the
French court with great success.[198] The treaty, signed on September
26, 1786, reduced the duties on many of the principal articles of
commerce of both countries, and put others not specified on the
most-favoured-nation footing. A large and easily accessible market was
opened to British commerce, and, as the exports of France were for the
most part not produced in England and the French were in want of
British products, both countries would, Pitt argued, be gainers by an
increase in the freedom of their trade one with the other, and political
ill-feeling would be diminished by more intimate and mutually profitable
relations. The navigation clauses showed as liberal a spirit as the
commercial; an enemy's goods carried in the ships of either country were
to be held free by the other, except contraband of war, which was
limited to warlike implements and was not to include naval stores.
The treaty favoured the interests of the consumer, and was contrary to
the economic principles of the whigs, who maintained that commerce
should be regulated so as to promote home industry. Fox strongly
objected to it in parliament, mainly on the ground that France was "the
natural foe of Great Britain," and that any close connexion with her was
dangerous. Sheridan and Charles Grey, afterwards the second Earl Grey,
in his maiden speech joined him in condemning the treaty, but it was
approved of by large majorities. Though it caused some temporary
displeasure among the manufacturers, it was followed by a large increase
of trade with France. Among Pitt's achievements as minister in time of
peace none deserves to be ranked higher than this treaty, whether
regarded in its details, or as a monument of his enlightened commercial
policy, or as illustrating his statesmanlike view of the relations which
it was desirable to establish between the two countries. His credit was
further strengthened in the same session by his bill for the
consolidation of the customs and excise. The customs duties, fixed from
time to time, some on one system and some on another, were so complex
that no one could be sure what he might be required to pay, and
merchants often depended on the custom-house officers to tell them the
amount due on goods. The excise, though in a less confused state, was
also in urgent need of regulation. Pitt abolished the whole mass of
existing duties with their percentages and drawbacks, and put a single
duty on each article as nearly as possible of the same amount as before.
These duties and all other taxes he brought into a consolidated fund on
which all public debts were secured. Simple as this change appears, it
involved about 3,000 resolutions. While it only slightly increased the
revenue, it was a great benefit to merchants, it simplified the work in
public offices, prevented officials from abusing their power, and
enabled Pitt to get rid of a large number of custom-house sinecures,
and so at once to effect an economy and dry up a source of corruption.
The bill received a warm welcome from Burke, and was passed without a
division.
[Sidenote: _BILL FOR RELIEF OF DISSENTERS._]
Pitt's position in the commons was not yet one of command. In 1788 his
party, those who recognised him as their leader, was said to number only
52, while Fox's party, the regular opposition, was estimated at 138; the
"crown party" which might be reckoned on to uphold the government for
the time being "under any minister not peculiarly unpopular," consisted
of 185, and the rest were "independent" members, whose votes were
uncertain. Pitt then had to walk warily. His practical temperament was
in his favour. That the country should be well governed, and that it
should be governed by himself, which was the same thing to him, as it is
probably to all great ministers, was the object of his life. Compared
with that, special questions were of small importance. There was nothing
doctrinaire in his turn of mind; the abstract righteousness of a cause
did not appeal to him, and could not divert him from the pursuit of his
main object. In 1787 a bill for the relief of dissenters by the repeal
of the test and corporation acts of the reign of Charles II. was brought
in by Beaufoy, a supporter of the government. In reality the dissenters
suffered very little from these acts, for they were relieved by annual
acts of indemnity. Yet their grievance was not wholly sentimental, and,
even had it been so, it would still have been a grievance. The
opposition was divided; North opposed the bill, Fox warmly advocated it.
Pitt consulted the bishops. All save two were against it. He valued the
support of the Church, and declared himself against the bill, which was
rejected by a majority of 78. In 1789 the majority against it sank to
22. Yet Pitt was thoroughly high-principled. As we shall see later in
the case of Hastings, he would not be false to his convictions, and if
he judged that a cause was worth maintaining, even at the cost of
weakening his own position, he did not shrink from his duty. This is
proved by his conduct with reference to the slave trade.
