William Pitt and the Great War by John Holland Rose (e book reader for pc .TXT) 📖

present repressive policy, which otherwise must appear

    unduly harsh by contrast.[534]

 

The most significant passages are those in which Camden refers to the

plan of a Union as so unformed as to require preliminary inquiries, and

in which he presumes that after the Union Dissenters and Catholics will

have "the same advantages as are bestowed upon the rest of the

inhabitants of the three kingdoms." Clearly, then, Pitt and Camden had

come to no decision on the Union; but Camden, from what he knew of

Pitt's views, believed that he favoured a broad and inclusive policy,

not a Union framed on a narrowly Protestant basis. Neither of them seems

to have anticipated serious resistance on the religious question, even

though the King, at the time of the Fitzwilliam crisis of 1795, had

declared the admission of Catholics to the Irish Parliament to be a

matter which concerned his conscience, not his Cabinet.

 

It is also obvious that the question of the Union was forced to the

front by the cumbrous dualism of the Irish Executive, which proved to be

utterly unable to cope with the crisis of the Rebellion. The King, as we

have seen, shrewdly suggested that Cornwallis ought to make use of the

fears of Irish loyalists in order to frighten the Dublin Parliament into

acquiescence in an Act of Union. The same opinion was gaining ground;

but several of Pitt's supporters doubted the advisability of so

far-reaching a measure. Thus, on 4th July 1798, Hatsell, Clerk of the

House of Commons, wrote to Auckland that of all possible plans a Union

was the worst, "full of difficulties, to be brought about by errant

jobs; and, when done, not answering the purpose. You must take out the

teeth, or give the Catholics sops to eat. One or other; but the

half-measure won't do." Better balanced was the judgement of the Earl of

Carlisle, as stated to Auckland some time in September. After asking

whether the recurrence of local risings in Ireland did not prove the

unwisdom of the policy of lenience pursued by Cornwallis, he added these

significant words: "In this distress it is not strange that we should

turn to the expedient of Union; but this is running in a dark night for

a port we are little acquainted with.... If you did not satisfy Ireland

by the measure and take off some part of those ill-disposed to England,

you would only make matters worse. But in truth something must be done,

or we must fight for Ireland once a week."[535]

 

That the activity of the rebels varied according to the prospects of aid

from France was manifest. Thus, on 25th July Beresford wrote to Auckland

that the people seemed tired of rebellion, which would die out unless

the French landed. But on 22nd August, after the arrival of Humbert's

little force in Killala Bay, he described the whole country as in

revolt. The State prisoners, O'Connor, McNevin, and Addis Emmett, sent

to the papers a denial of their former pacific assurances;[536] and

even after the surrender of Humbert's force, Beresford wrote to Auckland

on 15th September: "... Should the French or the Dutch get out an

armament and land, there will be a very general rising. I have it from a

man on whose veracity I can depend, and who was on the spot in Mayo,

during the French invasion, that the Catholics of the country ran to

join them with eagerness, and that they had more than they could arm;

that, as they moved on, they were constantly joined; but he says the

Irish behaved so ill that the French made use of discipline, which

thinned their ranks; however, they had 4,000 of them when they were

attacked by Colonel Vereker, and about 200 of the Limerick militia. By

our late accounts there are said to be in Mayo and Roscommon 10,000

rebels up: they are destroying the country."[537] Beresford then blames

the Viceroy's proclamation, offering pardon to rebels who come in within

a month, and he says their leaders tell them that 20,000 French will

soon land. Equally significant is the statement of George Rose in a

letter of 23rd September. Referring to the fact that two French warships

had got away from Brest towards the Irish coast, he writes: "If they

land, the struggle may be more serious. The truth is that it will be

nearly impossible to keep Ireland as a conquered country. Union is

become more urgent than ever." This was also the opinion of Lord

Sheffield. Writing on 29th September from Rottingdean to Auckland, he

remarks on the disquieting ease with which the French squadrons reach

Ireland. He has had a long argument with the Irish Judge, Sir William

Downes, and proved to him the necessity of a Union with Ireland. But (he

proceeds) it will never take place, if it is set about publicly.

 

Irish loyalists united in decrying the comparatively lenient methods of

Cornwallis; but, despite the urgent advice of Camden to Pitt, the change

of system met with approval at Downing Street. This is the more

remarkable as letters from Dublin were full of invectives against

Cornwallis. Buckingham wrote almost daily to his brother, Grenville,

foretelling ruin from the weakness and vacillation of the Lord

Lieutenant. Still more furious were Beresford, Cooke, and Lees. Their

correspondence with Auckland, Postmaster-General at London, was so

systematic as to imply design. Probably they sought to procure the

dismissal of Cornwallis and the nomination of Auckland in his place.

There can be little doubt that Auckland lent himself to the scheme with

a view to maintaining the Protestant ascendancy unimpaired; for he wrote

to Beresford that public opinion in England favoured the maintenance of

the existing order of things in Church and State in both kingdoms. The

following extracts from the letters which he received from Cooke and

Lees are typical. On 4th October Lees writes: "I am afraid Lord

Cornwallis is not devil enough to deal with the devils he has to contend

with in this country.... The profligacy of the murderous malignant

disposition of Paddy soars too high for his humane and merciful

principles at this crisis." Cooke was less flowery but equally emphatic:

"If," he wrote on 22nd October, "your Union is to be Protestant, we have

100,000 Protestants who are connected by Orange Lodges, and they might

be made a great instrument.... Our robberies and murders continue; and

the depredations of the mountain rebels increase."[538]

 

