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

toughness, energy, and

resourcefulness which, despite his halting cumbrous style, made him a

power in Parliament; but his youth and his stiff un-Hibernian ways told

against him. Beresford was detained by illness in London; and Clare,

after his return to Dublin, did strangely little for the cause. Thus, at

this critical time the Unionists were without a lead and without a

leader. The autumn of 1798 was frittered away in interviews in London,

the purport of which ought to have clearly appeared two or three months

earlier. The passive attitude and tardy action of Pitt and Portland in

these critical weeks offer a strange contrast to the habits of clear

thinking and forceful action characteristic of Napoleon. It is painful

to compare their procedure with the action of the First Consul in

speedily bringing ecclesiastical bigots and fanatical atheists to the

working compromise summed up in the Concordat. In the case of the Union,

the initiative, energy, and zeal, which count for much among a Celtic

people, passed to the side of Pitt's opponents. Thenceforth that measure

could be carried through the Irish Parliament only by coercion or

bribery.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

[530] Salomon, "Pitt," 599. See, too, the similar letter of Richmond to

his sister, Lady Conolly, in June 1795 (Lecky, vii, 134).

 

[531] Pitt MSS., 328.

 

[532] _Ibid._, 169.

 

[533] Porritt, ii, ch. iii; Seeley, "Stein," i, 267-82.

 

[534] Pitt MSS., 326. For the text in full see "Pitt and Napoleon

Miscellanies."

 

[535] B.M. Add. MSS., 34454.

 

[536] See my article in the "Eng. Hist. Rev." for October 1910.

 

[537] B.M. Add. MSS., 34454.

 

[538] B.M. Add. MSS., 34455.

 

[539] _Ibid._; "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 13.

 

[540] Lecky, viii, 328 note.

 

[541] "Dropmore P.," iv, 344; "Castlereagh Corresp.," i, 393.

 

[542] "Castlereagh Corresp.," i, 424 _et seq._; "Cornwallis Corresp.,"

ii, 439-441; Brougham, "Statesmen of George III"; Lecky, viii, 311;

Wilberforce ("Life," iii, 178) calls Castlereagh "a cold-blooded

creature."

 

[543] "Castlereagh Corresp.," ii, 29; "Buckingham P.," ii, 411, 412.

 

[544] Pitt MSS., 325; "Cornwallis Corresp.," ii, 441-3.

 

[545] Pretyman MSS.

 

[546] Pretyman MSS. "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 3; Macdonagh, "The

Viceroy's Post Bag," 19.

 

[547] "Beresford Corresp.," ii, 189; "Cornwallis Corresp.," ii, 436;

"Castlereagh Corresp.," i, 404.

 

[548] For the plan and notes, see "Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies."

 

[549] "Cornwallis Corresp.," ii, 456, 457.

 

[550] B.M. Add. MSS., 34455. William C. Plunket (1764-1854), born in co.

Fermanagh, was called to the Irish Bar in 1787, and entered Parliament

in 1798. He speedily made his mark, and in 1803 was State Prosecutor of

Emmett. In Pitt's second Administration (1804) he was Solicitor-General:

he was created Baron Plunket in 1827 and was Lord Chancellor of Ireland

in 1830-41. William Saurin sat in the Irish Parliament as a nominee of

Lord Downshire ("Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 212).

 

[551] "Strictures on a Pamphlet, etc.," 5 (Dublin, 1798).

 

[552] B.M. Add. MSS., 34455. The term "Contractor" used above is

equivalent to "Undertaker," _i.e._, one who undertook to get business

through the Irish Parliament for certain rewards (Lecky, iv, 353).

 

[553] Pretyman MSS.

 

[554] Pretyman MSS.; also in Pitt MSS., 327.

 

CHAPTER XIX (THE UNION (continued))

 

    "We must consider it as a measure of great national policy, the

    object of which is effectually to counteract the restless

    machinations of an inveterate enemy, who has uniformly and

    anxiously endeavoured to effect a separation between the two

    countries."--PITT, Speech on the Union, _21st April, 1800_.

 

 

On 22nd January 1799 the long talked-of Act of Union was pointedly

referred to in the King's Speech read out to the Irish Parliament. The

Speech was adopted by the House of Lords, amendments hostile to the

proposed measure being rejected by large majorities. But in the House of

Commons nationalist zeal raged with ever-increasing fury from dusk until

the dawn of the following day. In vain had Castlereagh made liberal use

of the sum of £5,000 which he begged Pitt to send over to serve as a

_primum mobile_ at Dublin. In vain had he "worked like a horse." The

feeling against the measure was too strong to be allayed by bribery of a

retail kind.

 

Owing to ill health Grattan was not present. Sir John Parnell,

Chancellor of the Exchequer, was among the less violent opponents; but

the most telling appeal was that of Plunket, an Ulsterman. With an

eloquence which even won votes he denied either the right of the

Government to propose such a measure or the competence of that Assembly

to commit political suicide. If the Act of Union were passed, he said,

no one in Ireland would obey it. Then, turning to the Speaker, he

exclaimed: "You are appointed to make laws and not Legislatures. You are

appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, and not to transfer

them; and if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the Government." On

behalf of Government Castlereagh made a well-reasoned reply; but his

speech was too laboured to commend a cause which offended both the

sentiments and interests of members; and the Opposition was beaten by

only one vote--106 to 105. The debate was marked by curious incidents.

