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

declared them

to have the support of three fourths of the property there represented.

After showing the need of keeping the debts of the two islands distinct,

he explained that an examination of the Customs and Excise duties

warranted the inference that the contribution of Ireland towards

Imperial expenses should be two fifteenths of that of Great Britain. He

claimed that this plan would press less heavily on Ireland than the

present duty of contributing £1,000,000 to the British armaments in time

of war and half that amount in peace. Further, the Union would tend to

assuage religious jealousies and to consolidate the strength of the

Empire. Early on the next morning the House divided--158 for and 115

against Government. This result did not wholly please Dublin Castle.

Cooke wrote on the morrow to Auckland: "The activity and intimidation of

Opposition, together with their subscription purse, does sad mischief.

They scruple not to give from 3,000 to 4,000 guineas for a vote."

Government therefore had to mourn over seven deserters.[569]

Nevertheless, this division was decisive. Castlereagh rounded up his

flock, and by the display of fat pasture called in some of the

wanderers. Is it possible that the Opposition purse was merely the

device of a skilful auctioneer, who sends in a friend to raise the bids?

 

The triumph of Government at Dublin had its effects at Westminster. On

21st April 1800 Pitt explained the Resolutions as recently accepted by

the Irish Parliament. He spoke very briefly, probably owing to ill

health, which beset him through many weeks of that year.[570] He soon

met a challenger. Thomas Jones dared him to combat by accusing Ministers

of seeking to disfranchise Ireland by corrupt means. Foiled in argument,

they now acted on the principle

 

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

 

After a further display of classical knowledge, Jones declared that the

introduction of 100 Irish members into that House must destroy the

British constitution, which, like Damocles, would for ever be threatened

with the sword of Dionysius suspended over it by a single hair.

 

Disregarding rhetoric and classical allusions, Pitt plunged into

business. In none of his speeches is there a simpler statement of a

case. He declared the Union to be absolutely necessary as a means of

thwarting the machinations of an enemy ever intent on separating the two

kingdoms. It would further allay the religious animosities rife in

Ireland, and would conduce to her freedom and happiness. He then uttered

these words: "It may be proper to leave to Parliament an opportunity of

considering what may be fit to be done for His Majesty's Catholic

subjects, without seeking at present any rule to govern the Protestant

Establishment or to make any provision upon that subject." This

statement is not wholly clear; but it and its context undoubtedly opened

up a prospect of Catholic Emancipation such as Cornwallis had far more

clearly outlined. The significance of Pitt's declaration will appear in

the sequel.

 

On the subject of commerce Pitt laid down the guiding principle that

after the Union all Customs barriers between the two islands ought to be

swept away as completely as between England and Scotland. If at present

they swerved from this grand object, it was for the sake of reaching it

the more surely. In compliance with the demand of Ireland, they would

allow her to maintain a protective duty of 10 per cent. on cottons and

woollens, in the latter case for not more than twenty years. He then

added these words: "The manufacturers of this country do not, I believe,

wish for any protecting duties; all they desire is a free intercourse

with all the world; and, though the want of protecting duties may

occasion partial loss, they think that amply compensated by general

advantage." No more statesmanlike utterance had been heard in the House

of Commons. Only by degrees had Pitt worked his way to this conviction.

In his early Budgets, as we saw, he clung to the system of numerous

duties; but, despite the cramping influence of war, he now relied on the

effects of a two-shilling Income Tax and aimed at the abolition of

protective Customs dues. He was fated never to reach this ideal; but

there can be no doubt that he cherished it as one of the hopes of his

life.

 

Turning next to the question of Ireland's contribution to the Imperial

Exchequer, Pitt set forth his reasons for fixing it at two fifteenths of

the revenue of Great Britain; but, as this decision might in the future

unduly burden the smaller island, it would not be final; and he

suggested that at the end of twenty years the resources of each would so

far have developed as to admit of a more authoritative assessment. If,

however, in the meantime the amount paid by Ireland should be in excess

of what ought to be paid, the surplus should be applied either to the

extinction of her Debt or to local improvements. He further expressed

the hope that in course of time the Debts and the produce of taxation

would be so far assimilated in the two kingdoms as to admit of the

formation of one National Debt and one system of taxation. Despite the

favourable nature of these proposals, Pitt encountered a spirited

opposition. Grey declared the measure to be a gross violation of the

rights of the Irish people. Sheridan, Dr. Laurence (the friend of

Burke), and Tierney continued in the same strain; and Grey finally dared

the Minister to dissolve the Irish Parliament and appeal to the people.

Throwing off all signs of bodily weakness, Pitt took up the challenge.

Last year, he said, when the Commons of Ireland rejected the Union,

certain members applauded them. Now, when they passed it, the same

members said "appeal to the people." He refused to do so, knowing well

the scenes of violence and intimidation that would result from

consulting primary assemblies of Irishmen. The reference to those

bodies, so notorious during the French Revolution, clinched his reply;

and the House expressed approval of the Union by 236 votes to 30 (21st

April 1800).

 

The further debates on the Bill are of little interest. In the absence

of Fox, Grey was the protagonist of Opposition. Bankes, once a firm

supporter of Pitt, opposed the measure. Wilberforce confessed to

tremulous uncertainty about it, ostensibly because the addition of 100

Irish members to the House would add to the influence of the Crown, but

more probably because he foresaw Catholic Emancipation. Peel, already

known as one of the most successful and patriotic of Lancashire

manufacturers, spoke up manfully for the Union, though he deeply

regretted that Ireland would retain certain protective duties against

Great Britain. Very noteworthy, in view of the son's championship of

Free Trade in 1845, was the contention of the father that a weak country

(Ireland) had no need of "protection" against a stronger one. In reality

it would be as if a poor family shut its doors against assistance from a

wealthy one. On the trading proposals Pitt's following was thinned down

to 133; but the main question went through in May by overwhelming

majorities in both Houses. In the following month it passed through the

Irish Parliament.