Nevertheless Cornwallis held on his way. In the period 22nd August 1798

to the end of February 1799, he reprieved as many as 41 rebels out of

131 on whom sentence of death had been passed, and he commuted to

banishment heavy sentences passed on 78 others. It is clear, then, that,

despite the efforts of Buckingham and the officials of Dublin Castle,

Pitt continued to uphold a policy of clemency. But it is equally clear

that the reliance of Irish malcontents on French aid, the persistent

efforts of the Brest squadron to send that aid, and the savage reprisals

demanded, and when possible enforced, by the loyal minority of Irishmen,

brought about a situation in which Ireland could not stand alone.[539]

 

Preliminary inquiries respecting the Act of Union were set on foot, and

the results were summarized in Memoranda of the summer and autumn of

One of them, comprised among the Pelham manuscripts, is annotated

by Pitt. The compiler thus referred to the question of Catholic

Emancipation: "Catholics to be eligible to all offices, civil and

military, taking the present oath. Such as shall take the Oath of

Supremacy in the Bill of Rights may sit in Parliament without

subscribing the Abjuration. Corporation offices to be Protestant." On

this Pitt wrote the following note: "The first part seems

unexceptionable, and is exactly what I wish ... but if this oath is

sufficient for office, why require a different one for Parliament? And

why are Corporation offices to be exclusively Protestant, when those of

the State may be Catholic?"[540] Well might Pitt ask these questions,

for the whole system of exclusion by religious tests was condemned so

soon as admission to Parliament ceased to depend on them. Other

Memoranda dealt mainly with the difficult question of compensation to

the borough-holders and placemen who would suffer by the proposed

change. But for the present it will be well to deal with the question of

the abolition of religious tests.

 

The procedure of Pitt in regard to this difficult subject was eminently

cautious. As was the case before dealing with the fiscal problem in

1785, so now he invited over certain leading Irishmen in order to

discuss details. About the middle of October he had two interviews with

the Earl of Clare, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. These important

conferences took place at Holwood, where he was then occupied in marking

out a new road; for his pastime every autumn was to indulge his

favourite pursuit of planting trees and otherwise improving his grounds.

The two ablest men in the sister kingdoms must have regarded one another

with interest. They were not unlike in figure except that Clare was

short. His frame was as slight as Pitt's; his features were thin and

finely chiselled. Neither frame nor features bespoke the haughty spirit

and dauntless will that enabled him at times to turn the current of

events and overbear the decisions of Lords Lieutenant. In forcefulness

and narrowness, in bravery and bigotry, he was a fit spokesman of the

British garrison, which was resolved to hold every outwork of the

citadel.

 

The particulars of their converse are unknown. Probably Clare had the

advantage which a man of narrow views but expert knowledge enjoys over

an antagonist who trusts in lofty principles and cherishes generous

hopes. Clare, knowing his ground thoroughly, must have triumphed. Pitt

did not confess his defeat. Indeed, on 16th October, he wrote

reassuringly to Grenville: "I have had two very full conversations with

Lord Clare. What he says is very encouraging to the great question of

the Union, in which I do not think we shall have much difficulty; I

mean, in proportion to the magnitude of the subject. At his desire I

have written to press the Speaker [Foster] to come over, which he seems

to think may be of great importance." Here is Clare's version of the

interviews in a letter of the same day to his fellow countryman,

Castlereagh: "I have seen Mr. Pitt, the Chancellor, and the Duke of

Portland, who seem to feel very sensibly the critical situation of our

damnable country, and that the Union alone can save it. I should have

hoped that what has passed would have opened the eyes of every man in

England to the insanity of their past conduct with respect to the

Papists of Ireland; but I can very plainly perceive that they were as

full of their popish projects as ever. I trust, and I hope I am not

deceived, that they are fairly inclined to give them up, and to bring

the measure forward unencumbered with the doctrine of Emancipation. Lord

Cornwallis has intimated his acquiescence in this point; Mr. Pitt is

decided upon it, and I think he will keep his colleagues steady."[541]

 

The mention of Castlereagh seems to call for a short account of one who,

after assisting in carrying the Act of Union, was destined to win a

European reputation as a disciple of Pitt. Robert Stewart, Viscount

Castlereagh, and second Marquis of Londonderry (1769-1822), was the son

of Robert Stewart of Ballylawn in County Londonderry by his first

marriage, that with the daughter of the Earl of Hertford. Educated at

Armagh and at St. John's College, Cambridge, he soon returned to contest

the seat of County Down with Lord Downshire, and succeeded by dint of

hard work and the expenditure of £60,000. He entered the Irish

Parliament as a representative of the freeholders as against the

aristocracy; but the second marriage of his father (now Marquis of

Londonderry) with the eldest daughter of the late Earl Camden brought

the family into close connection with the second Earl, who, on becoming

Lord Lieutenant in 1795, soon succeeded in detaching young Stewart from

the popular party, already, from its many indiscretions, distasteful to

his cool and cautious nature. Stewart had recently married Lady Emily

Hobart, the daughter of the late Earl of Buckinghamshire, and became

Viscount Castlereagh in October 1795. Though continuing to support the

claims of the Catholics, he upheld Camden's policy of coercion; and his

firm and resolute character made his support valuable in Parliament.

 

The sagacity of his advice in committee, and the straightforward

boldness of his action as an administrator, are in marked contrast to

his rambling and laboured speeches, in whose incongruous phrases alone

there lurked signs of Hibernian humour. "The features of the clause";

"sets of circumstances coming up and circumstances going down"; "men

turning their backs upon themselves"; "the constitutional principle

wound up in the bowels of the monarchy"; "the Herculean labour of the

honourable member, who will find himself quite disappointed when he has

at last brought forth