Sir Jonah Barrington, a chronicler of these events, declared that

Cooke, perturbed by the threatened defection of a member named French,

whispered to Castlereagh, and then, sidling up to the erring placeman,

spoke long and earnestly until smiles spread over the features of both.

A little later French rose to state his regret at the opinions which he

had previously expressed. The story is not convincing in the case of a

building provided with committee-rooms; but there can be no doubt that

bribery went on before the debate. The final voting showed that there

were limits to that form of influence. Even the canvassing of

Castlereagh failed to persuade members to pass sentence of political

death on half of their number and of transportation on the remainder.

The joy of the men of Dublin found expression in a spontaneous

illumination, and the mob broke all windows which were not lit up.

 

On all sides the procedure of the Government met with severe censure. As

usual, blame was lavished upon Cornwallis, Lord Carysfort warning

Grenville that the defeat was due to the disgust of "Orangemen and

exterminators" at his clemency. Buckingham, writing to Pitt on 29th

January, reported that on the estimate of Archbishop Troy, nine-tenths

of the Irish Catholics were for the Union: "Remember, however," he

added, "that this can only be done by the removal of Lord Cornwallis and

Lord Castlereagh.... I protest I see no salvation but in the immediate

change. Send us Lord Winchilsea, or rather Lord Euston, or in short send

us any one. But send us Steele as his Secretary, and with firmness the

Question (and with it Ireland) will be saved. Excuse this

earnestness."[555] Pitt took no notice of this advice, but continued to

support Cornwallis. As for the Irish Executive, it proceeded now to the

policy of official coercion recommended from Downing Street. Parnell was

dismissed from the Exchequer; the Prime Serjeant was deposed, and four

opponents of Union were removed from subordinate posts, among them being

Foster, son of the Speaker.

 

So confident was Pitt of victory at Dublin that he introduced the Bill

of Union at Westminster on 23rd January. The King's Speech referred to

the designs of enemies and traitors to separate Ireland from Great

Britain, and counselled the adoption of means for perpetuating the

connection. Forthwith Sheridan moved a hostile amendment. With his

wonted zeal and eloquence, he urged the inopportuneness of such a

measure when 40,000 British troops were holding down Ireland, and he

denied the competence either of the British or Irish Parliament to

decide on it. Pitt promptly refuted Sheridan's plea by referring to the

action of the English and Scottish Parliaments at the time of their

Union, and he twitted him with seeking to perpetuate at Dublin a system

whose injustice and cruelty he had always reprobated. Allowing that

British rule in Ireland had been narrow and intolerant, Pitt foretold

the advent of a far different state of things after the Union. Then,

pointing to the divergence of British and Irish policy at the time of

the Regency crisis he pronounced it a dangerous omen, and declared the

Union to be necessary to the peace and stability of the Empire. The

House agreed with him and negatived the amendment without a division.

 

It is worth noting that of Sheridan's hypothetical colleagues in office

under the Prince Regent in the Cabinet outlined in February 1789, not

one now supported him. Fox was not present, being engrossed in Lucretius

and the "Poetics" of Aristotle. He, however, informed Lord Holland that

he detested the Union and all centralized Governments, his predilection

being for Federalism.[556] The remark merits notice in view of the

concentration of power in France, and in her vassal Republics at Rome,

Milan, Genoa, and Amsterdam. That eager student of the Classics wished

to dissolve the British Isles into their component parts at a time when

the highly organized energy of the French race was threatening every

neighbouring State. While the tricolour waved at Amsterdam, Mainz,

Berne, Rome, Valetta, and Cairo, Fox thought it opportune to federalize

British institutions. The means whereby Pitt sought to solidify them are

open to question. But which of the two statesmen had the sounder sense?

 

On 31st January, after the receipt of the disappointing news from

Dublin, Pitt returned to the charge. Expressing deep regret that the

Irish House of Commons should have rejected the plan of a Union before

it knew the details, he proceeded to describe the proposals of the

Government. Firstly, he insisted that it was the concerted action of

invaders from without and traitors within that made the measure

necessary. He then argued that the settlement of 1782, according

legislative independence to the Irish Parliament, was far from final, as

appeared in the ministerial declarations of that time. Moreover, Irish

Bills did not become law unless sanctioned by the King and sealed by the

Great Seal of Great Britain on the advice of British Ministers, facts

which implied the dependence of the Irish Parliament. Turning to the

commercial issues at stake, he effectively quoted the statement of

Foster to the Irish House of Commons in 1785, that they would be mad to

reject the commercial proposals then offered, which, if thrown out,

would not be renewed. But now, said Pitt, they are renewed in the

projected Union; and Foster has used his influence to reject a measure

which breaks down the fiscal barriers between the two kingdoms. After

referring to the Regency Question, he pointed out the danger of France

attacking the British race at its weakest point. Never would she cease

to assail it until the Union was indissoluble. Commerce, he said, was

the source of wealth; and the wealth needed to withstand the predatory

designs of France would be enhanced by a free interchange of British and

Irish products. The Union would encourage the flow into the poorer

island of British capital which it so much needed. Next, adverting to

the religious feuds in Ireland, he remarked on the danger of granting

concessions to the Irish Catholics while Ireland remained a distinct

kingdom. He then uttered these momentous words:

 

    On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion, or the

    propriety of agitating the question, or saying how soon or how

    late it may be fit to discuss it, two propositions are

    indisputable; first, when the conduct of the Catholics shall be

    such as to make it