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

safe for the Government to admit them to the

    participation of the privileges granted to those of the

    established religion, and when the temper of the times shall be

    favourable to such a measure--when these events take place, it

    is obvious that such a question may be agitated in an United

    Imperial Parliament with much greater safety, than it could be

    in a separate Legislature. In the second place, I think it

    certain that, even for whatever period it may be thought

    necessary after the Union to withhold from the Catholics the

    enjoyment of those advantages, many of the objections which at

    present arise out of their situation would be removed, if the

    Protestant Legislature were no longer separate and local, but

    general and Imperial: and the Catholics themselves would at once

    feel a mitigation of the most goading and irritating of their

    present causes of complaint.

 

Pitt then deprecated the effort to inflame the insular pride of

Irishmen. Could Irishmen really object to unite with Britons? For it was

no subordinate place that they were asked to take, but one of equality

and honour. Most happily then did he quote the vow of Aeneas for an

equal and lasting compact between his Trojans and the Italians:

 

    Non ego nec Teucris Italos parere jubebo,

    Nec nova regna peto: paribus se legibus ambae

    Invictae gentes aeterna in foedera mittant.[557]

 

He ended his speech by moving eight Resolutions on the question; and the

House approved their introduction by 140 votes to 15. This statesmanlike

survey lacked the fire and imaginative elevation of his speech on the

Slave Trade in 1792. But there was little need of rhetoric and

invective. Pitt's aim was to convince Ireland of the justice of his

proposals. And his plea, though weak at one point, must rank among the

ablest expositions of a great and complex question. How different the

course of events might have been if the Commons of Ireland had first

heard Pitt's proposals of Union, clearly and authoritatively set forth,

not in the distorted form which rumour or malice depicted. In this

respect Gladstone proved himself an abler tactician than Pitt. His Home

Rule Bill of 1886 remained a secret until it was described in that

masterly statement which formed a worthy retort to Pitt's oration of

31st January 1799. Pitt prepared it with great care, so Auckland avers;

and, as he and Long had secured the presence of the best reporters, the

text of the speech is among the most accurate that we possess for that

period. He now resolved to bring forward specific Resolutions, instead

of, as before, proposing merely to appoint Commissioners to consider the

details of the Bill of Union. It is unfortunate that he did not take

this step at first. The mistake probably resulted from his besetting

sin--excess of confidence. On 26th January he expressed to Cornwallis

his deep disappointment and grief at the action of the Dublin

Parliament, which he ascribed to prejudice and cabal. Clearly he had

underrated the force of the nationalist opposition.

 

Meanwhile Castlereagh endeavoured to reckon the value of the pecuniary

interests in Ireland opposed to the Union. In a characteristically

narrow spirit he assessed the losses to borough-holders at £756,000; to

controllers of counties at £224,000; to barristers at £200,000; to

purchasers of parliamentary seats at £75,000; and he estimated the

probable depreciation of property in Dublin at £200,000. Thus, moneyed

interests worth £1,433,000 were arrayed against the Union. He proposed

to whittle down these claims by raising the number of Irish members in

the United Parliament either to 127 or 141. Both at Dublin and

Westminster Ministers were intent on appeasing hostile interests on the

easiest terms. Among Pitt's papers is a curious estimate of the opinion

of the propertied classes in the counties and chief towns of Ireland.

"Property" is declared to favour the Union in Antrim, Clare, Cork,

Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Londonderry, Mayo, Waterford, and

Wexford. It was hostile in Carlow, Cavan, Dublin, Fermanagh, Kildare,

and Louth. In the other counties it was divided on the subject. Among

the towns, Cork, Galway, Lisburne, Londonderry, Waterford, and Wexford

supported Union. Clonmell, Drogheda, and Dublin opposed it; while

Belfast, Kilkenny, and Limerick were doubtful. Most of the Grand Juries

petitioned for Union, only those of Dublin, Louth, Queen's County, and

Wicklow pronouncing against it.[558] In view of the expected attempt of

the Brest fleet, the Grand Jury of Cork burst into a patriotic rhapsody

which must be placed on record:

 

                                           _March 26, 1799._[559]

 

    ... At the present awful moment whilst we await the threatened

    attempt of the enemies of religion and of man to crush us in

    their sacrilegious embrace; whilst their diabolical influence

    cherishes rebellion and promotes assassination in the land, we

    look back with gratitude to the timely interposition of Great

    Britain, which has more than once rescued us from that infidel

    yoke under which so great a portion of distracted Europe at this

    moment groans. We have still to acknowledge how necessary that

    interposition is to protect us from the further attempts of an

    unprincipled foe, ... and to her assistance we are ... indebted

    for keeping down an unnatural but wide extended rebellion

    within the bosom of this country. To become a constituent part

    of that Empire to whose protection we owe our political

    existence and whose constitution is the admiration of the

    civilized world; to participate in those resources which are

    inexhaustible; to become joint proprietors of that navy which is

    irresistible; and to share in that commerce which knows no

    bounds, are objects beyond which our most sanguine wishes for

    the wealth and prosperity of Ireland cannot possibly extend,

    whilst the prospect which they hold forth of terminating the

    jarring interests of party and reconciling the jealous

    distinctions of religion, promises a restoration of that

    tranquillity to which the country has too long been a stranger.

 

This exuberant loyalty may have been heightened by the hope that Cork

would reap from the Union a commercial harvest equal to that which

raised Glasgow from a city of 12,700 souls before the Anglo-Scottish

Union, to one of nearly 70,000 in the year 1800. But the men of Cork

forgot that that marvellous increase was due to the coal, iron, and

manufactures of Lanarkshire, no less than to free participation in the

trade of the Empire.