The cruelties attendant on the trade were forcibly represented by a
society for procuring its abolition, founded in 1787, mainly by quakers,
of which Granville Sharp and Clarkson were prominent members.
Wilberforce's sympathy was already aroused by reports of the sufferings
of the negroes in the slave-ships. Pitt advised him to undertake the
question in parliament, and as a preliminary agreed to the appointment
of a committee to inquire into the methods of the trade. The merchants
of London, Lancashire, and Bristol were indignant at the threatened
interference, and efforts were made to conceal the truth. Nevertheless
the abominable cruelties to which the slaves were subjected during the
middle passage were clearly proved. Chained to their places, fettered
and fastened together, they were packed so closely on the lower decks
and in stifling holds that they could scarcely turn, they were kept
short of food and water, and were exercised to keep them alive by being
forced under pain of the lash to jump in their fetters. While
Wilberforce was ill in 1788, Pitt gave notice of a motion on the trade,
and supported a bill moved by Sir William Dolben which mitigated the
sufferings of the negroes during the passage. In 1789 Wilberforce in a
long and eloquent speech moved resolutions for the abolition of the
trade, and Pitt, Fox, who was always quick to feel for human suffering,
and Burke joined in supporting him. Pitt's conduct on this question
displeased many of his followers. The interests concerned in the trade
were powerful, and for a time the question was virtually shelved.
[Sidenote: _AUSTRIA AND THE UNITED PROVINCES._]
The peace of Versailles left England isolated. The new government was to
show that she was able and ready to reassert her right to exercise an
influence in Europe. The political situation presented three alliances,
of France and Austria, Austria and Russia, France and Spain, and opposed
to them two isolated powers, England and Prussia. None of these
alliances directly threatened England, yet there were elements of danger
in the two first. After the death of Maria Theresa, in 1780, her son
Joseph II. changed the general direction of Austria's policy. He was
restless and full of great schemes which he looked to Russia rather than
France to support. The growth of Russian power under Catherine had
changed the political state of Europe. The treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji,
in 1774, at the close of a successful war against the Turks, saw Russia
strongly established on the Black Sea; the partition of Poland augmented
her preponderance in the north: and in 1780 England found that her
maritime interests were threatened by a power seated both on the Baltic
and close to the Mediterranean. Catherine welcomed the overtures of
Joseph, for she contemplated further conquests from the Turks, and the
good-will of Austria was important to her. Of these two allied powers
Austria was the more dangerous to England and Prussia. Russia had
already gained much, Austria was hoping for gain; Catherine was looking
mainly to extension in eastern, Joseph's ambitions tended to disturb the
balance of power in western and central Europe. France was impoverished;
she desired peace and was anxious to restrain the emperor's ambition,
and Spain could do nothing without her. A quadruple alliance, then,
between the two imperial courts and France and Spain was impossible. The
late war had raised the Bourbon influence in Europe. England was unable
to detach Austria from France, and to form an alliance, as Carmarthen
wished, with the two imperial courts; and she was, as we shall see, led
by a conflict in Holland to enter into an agreement with Prussia which
had important results.
Her foreign policy between 1784 and 1788 was chiefly concerned with the
affairs of the United Provinces. Anxious to remove the restrictions
imposed by treaties on the Austrian Netherlands, Joseph set aside the
Barrier treaty of 1715, designed to check French aggression; and the
Dutch withdrew their garrisons from the border fortresses. He pressed
other claims upon them, relying on their weakness, for they paid dearly
for provoking a war with England; and he demanded that the Scheldt,
which was closed by the treaty of 1648, should be open to navigation.
His claim concerned England, for though Austria could never become a
great naval power even if Antwerp had access to the sea, the ports of
the Netherlands and, indeed, of the United Provinces might fall under
the control of some strong maritime state, such as France or Russia.
Joseph's demand was backed by a recommendation from the Russian empress.
He sent ships to sail up and down the river, and they were forcibly
stopped by the Dutch. War seemed imminent. France, however, was then
gaining great influence in Holland, and though she compelled the Dutch
to assent to some of the emperor's demands, she upheld their refusal
with regard to the Scheldt, and negotiated a treaty concluded at
Fontainebleau in November, 1785, between the emperor and the republic,
by which Joseph renounced his demand for the opening of the river.
