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

how

am I to estimate the man who comes in? If the latter, what judgement can

I form of the man who goes out?"[630] Slander also was busy in the guise

of that gadfly, Nicholls, who proposed to thank the King for dismissing

him. By way of retort Pitt's friends triumphantly carried a motion of

thanks to Pitt for his great services, against a carping minority of

fifty-two; but members were heard to mutter their preference for

Addington over all "the d--d men of genius."

 

Was it not time to arouse the country from sloth? The England of 1802

seemed to Wordsworth

 

    a fen of stagnant waters.

 

While he invoked the memory of Milton, Canning resolved to appeal to

Pitt. In a day or two he threw off a poem which, though slighted by him,

gained a wider vogue than any of his effusions, "The Pilot that

weathered the Storm." The last and best stanza is as follows:

 

    And O! if again the rude whirlwind should rise,

      The dawning of peace should fresh darkness deform,

    The regrets of the good and the fears of the wise

      Shall turn to the pilot that weathered the storm.

 

The song was enthusiastically received by the company assembled at the

Merchant Taylors' Hall; and the reference to the recall of Pitt roused

the company to a high pitch of excitement. The song, as a whole, is

laboured and strained. The only stanza which happily weds phrase and

thought is the last. The others form a lumbering prelude to this almost

Sibylline cadence.

 

Despite these efforts to sow discord between Pitt and Addington, they

remained on excellent terms;[631] and the support given by the former to

the Peace of Amiens ensured to the Minister an overwhelming victory at

the polls in the General Election of the summer of 1802. Pitt was of

course returned by the University of Cambridge, "with every mark of zeal

and cordiality"--so he wrote to Rose on 10th July. The rest of the

summer he passed either near London or at Walmer. It is unfortunate that

he did not visit France, as Fox, Romilly, and many others now did.

Probably his sharp rebuff to Bonaparte's overture at the end of 1799,

and his subsequent diatribes against him precluded such a step. But he

also needed rest and quiet. On 8th June he wrote to Windham: "The sea

air and the contrast of the scene to that which I left behind me in

London have, as usual, done me a great deal of good."[632] He set to

work to improve the grounds adjoining the castle, and invited Addington,

who was then spending some weeks at Eastbourne, to come over and see the

changes. Further, he leased a large farm near Walmer, and expressed a

hope that he might spend the rest of the year in farming. The splendour

of that summer and the bounteous crops of corn evidently captivated

Pitt. The supreme need of England was more corn. A man who could not

serve her at Westminster could serve her by high farming. This was

Pitt's forecast, unless "the _pacificator_ of Europe takes it into his

head to send an army from the opposite coast to revenge himself for some

newspaper paragraph."[633]

 

At this time, too, he finally succeeded in disposing of Holwood. The

sale was inevitable; for Pitt's finance had long been a source of deep

anxiety. So far back as 18th October 1800 Rose informed the Bishop of

Lincoln that bailiffs threatened the seizure of Pitt's furniture in

Downing Street for debts of £600 and £400. Then, referring to Pitt's ill

health, he wrote: "I conceived till this morning [it] was owing to the

state of public matters; but I am now strongly inclined to think he is

agitated by the state of his own affairs. Bullock came to me this

morning and forced upon me such a history of debts and distresses as

actually sickened me.... Something must be done before Pitt returns to

town. His expenses in the last years were nearly £26,000. I am quite

certain Holwood must be parted with."[634]

 

Pitt's private finance is involved in mystery. His official stipend was

£6,000 a year; and as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports he drew £3,000

more. Yet he was now insolvent. Among his papers systematic accounts

are extant only for the latter half of the years 1794 and 1799. Even

these are not complete, especially for the household at Walmer Castle.

Those for the house in Downing Street are the fullest; but, for the last

six months of 1799, they amount to £3,789 at Downing Street, and £2,382

at Holwood, the latter sum including a charge of £1,163 for farm

expenses which cannot much have exceeded the income.[635] The Walmer

accounts vary according to the duration of Pitt's residence. Those for

the summer and autumn of 1794 amount only to £458. Evidently, then, Pitt

benefited by the King's gift of the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports. But

he gave £1,000 in 1793 to start the Dover Volunteer corps and doubtless

other sums towards the Fencibles of the other Cinque Ports.

 

At all times the servants at Downing Street and the farm at Holwood were

a heavy drain. The amount of the servants' private bills charged to Pitt

at Downing Street is disgraceful. Pitt kept a good table and a good

cellar, as the customs of the age required; but neither these expenses

nor his heavy outlay on his tailor would have brought about a crisis,

had not his town servants and tradesmen plundered him. Morse, the

tailor, charged at the rate of £130 to £140 a quarter for Pitt's

clothes. Now Pitt was neat and punctilious in his attire, but he was no

dandy. As for the farm at Holwood, accounts for straw and manure were

charged twice over, as some friendly accountant pointed out. Probably,

too, his experiments in landscape-gardening were as costly as they had

been to Chatham; for lavishness was in the nature both of father and

son. Pitt once confessed to his niece, Hester Stanhope, that he never

saw a house and grounds without at once planning improvements. In this

phrase as in the suggestive item on farm expenses we can see why the

sale of Holwood was necessary; but for various reasons it did not take

place until the autumn of 1802.

