William Pitt and the Great War by John Holland Rose (book club reads txt) 📕

neutrality. This proof lies in his handling of the nation's armaments

and finances.

The debate on the Army Estimates on 15th February 1792 is of interest in

more respects than one. The news of the definitive signature of peace

between Russia and Turkey by the Treaty of Jassy, put an end to the last

fears of a resumption of war in the East; and, as the prospects were

equally pacific in the West, the Ministry carried out slight reductions

in the land forces. These were fixed in the year 1785 at seventy-three

regiments of 410 men each, divided into eight companies, with two

companies _en second_. In 1789 the number of companies per regiment was

fixed at ten, without any companies _en second_. Now the Secretary at

War, Sir Charles Yonge, proposed further reductions, which, with those

of 1789, would lessen each regiment by seventy privates, and save the

country the sum of £51,000. No diminution was proposed in the number of

officers; and this gave Fox a handle for an attack. He said that the

natural plan would be to reduce the number of regiments to sixty-four.

Instead of that, the number of seventy regiments was retained, and new

corps were now proposed for the East Indies, one for the West Indies,

and one for Canada, chiefly to be used for pioneer work and clearance of

woods. General Burgoyne and Fox protested against the keeping up of

skeleton regiments, the latter adding the caustic comment that the plan

was "the least in point of saving and the greatest in point of

patronage."[43]

The practices prevalent in that age give colour to the charge. On the

other hand, professional men have defended a system which kept up the

_cadres_ of regiments in time of peace, as providing a body of trained

officers and privates, which in time of war could be filled out by

recruits. Of course it is far inferior to the plan of a reserve of

trained men; but that plan had not yet been hammered out by Scharnhorst,

under the stress of the Napoleonic domination in Prussia. As to the

reduction of seven men per company, now proposed, it may have been due

partly to political reasons. Several reports in the Home Office and War

Office archives prove that discontent was rife among the troops,

especially in the northern districts, on account of insufficient pay and

the progress of Radical propaganda among them. The reduction may have

afforded the means of sifting out the ringleaders.

Retrenchment, if not Reform, was the order of the day. Pitt discerned

the important fact that a recovery in the finance and trade of the

country must be encouraged through a series of years to produce a marked

effect. For then the application of capital to industry, and the

increase in production and revenue can proceed at the rate of compound

interest. Already his hopes, for which he was indebted to the "Wealth of

Nations,"[44] had been largely realized. The Report of the Select

Committee of the House of Commons presented in May 1791 showed the

following growth in the ordinary revenue (exclusive of the Land and Malt

Taxes):

  1786      £11,867,055

  1787       12,923,134

  1788       13,007,642

  1789       13,433,068

  1790       14,072,978

During those five years the sum of £4,750,000 had been allotted to the

Sinking Fund for the payment of the National Debt; and a further sum of

£674,592, accruing from the interest of stock and expired annuities, had

gone towards the same object--a crushing retort to the taunts of Fox and

Sheridan, that the Sinking Fund was a mere pretence. On the whole the

sum of £5,424,592 had been paid off from the National Debt in five

years. It is therefore not surprising that three per cent. Consols,

which were down at fifty-four when Pitt took office at the end of 1783,

touched ninety in the year 1791. The hopes and fears of the year 1792

find expression in the fact that in March they stood at ninety-seven,

and in December dropped to seventy-four.

For the present Pitt entertained the highest hopes. In his Budget Speech

of 17th February he declared the revenue to be in so flourishing a state

that he could grant relief to the taxpayers. In the year 1791 the

permanent taxes had yielded £14,132,000; and those on land and malt

brought the total up to £16,690,000; but he proposed to take £16,212,000

as the probable revenue for the following year. The expenditure would be

lessened by £104,000 on the navy (2,000 seamen being discharged), and

about £50,000 on the army; £36,000 would also be saved by the

non-renewal of the subsidy for Hessian troops. There were, however,

additions, due to the establishment of the Government of Upper Canada,

and the portions allotted to the Duke of York (on the occasion of his

marriage with a Prussian princess) and the Duke of Clarence. The

expenditure would, therefore, stand at £15,811,000; but, taking the

average of four years, he reckoned the probable surplus at no more than

£401,000. On the other hand, he anticipated no new expenses except for

the fortification of posts in the West Indies and the completion of

forts for the further protection of the home dockyards. On the whole,

then, he reckoned that he had £600,000 to spare; and of this amount he

proposed to allocate £400,000 to the reduction of the National Debt and

the repeal of the extra duty on malt, an impost much disliked by

farmers. He also announced a remission of permanent taxes to the extent

of £200,000, namely, on female servants, carts, and waggons, and that of

three shillings on each house having less than seven windows. These were

burdens that had undoubtedly affected the poor. Further, he hoped to add

the sum of £200,000 every year to the Sinking Fund, and he pointed out

that, at this rate of payment, that fund would amount to £4,000,000 per

annum in the space of fifteen years, after which time the interest might

be applied to the relief of the nation's burdens.

Then, rising high above the level of facts and figures, he ventured on

this remarkable prophecy:

    I am not, indeed, presumptuous enough to suppose that, when I

    name fifteen years, I am not naming a period in which events may

    arise which human foresight cannot reach, and which may baffle

    all our conjectures. We must not count with certainty on a

    continuance of our present prosperity during such an interval;

    but unquestionably there never was a time in the history of this

    country, when, from the situation of Europe, we might more

    reasonably expect fifteen years of peace than at the present

    moment.