[Sidenote: _FRENCH INFLUENCE IN HOLLAND._]
He was already occupied in renewing a scheme, which had been defeated in
1778, for exchanging his Netherland provinces for Bavaria. This project
was highly prejudicial to Prussian interests in Germany; and Frederick
of Prussia baulked it by forming a Furstenbund, or alliance of princes,
to maintain the integrity of the Germanic constitution. In February,
1785, he invited King George as Elector of Hanover to join in this
projected alliance. George willingly assented, for the alliance was
beneficial to Hanover; and in a letter to his Hanoverian minister he
expressed the hope that his assent would lead to an understanding
between England and Prussia. This was merely an expression of his
private feelings; the Furstenbund was not a matter of English politics
and did not, in fact, bring about an Anglo-Prussian alliance.[199] Such
an alliance was highly desirable for England as a means of defeating the
intrigues of France in the United Provinces. The more republican or
"patriot" party in Holland, which had led the states to break their
ancient friendly relations with England, was completely under French
influence, and, relying on the support of France, designed to compel the
stadholder, William V. of Orange, a feeble and irresolute prince, to
resign his office. Their victory would have made the republic virtually
a French province, and would have brought France a great accession of
naval power. Sir James Harris, the British ambassador at the Hague,
laboured to counteract their designs by encouraging the party in the
republic opposed to the policy of Holland. The stadholder's wife, a
princess of high spirit, was a niece of Frederick the Great, and Harris
was anxious for an alliance between England and Prussia as a means of
overthrowing the French party. Ewart, the ambassador at Berlin, shared
his views, but the ambassadors were held back by Carmarthen. The
cabinet, Harris declared, was wholly occupied by domestic matters.[200]
In May, 1785, it was evident that Austria was in accord with France, and
the cabinet inquired what Frederick's intentions were, hoping that his
desire that England would join in preventing the Bavarian exchange would
induce him to oppose the ambitious designs of France, and to form a
union of defence.[201] Frederick spoke freely to Ewart with reference
to the Bavarian exchange, but would promise nothing as regards
Holland.[202] The cabinet then made proposals to Catherine on the basis
of her detaching Austria from France, and the formation of a triple
alliance between England and the two imperial courts for the maintenance
of peace.[203] Catherine replied that she would only agree on condition
that England would not assent to the Furstenbund, which was a menace to
her Austrian ally. Her demand was peremptory and threatening. George
stood firm. The Furstenbund, he wrote to Pitt, concerned his "electoral
capacity," it was a matter of Hanoverian, not of English, politics; he
had already ratified it, and would not retreat.[204] A communication
from the Prussian ambassador led the cabinet in September to send Lord
Cornwallis to Frederick to ascertain his intentions. Frederick declared
that the agreement between himself and England to check France would
mean a general war in which England would have to meet the fleets of
France, Spain, Holland, and perhaps Russia; and he would have on his
hands the armies of France, Austria, and Russia; and that "though such a
contest had been maintained, it was not a game to play often".[205] He
was old and ill, and would not interfere. The action of France in
negotiating the treaty of Fontainebleau strengthened the French party in
Holland; the stadholder was forced to quit the Hague, but was supported
by some of the other provinces. Frederick the Great died on August 17,
1786. The fortunes of the Orange party were at low ebb. France supplied
the patriots with money; free corps were acting on their side; the
stadholder was suspended from his office, and French agents advocated
its abolition. It seemed as though Holland would become mistress of the
Dutch republic and France the ruler of Holland.
[Sidenote: _THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE._]
The new Prussian king, Frederick William II., the brother of the
Princess of Orange, deserted the purely German policy of Frederick for
a more extended European policy. He did not, however, at once interfere
in the affairs of Holland, for there was a strong French party at his
court. Harris needed money to support the stadholder's cause, and
Carmarthen proposed a subvention of L1,200 a year. George was anxious
not to be drawn into another war, and said that as his family was
growing expensive the money could not be spared from the civil
list.[206] In May, 1787, the cabinet decided to put L20,000 at Harris's
disposal. Matters came to a crisis in June. As the princess was on her
way to the Hague she was arrested and turned back by a free corps.
