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

exaggerating the state of the case; and a very short experience

    will prove that I am right; and the Speaker will ere long feel

    that he has fallen from a most exalted situation and character

    into one of a very opposite description. Save him from it if not

    too late. Yourself excluded from it, I am afraid nothing

    permanent can be formed; but if the Speaker was to advise the

    King to call upon the Duke of Portland to form an

    Administration, I am persuaded His Grace at the head of it, with

    either Steele, Ryder, Lord Hawkesbury, or even Mr. Abbott as his

    Chancellor of the Exchequer, would fill the public eye

    infinitely more than anything that can be found upon the plan

    now in agitation. By the answer I have received from the King to

    my resignation I must entreat you without delay to send for my

    correspondence with Lord Westmorland in order that I may be sure

    of what my recollection suggests, that I refused to give the

    promise of the Government at home that what was then proposed

    was the ultimatum of concession.

 

The last sentence of Chatham's letter refers to the difficulties of

Pitt's position. These have nearly always been overlooked. Yet his

decision turned finally on a question of honour. It is true that neither

Pitt nor Cornwallis gave a distinct pledge to the Irish Catholics that

the Cabinet would press their claims if they would support the Union.

But no such pledge could have been given without exasperating the King

and the privileged phalanx at St. Stephen's Green. Therefore, when the

critics of Pitt demand to see the proof that he made a promise, they ask

for what, in the nature of the case, could not be forthcoming.

Cornwallis and Castlereagh were aware of the need of extreme caution in

making overtures to the leading Catholics; and they afterwards denied

that they gave a distinct pledge. Nevertheless, some of their agents

induced the Catholics of the south and west of Ireland, to act in a

"highly useful" manner, which averted an otherwise dangerous opposition.

Castlereagh explained this to Pitt early in January;[587] and the

scrupulous Minister must have considered these promises as a debt of

honour. That some of the leading Irish Catholics viewed them in the same

light appears in an account of a representative meeting held at Ryan's

house in Marlborough Street, Dublin, on 27th October 1804. Ryan then set

forth the condition of his co-religionists at the time of the Union, and

referred to the stipulations made to them by Government. Others,

including Lord Fingall and a barrister, Scully, followed; and after two

more meetings, they resolved to petition Pitt, who had by that time

returned to office, it being known that he was at heart favourable to

their claims.[588] But in his speech of 14th May 1805 on this topic, he

said, "I did not make a distinct pledge. On the contrary, I believe the

line of argument I took was, that if it should be thought right to give

what the Catholics required, it might be given with more safety to the

Empire."[589]

 

What the stipulations were is not clear; for with this exception the

Irish Records are disappointingly silent. But it is clear that Canning

finally came to consider them binding on an honourable man. In his great

speech on Catholic Emancipation in March 1827, while admitting that Pitt

in 1800 made no definite promise to the Catholics, he added these

notable words: "The Catholics were made to believe, and that belief was

a powerful inducement to them to lend their aid towards the

accomplishment of the measure [the Union] that in the Imperial

Parliament the question which so nearly concerned them would be more

favourably entertained.... There is no tribunal, however solemn, before

which I am not prepared to depose to my firm belief in the sincerity of

Mr. Pitt's wishes and intentions to carry it." This passage once for all

refutes the charges of insincerity which certain of Canning's

biographers have brought against Pitt.

 

Light is thrown on this topic by notes of Bishop Tomline. Pitt consulted

his former tutor at this crisis; for on 6th February he wrote warning

him of his approaching resignation on grounds which he desired to

explain. He added: "I am in the firm persuasion that an Arrangement can

be formed to which I can give a cordial general support, and which may

keep everything safe."[590] The bishop thereupon came to town and saw

much of Pitt, whose conduct he thus describes: "I never saw Mr. Pitt in

more uniformly cheerful spirits, although everyone about him was

dejected and melancholy. He talked of his quitting office with the

utmost composure, gave the King the highest credit for the notions on

which he acted, and also fully acquitted those who were supposed to have

influenced his sentiments and conduct. He felt some dissatisfaction at

the conduct of one who was _not_ a Cabinet Minister, and was under great

obligations to Mr. Pitt, who had by intrigues and misrepresentations and

every unfair means in his power endeavoured to influence people's

opinion on the question and to excite alarm and prejudice against him."

The reference here is to Lord Auckland, but nothing definite is known as

to his conduct. The bishop then states that Pitt's equanimity was

surprising, inasmuch as his resignation would reduce his income to less

than that of a country gentleman and necessitate the sale of Holwood.

Nevertheless, no hasty word fell from him even in the most confidential

conversation; but he talked cheerfully of living in privacy for the rest

of his life, and expressed satisfaction that men who were attached to

the constitution would carry on affairs of State. The safety of the

country seemed to be his only concern. Tomline then describes the cause

and the circumstances of Pitt's resignation:[591]

 

    While the business of the Union was going on, Lord Cornwallis

    had informed the Ministers in England that the support of the

    Catholics to the measure would in a great degree depend upon the

    intention of Ministers to remove those disabilities under which

    they at present laboured. This produced in the Cabinet a

    discussion of the question of Catholic Emancipation, as it is

    called, and Lord Cornwallis was authorized to declare that it

    was intended by Government, after the Union should have taken

    place, to grant to the Catholics some further indulgences; but

    he was not authorized to pledge the Government to any particular

    measure, nor was any plan of this kind settled by the Cabinet.