 

Castlereagh thereupon introduced a Bill to indemnify the holders of

pocket boroughs who would lose patronage by the proposed changes. The

Government, having now revised its previous resolve, proposed to

disfranchise as many as 84 small Irish boroughs, and allotted £15,000

for each, or £1,260,000 in all. In explanation of this payment it must

be remembered that the owning of such boroughs was a recognized form of

property, as appeared in Pitt's proposal of 1785 to compensate British

owners whom he sought to dispossess. Nothing but the near approach of

revolution in 1832 availed to shatter the system of pocket boroughs in

Great Britain; and then their owners were sent empty away. The

difference in treatment marks the infiltration of new ideas. In England

and Ireland a vote and a seat had been a form of property. According to

the Rights of Man the franchise was an inalienable right of citizenship.

 

The list of Union honours and preferments having been published, we need

not dwell on that unsavoury topic, except to remark that the promotions

in the peerage conferred for services in connection with the Union

numbered forty-six; that the opposition of the Protestant Archbishop of

Cashel was bought off by the promise of the Archbishopric of Dublin; and

that the number of ecclesiastical jobs consequent on the Union was

nearly twenty. The promotions in the legal profession numbered twelve.

Twelve pensions and four titular honours were also granted. Five

aspirants refused the posts offered to them because they expected "snug

sinecures" which "require no attendance at all." In March 1805 Lord

Hardwicke, successor to Cornwallis, complained that his funds were so

embarrassed by the various claims that the Irish Civil List had only

£150 in hand.[571] These sordid bargainings cannot be said to amount to

wholesale corruption, and did not much exceed those which usually were

needed to carry an important Bill through that Parliament. On the whole

Pitt and his colleagues might reflect with satisfaction that the use of

bribes served to cleanse the political life of Ireland in the future.

 

                  *       *       *       *       *

 

The Union of the British and Irish Parliaments is generally considered

from the insular point of view. This is quite natural; for primarily it

concerned the British Isles. Nevertheless the influences which brought

it about were more than insular. The formation of the United Kingdom, by

the Act which came into effect on 1st January 1801, was but one among

many processes of consolidation then proceeding. France was the first

State which succeeded in concentrating political power at the capital;

and the new polity endued her with a strength sufficient to break in

pieces the chaotic systems of her neighbours. The mania of the French

for centralization was seen in their dealings with the Batavian

Republic, and with the Swiss Confederation, which they crushed into the

mould of an indivisible Republic. Everywhere the new unifying impulse

undermined or swept away local Parliaments or provincial Estates.

Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in practice meant a single,

democratic, and centralized Government. In self defence the Powers

threatened by France borrowed her political weapons. In succession Great

Britain, Prussia, and for a time even Austria, pulled themselves

together for the struggle. As the binding powers of commerce also tended

towards union, the Nineteenth Century witnessed the absorption of little

States, except where they represented a distinct nationality.

 

Confronted by the new and threatening forces in France, Pitt was

virtually compelled to abrogate a system under which the Speaker of the

Irish House of Commons, and Ministers who had no definite

responsibility, could meddle in military affairs. Under the sway of Mars

dualism cannot exist. In the crises of a great war Cabals and Juntos go

by the board. The Irish Ministry was little more than a Junto; and

Ireland need not mourn its loss.

 

The loss of her Parliament was far more serious; and if that body had

represented the Irish people, Pitt's action would be indefensible. But

Grattan's Parliament represented only a small minority of the Irish

people; and that minority was resolved not to admit Catholics to full

civic rights. It would have fought to maintain Protestant Episcopalian

ascendancy; and under the conditions then existing England must have

drawn the sword on behalf of her exacting "garrison."

 

Even in ordinary times such a state of things was unbearable; and the

French saw it. Their aim was to strike at England through Ireland; and,

but for Bonaparte's dreams of conquest in the East, this blow would have

been dealt. Fortunately for Great Britain, his oriental ambitions served

to divert to the sands of Egypt a thunderbolt which would have been

fatal at Dublin. Even as it was, the mere presence of Bruix' great fleet

at Brest prolonged the ferment in Ireland, thus emphasizing the force of

the arguments in favour of Union. As we have seen, Pitt placed them in

the forefront of his speeches; and those who charge him with hypocrisy,

because France did not strike vigorously at Ireland during or after the

Rebellion of 1798, only expose their ignorance of the facts and

sentiments of that time. Throughout the years 1799 and 1800 the thought

of invasion filled the minds of loyalists with dread, of malcontents

with eager hope.

 

Nevertheless Pitt saw in the Union, not merely an expedient necessitated

by war, but a permanent uplift for the whole nation. From the not

dissimilar case of the Union with Scotland he augured hopefully for

Ireland, believing that her commerce would thrive not less than that of

North Britain. Still more did he found his hopes upon the religious

settlement whereby he sought to crown his work. Ever since the days of

Queen Elizabeth the strife between the Protestants and Catholics had

marred the fortunes of that land. Pitt believed that it could be stilled

in the larger political unity for which he now prepared.