Frederick William demanded that satisfaction should be made for this
insult, and as the states of Holland, relying on French support, refused
his demand, he entered into a secret convention with England to restore
the stadholder, the two powers agreeing, Prussia to send an army into
Holland and England to prepare forty ships of the line to support it. A
Prussian army under the Duke of Brunswick crossed the frontier and met
with little resistance. Amsterdam surrendered on October 10, and the
stadholder was restored. Meanwhile Montmorin, the French foreign
minister, declared that his court would support the Dutch. Pitt, who was
then personally directing foreign affairs, decided, with the full
approval of the king, that if the French court would not agree to the
restoration war was inevitable.[207] A treaty was made with the
Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for the hire of troops, and the naval and
military forces were augmented. On the 27th France definitely renounced
her design of intervention, and on Pitt's demand the French navy was
reduced to a peace-footing. The designs of France, which were fraught
with danger to English interests, were defeated, and the party in
Holland favourable to alliance with England was secured in power. Though
the Furstenbund, a purely German system directed against Austrian
ambition, failed to bring about an Anglo-Prussian alliance, the change
in Prussian policy and, as an immediate cause, the insult to the
Prussian king's sister, brought England and Prussia into active
co-operation against the attempt of France to become mistress of the
United Provinces, and in 1788 led to the formation of a triple alliance
for mutual defence and the maintenance of peace between England,
Prussia, and the republic which changed the political situation. England
was no longer isolated; she was restored to her position of influence in
the affairs of Europe. Harris was created Baron Malmesbury as a reward
for his services at the Hague.
FOOTNOTES:
[186] George III. to Pitt, March 30, 1790, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[187] May, _Constitutional History_, i., 277-80, 321.
[188] George III. to Pitt, April 13 and May 1, 1784, MS. Pitt Papers,
103.
[189] George III. to Pitt, March 4, 1785, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted
in Stanhope's _Life of Pitt_, i., App. xv.
[190] Pulteney to Rutland, Feb. 10, 1785, _Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland
Papers_, iii., 177-78; Earl of Rosebery, _Pitt_, pp. 64-66.
[191] _Parl. Paper, Accounts_, xxxiii. (July, 1858).
[192] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, _Correspondence of Pitt and
Rutland_, p. 17; see also pp. 76-79.
[193] _Ibid._, p. 19.
[194] _Parl. Hist._, xxv., 586.
[195] Pitt to Rutland, Jan. 6, 1785, _Corr._, p. 73.
[196] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, _Corr._, p. 22.
[197] Pitt to Rutland, May 21, 1785, _Corr._, p. 105; Stanhope, _Life of
Pitt_, i., 275, 288-89.
[198] Count de Butenval in his _Precis du Traite de Commerce_, 1786,
endeavours to prove that in the initiation of negotiations Pitt was
acting in obedience to the will of Vergennes.
[199] F. Salomon, "England und der deutsche Furstenbund," _Historische
Vierteljahrsschrift_, 1903, ii., 221-42.
[200] Malmesbury, _Corr._, ii., 102-6, 112-15, 116-18.
[201] Carmarthen to Ewart, May 14, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.; _Political
Memoirs of the Duke of Leeds_, pp. 111-13; Salomon, _u.s._, pp. 231-33.
[202] Ewart to Carmarthen, May 26, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.
[203] Carmarthen to Fitzherbert, June 23, MS. Russia, Supplementary,
R.O.
[204] George III. to Pitt, August 7 and 10, 1785, with Woronzow's
(Vorontsov) statement, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, partially copied in
Stanhope's _Life of Pitt_, i., App. xviii.
[205] Cornwallis, _Corr._, i., 199-211.
[206] George III. to Pitt, Sept. 22, 1786, and Jan. 8, 1787, MS. Pitt
Papers, 103.
[207] Pitt to Eden, Sept. 14, 1787, _Auckland Corr._, i., 194-96; George
III. to Pitt, Sept. 16, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.