    When the King's Speech was to be drawn up for the opening of the

    Imperial Parliament, the Catholic Question naturally occurred

    and gave rise to a good deal of discussion in the Cabinet. Mr.

    Pitt, Lord Grenville, Lord Spencer, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Wyndham

    declared themselves in favour of Catholic Emancipation; and the

    Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Portland and Lord Westmorland

    against it. Lord Chatham and Lord Liverpool did not attend the

    Council, the former being at Winchester as military commander of

    that district and the latter was confined to his house by

    illness.

 

    The King was of course informed of this division in the Cabinet

    and took a decided part by talking against the question freely

    and openly to everyone he saw. On Wednesday, the 28th of

    January, the King said to Mr. D[undas] at the _levée_ in such a

    voice that those who were near might hear him--"So here is an

    Irish Secretary come over to propose in Parliament the

    Emancipation of the Irish Catholics, as they call it"--and then

    he declared himself in the strongest degree hostile to the

    question. This was of course reported to Mr. Pitt. On the Friday

    (the 30th) the King sent for the Speaker to the Queen's House

    and conversed with him a long time. Upon my mentioning this

    circumstance to Mr. Pitt, he said he knew what happened at that

    interview and seemed perfectly satisfied with it. He had before

    told me (namely, the first night he saw me, Saturday, Feb. 7th)

    that he knew nine days before that he should be under the

    necessity of resigning. On the 31st Mr. Pitt wrote his first

    letter to the King. Two letters only passed on each side, which

    see. Mr. Pitt did not see the King till at the _levée_ on

    Wednesday the 11th [February]. The King spoke to him in the most

    gracious manner--"You have behaved like yourself throughout this

    business. Nothing could possibly be more honourable. I have a

    great deal more to say to you."--"Your Majesty has already said

    much more than the occasion calls for."--"Oh no, I have not; and

    I do not care who hears me: it was impossible for anyone to

    behave more honourably." After more conversation of the same

    kind the King desired to see Mr. Pitt in the closet. The _levée_

    continued, and, some little time after, Mr. Pitt said to the

    King: "Your Majesty will pardon me if I take the liberty of

    saying that I fear I shall not be able to attend Your Majesty in

    the closet."--"Oh yes: you must; I have just done." The King

    went to the closet and Mr. Pitt attended him. Nothing could

    exceed the kindness of the King towards Mr. Pitt: he was

    affected very much and more than once. The conversation lasted

    more than half an hour; and in the course of it the King said

    that, tho' he could no longer retain Mr. Pitt in his service, he

    hoped to have him as his friend. Mr. Pitt, with strong

    expressions both of duty and attachment and love to His Majesty,

    submitted that any intercourse of that kind might be injurious

    to His Majesty's Government; for that it was very important that

    his new Ministers should appear to act by themselves and for

    themselves, and that if he was frequently with His Majesty,

    unfavourable conclusions might be drawn concerning his

    interference or influence. This seemed to satisfy the King, and

    they parted. At the _levée_ the King spoke in the highest terms

    of Mr. Pitt's conduct throughout the business of his

    resignation, and said that it was very different from that of

    his predecessors.

 

This narrative needs little comment, except on the phrase that the

Cabinet had promised to grant the Catholics "some further indulgences."

Probably the schism occurred on the extent of those concessions, Pitt

and the majority desiring the admission of Catholics to Parliament and

to offices of trust, while Loughborough and the minority refused to do

more than grant some measure of support to the Irish priests.[592] The

King probably opposed both concessions; and Pitt seems to have ascribed

his strenuous opposition more to the intrigues of Auckland than to those

of Loughborough. In this he was probably mistaken. The best judge on

this question, the monarch himself, certainly looked on the Chancellor

as a traitor. But in truth the crisis could not be avoided. The King

acknowledged as much in his effusive comments on the extremely

honourable conduct of Pitt, but he also most firmly declared that he

could no longer retain him in his service. This was in effect a

dismissal. On 18th February, George wrote a brief letter expressing his

sorrow at the close of Pitt's political career and his satisfaction that

Parliament had passed the Ways and Means without debate. Thus did he

close his correspondence with a Minister who had devotedly served him

for more than seventeen years.

 

                  *       *       *       *       *

 

There is little need to notice the hasty and spiteful comments of Lord

Malmesbury, that Pitt was playing a selfishly criminal game by

resigning, with the evident aim of showing his own strength and being

called back to office on his own terms.[593] The Malmesbury Diaries at

this point consist chiefly of hearsays, which can readily be refuted.

But this calumny spread widely, and Fox finally barbed it with the hint

that the substitution of Addington for Pitt was "a notorious juggle,"

the former being obviously a dummy to be knocked down when it suited

Pitt to come back fancy-free about the Catholics. Fortunately, the

correspondence of statesmen often supplies antidotes to the venomous

gibes of bystanders; and a case in point is a phrase in Grenville's

letter of 13th February to Minto: "There was no alternative except that

of taking this step [resignation] or of agreeing to the disguise or

dereliction of one's opinion on one of the most important questions in

the whole range of our domestic policy."[594]

 

Pitt has been sharply censured for his excessive