Imagination pictures what might possibly have been the outcome of events

if Great Britain and France had continued to exert on one another the

peaceful and mutually beneficent influence which Pitt had sought to

bring about. In that case, we can imagine the reformed French monarchy,

or a Republic of the type longed for by Mme. Roland, permeating the

thought and action of neighbouring States, until the cause of

Parliamentary Reform in England, and the cognate efforts for civic and

religious liberty on the Continent achieved a lasting triumph. That Pitt

cherished these hopes is seen not only in his eloquent words, but in the

efforts which he put forth to open up the world to commerce. The year

1792 ought to be remembered, not only for the outbreak of war and the

horrors of the September massacres at Paris, but also for the attempt to

inaugurate friendly relations with China. Pitt set great store by the

embassy which he at this time sent out to Pekin under the lead of Lord

Macartney. In happier times this enterprise might have served to link

East and West in friendly intercourse; and Europe, weary of barren

strifes, would have known no other rivalries than those of peace.

Alas: this is but a mirage. As it fades away, we discern an arid waste.

War broke out between France and Austria within two months of this

sanguine utterance. It soon embroiled France and England in mortal

strife. All hope of retrenchment and Reform was crushed. The National

Debt rose by leaps and bounds, and the Sinking Fund proved to be a

snare. Taxation became an ever-grinding evil, until the poor, whose lot

Pitt hoped to lighten, looked on him as the harshest of taskmasters,

the puppet of kings, and the paymaster of the Continental Coalition. The

spring of the year 1807 found England burdened beyond endurance, the

Third Coalition stricken to death by the blows of Napoleon, while Pitt

had fourteen months previously succumbed to heart-breaking toils and

woes.

Before adverting to the complications with France which were thenceforth

to absorb his energies, I must refer to some incidents of the session

and summer of the year 1792.

One of the most noteworthy enactments was Fox's Libel Bill. In May 1791

that statesman had proposed to the House of Commons to subject cases of

libel to the award of juries, not of judges. Pitt warmly approved the

measure, maintaining that, far from protecting libellers, it would have

the contrary effect. The Bill passed the Commons on 31st May; but owing

to dilatory and factious procedure in the Lords, it was held over until

the year 1792. Thanks to the noble plea for liberty urged by the

venerable Earl Camden, it passed on 21st May.[45] It is matter of

congratulation that Great Britain gained this new safeguard for freedom

of speech before she encountered the storms of the revolutionary era.

There is little else to chronicle except two occurrences which displayed

the power and the foresight of Pitt. They were the fall of Thurlow and

the endeavour of the Prime Minister to form a working alliance with the

Old Whigs. The former of these events greatly impressed the

contemporaries of Pitt, who likened the ejected Chancellor to Lucifer or

to a Titan blasted by Jove's thunderbolt. In this age we find it

difficult to account for the prestige of Thurlow. His legal learning was

far from profound, his speeches were more ponderous than powerful, and

his attacks were bludgeon blows rather than home thrusts. Of the lighter

graces and social gifts he had scant store. Indeed, his private life

displayed no redeeming feature. Everyone disliked him, but very many

feared him, mainly, perhaps, because of his facility for intrigue, his

power of bullying, and his great influence at Court. As we have seen,

the conciliatory efforts of the monarch had hitherto averted a rupture

between Pitt and Thurlow. But not even the favour of George III could

render the crabbed old Chancellor endurable. His spitefulness had

increased since Pitt's nomination of Pepper Arden to the Mastership of

the Rolls; and he showed his spleen by obstructing Government measures

in the House of Lords. In April 1792 he flouted Pitt's efforts on behalf

of the abolition of the Slave Trade; and on 15th May he ridiculed his

proposal that to every new State loan a Sinking Fund should necessarily

be appended. The Commons had passed this measure; but in the Lords

Thurlow spoke contemptuously of the proposal; and his influence, if not

his arguments, brought the Government majority down to six.

Pitt was furious. Despite a letter from Windsor urging the need of

forbearance in the interests of the public service, he resolved to end

this intolerable situation. Respectfully but firmly he begged the King

to decide between him and Thurlow. The result was a foregone conclusion.

Having to choose between an overbearing Chancellor, and a Prime Minister

whose tact, firmness, and transcendent abilities formed the keystone of

the political fabric, the King instructed Dundas to request Thurlow to

deliver up the Great Seal.[46] For the convenience of public business,

his resignation was deferred to the end of the session, which came at

the middle of June. The Great Seal was then placed in commission until

January 1793 when Lord Loughborough, formerly a follower of the Prince

of Wales and Fox, became Lord Chancellor.

The dismissal of Thurlow is interesting on general as well as

constitutional grounds. It marks an important step in the evolution of

the Cabinet. Thenceforth the will of the Prime Minister was held to be

paramount whenever any one of his colleagues openly and sharply differed

from him. Thus the authority of the Prime Minister became more clearly

defined. Not even the favour of the Sovereign could thenceforth uphold a

Minister who openly opposed and scorned the head of the Cabinet. The

recognition of this fact has undoubtedly conduced to the amenity of

parliamentary life; for etiquette has imposed on Ministers the

observance of outward signs of deference to their chief, and (save a few

times in the breezy careers of Canning and Palmerston) dissensions have

been confined to the council chamber.

As to Thurlow's feelings, they appear in his frank admission to Sir John

Scott, the future Chancellor, Lord Eldon: "I did not think that the King

would have parted with me so easily. As to that