 

The fact that Cork was then far more Unionist than Belfast is apt to

perplex the reader until he realizes that Roman Catholics for the most

part favoured Union, not so much from loyalty to George III, as from the

conviction that only in the Imperial Parliament could they gain full

religious equality. On the other hand the Presbyterians of Ulster had

fewer grievances to be redressed, and were not without hope of gaining

satisfaction from the Protestant Legislature at Dublin. It is certain

that the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam, besides Bishop Moylan

of Cork and other prelates, used their influence on behalf of the Union.

Cornwallis was known to favour the Catholic claims; and Wilberforce,

writing to Pitt, says: "I have long wished to converse with you a little

concerning the part proper for you to take when the Catholic Question

should come before the House. I feel it due to the long friendship which

has subsisted between us to state to you unreservedly my sentiments on

this very important occasion, especially as I fear they are different

from your own."[560] Pitt does not seem to have welcomed the suggestion

couched in these magisterial terms, and, as the sequel will show, he had

good grounds for concealing his hand. Only at one point did the Cabinet

declare its intentions. There being some fear that the Opposition at

Dublin would seek to win over the Catholics by the offer of

Emancipation, the Government declared its resolve to oppose any step in

this direction so long as that Parliament existed.[561]

 

It is well also to remember that the concession of the franchise to the

bulk of the Irish peasantry in 1793, with the full approval of Pitt,

enabled the Catholics to control the elections in the counties and

"open" boroughs except in Ulster. Therefore, though they could not send

to Parliament men of their creed, they could in many instances keep out

Protestants who were inimical to their interests. In the present case,

then, Catholic influence was certain to tell powerfully, though

indirectly, in favour of Union. These facts explain the progress of the

cause early in the year 1799. Opponents of the measure began to tremble

for their seats owing to the action either of Government or of the

Catholic vote. Accordingly, despite the frantic efforts of Lord

Downshire and Foster, Government carried the day by 123 to 103 (15th

February). Fear worked on behalf of Union. A great fleet was fitting out

at Brest, the Dutch ports were alive with work, and again Ireland was

believed to be the aim of the Republicans. As was the case in 1798, they

encouraged numbers of Irishmen to make pikes, to muster on the hills of

Cork and Wicklow, dealing murder and havoc in the plains by night.

Cornwallis therefore proclaimed martial law, armed the yeomen, and

sought to crush the malcontents, a proceeding which led critics to

charge Government with inciting the people to outrage in order to coerce

them. Those who flung out the sneer should also have proved that the

naval preparations at Brest and the Texel were instigated from Downing

Street in order to carry the Union.

 

The real feelings of Dublin officials appear in the letters of

Beresford, Cooke, and Lees to Auckland. On 15th March 1799 Beresford

writes: "Our business is going on smoothly in Parliament; from the day

that Government took the courage [_sic_] of dividing with the

Opposition, they have grown weaker and weaker every day as I foretold to

you they would. The Speaker [Foster], as I hear, appears to be much

softened. I am sure he sees that he has pledged himself too far, and

that he cannot depend upon those who heretofore supported him: and both

he and Ponsonby are conscious that the point will be carried and they,

of course, left in the lurch.... The country is in a wretched way,

organization going on everywhere; and if the French should land, I much

fear that there will be very universal risings." On the subject of

inter-insular trade Beresford informs Auckland on 29th March that

Ireland depends almost entirely upon Great Britain and her colonies,

having a balance in her favour in that trade but an adverse balance in

her dealings with foreign lands. She exports 41,670,000 yards of linen

to Great Britain and only 4,762,000 yards to other lands. Besides, the

British trade is increasing fast, as England uses less and less foreign

linen. On the morrow, Cooke declares that, if the French do not land,

the Irish malcontents will settle down. Commending the policy of going

slowly with the Union, he says: "By letting the subject cool, by opening

its nature, tendencies, and advantages, and seeming not to press it, and

by insinuating that no other course of safety to property remains, the

mind begins to think seriously and faints. I think during the Vacation

pains may be taken with the House of Commons so as to give us a fair

majority, and if the Catholics act steadily we should be able to carry

the point. I could wish that Mr. Pitt would suffer some person of

ability to prepare all the necessary Bills, and to fill up every detail;

so that the measure might be seen in its complete stage. I despair of

this being done, tho' obviously right; for Ministers never will act till

they are forced, and I do not wonder at it."[562]

 

Again, all the energy was on the side of the Opposition. On 11th April

Foster passed the whole subject in review in a speech of four hours'

duration. In order to weaken one of the strongest of Pitt's arguments,

he proposed that in case of a Regency, the Regent, who was chosen at

Westminster, should necessarily be Regent at Dublin. This proposal of

course implied the dependence of the Irish Parliament on that of Great

Britain; but, as invalidating one of the chief pleas for Union, Foster

pressed it home. He also charged Pitt with endeavouring to wring a large

sum of money every year from Ireland. The speech made a deep impression.

The only way of deadening its influence and stopping the Regency Bill

was to postpone it until August and summarily to close the session on

1st June. The meanness of this device is a tribute to the power of

Foster and the mediocrity of the officials of Dublin Castle.

 

Meanwhile the naval situation had cleared up, so far as concerns

Ireland. On 25th April Admiral Bruix, with a powerful fleet, slipped out

from Brest