 

Meanwhile his friends bestirred themselves to prevent the scandal of an

execution. They succeeded in staving off a crisis until schemes of

relief were concerted, but here again there was much difficulty; for, on

hearing of the proposed private subscription on his behalf, he declared

that he would rather return to practice at the Bar than submit to such a

humiliation. Fox might allow friends to pay his gambling debts; but the

pride of Pitt scorned to accept help on behalf of liabilities even if

due to pre-occupation in public affairs. Rose deemed a sum of £25,000

necessary to his peace and quietness, seeing that the total liabilities

were £45,064. The letters which passed between Camden, the Bishop of

Lincoln, and Rose, evince deep affection for the shy, proud man. The

following is a _précis_ of a letter of Rose to Tomline which is among

the Pretyman MSS.:

 

                                   Christchurch, _July 21, 1801_.

 

    I am in great perplexity about Pitt's affairs. Joe Smith has

    been strangely misled respecting them.[636] The unforeseen

    demands have been very large. If Holwood fetches a good price,

    the sum of £24,000 will set the matter at rest. Pitt's diamonds

    have been sold for £680 to pay pressing claims. The unpaid bills

    now amount to £9,618. Old debts come to £9,600 more. Mr. Soane

    and Mr. Coutts might be asked to wait, as neither would suffer

    from it. The debt due to Banker (£5,800) cannot surely be a

    separate one of Pitt's; for I think he could give no security on

Probably it is a debt contracted jointly with Lord Chatham,

    the whole of which Pitt may have to pay. Of the last sum which

    in his own deep distress he borrowed on the security of Holwood,

    he gave (I know) £1,000 to Lord Chatham. These are trifling

    considerations compared with that of getting him to accept the

    means of relief. They are as follows: (1) a vote from

    Parliament; (2) a free gift from the King; (3) a private

    subscription; (4) an additional office for life. The first and

    second of these Pitt has peremptorily declined. The third he

    refused in 1787 when the London merchants offered £100,000. The

    fourth course would not be wholly creditable, but Pitt thinks it

    the least objectionable. He dislikes the second and third

    alternatives because the second (as he thinks) would give the

    King a hold over him and the third would entitle the subscribers

    to his favour. The notion of an execution by bailiffs in his

    house is too painful to contemplate. I consider the first or

    second alternatives the best.

 

The reference here to a gift, or loan, from Pitt to his brother prompts

the inquiry whether similar acts of benevolence may not explain his

difficulties. We find the second Earl of Chatham in August 1797

acknowledging a loan of £1,000 from Pitt. The bishop, replying to Rose

on 24th July 1801, states that the debt of £5,800 was to the best of his

knowledge a sum advanced through Thomas Coutts, the banker, to Lady

Chatham upon the Burton Pynsent estate. He adds that she ought to pay

interest to Pitt upon it, but did not. It seems that Pitt advanced

£11,750 in all on behalf of the Burton Pynsent estate. Here, then, was a

grievous family burden. Probably the debt was left by his father, and

may have been increased by his mother. So far back as November 1793 he

wrote to her stating his desire to help her at any time of need; and in

August of the following year, when she believed her end to be near, she

begged her sons to pay her "just debts," which were due, not to vain

expenses, but to outlays upon the farm which she at the time believed to

be for the best.[637] The eldest son could not help her, for he required

succour from Pitt. If, then, the farming experiments at Burton Pynsent

failed, the loss fell upon Pitt. We may infer, then, that his debts were

occasioned partly by rapacious servants and tradesmen in London, partly

by farming and gardening at Holwood, but also by the needs of his mother

and brother. The fact that Chatham paid not a shilling towards the

discharge of Pitt's liabilities proves that he was in low water; and as

no one, not even Tomline, knew of the source of Pitt's embarrassments,

they must have been of a peculiarly delicate character.

 

Tomline's decision, that Pitt could never accept a sinecure from

Addington, is indisputable. The words in which Pitt declared that he

could not accept the sum of £30,000 graciously offered by the King

breathe more independence than those in which he first expressed his

gratitude for the offer. There remained, then, the plan of a private

subscription. The Bishop of Lincoln mentioned it to him with admirable

delicacy on 6th August 1801, and gained his consent. The following were

the subscribers: Lords Bathurst, Camden, and Carrington, together with

Tomline, Rose, and Steele, £1,000 each. From Scotland came £4,000,

probably in equal parts from the Dukes of Buccleugh and Gordon, Dundas,

and the Chief Baron. Wilberforce, Long, and Joseph Smith each gave £500,

and another (Lord Alvanley?) £200. Bishop Tomline and Rose showed equal

activity and tact in raising this sum of £11,700, so that the details

remained unknown to Pitt.[638] Later on he felt pecuniary

embarrassments, partly owing to his share in maintaining the Cinque

Ports Volunteers, and at his death his debts amounted to £40,000.

 

His relations to his bankers, Messrs. Coutts, continued cordial, though

on 24th April 1805 Thomas Coutts ventured to state that there was an

overdraft against him of £1,511, which, however, was redressed by the

arrival of his quarterly official stipends.[639] Pitt's loyalty to his

friends appears in his effort during his second Ministry to procure the

royal assent to his nomination of Bishop Tomline to the Archbishopric of

Canterbury shortly after the death of Dr. Moore early in 1805. The King,

however, who did not admire Tomline, and believed the Bishop of Norwich

to have prior claims, refused his reiterated requests. Pitt's second

letter to the King on this subject is couched in terms almost of

remonstrance.[640]

 

Reverting to Pitt's life at Walmer, we find that in the summer of 1802

he fell a prey to nausea and lassitude; so that Lady Hester Stanhope,

who visited him in September, found him very weak. Probably his

indisposition was due less to the exceptional heat of that season than

to suppressed gout aggravated by anxiety. As we saw, he invited

Addington