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

by night past Lord Bridport's blockading force. For some days

panic reigned in London, and it is significant that Bridport took

especial measures to guard the coasts of Ireland, thus enabling the

French to get clear away to the Mediterranean. With bolder tactics they

should have been able to reduce the new British possession, Minorca, or

annihilate the small force blockading Malta. The relief felt at Dublin

Castle, on hearing of Bruix' southward voyage, appears in Beresford's

letter of 15th May, in which he refers to the revival of loyalty and the

terrible number of hangings by courts martial: "We consider ourselves as

safe from the French for this year; but I am in great anxiety for my

friend St. Vincent. What steps will be taken against those damned dogs

in the Mediterranean?... I expect that the French going to the

Mediterranean, instead of coming to the assistance of their friends

here, will have a very great effect upon the people of this country,

who, as soon as they find that they have been made fools of will

endeavour to get out of the scrape they are in." On 1st June Cooke

writes "secretly" to Auckland, expressing regret that Pitt ever attacked

Foster, whose opposition is most weighty. The Cabinet lost the measure

by want of good management in 1798: and the same is now the case.

Nothing has been done to win over Lord Downshire with his eight votes,

or Lords Donegal and De Clifford, who had half as many. He even asks

whether Pitt will think it worth while to spend three months' work on

the Union now that the French had gone to the Mediterranean.[563] The

question reveals the prevalence of the belief that Pitt paid little

attention to Irish affairs. Probably it arose from his stiffness of

manner and his execrable habit of leaving letters unanswered. This

defect had become incurable, witness the complaint of Wilberforce to

Addington--"You know how difficult, I may say next to impossible, it is

to extort a line from Pitt."[564]

 

In July the return of Bruix with the Cadiz fleet into the Atlantic

renewed the fears of Irish loyalists and the hopes of the malcontents.

The combined fleet managed to enter Brest on 13th August 1799; and its

presence there was a continual source of unsettlement to Ireland,

preparations for revolt being kept up in several parts. A large British

force was therefore kept in Ireland, not for the purpose of forcing

through the Union, as Pitt's enemies averred, but in order to guard

against invasion and rebellion. Though reinforcements arrived,

Cornwallis complained that he had not enough troops. On 24th July 1799

he informed the Duke of Portland that he had only 45,000 regular

infantry, a number sufficient to preserve order but totally inadequate

to repel an invasion in force. Thus the facts of the case are, that

French threats to tear Ireland from Great Britain kept up the

threatening ferment and necessitated the presence of a considerable

military force; but they also led Pitt to insist on the Union as a means

of thwarting all separatist efforts whether from without or from within.

It is clear, however, that Pitt and Earl Spencer trusted to Bridport's

powerful squadron to intercept any large expedition of the enemy. The

blow then preparing against the Dutch was in part intended to ensure the

safety of the British Isles.

 

Meanwhile at Westminster the cause of the Union met with almost

universal approval. The debate in the Lords on 11th April elicited

admirable speeches, from Dr. Watson, the learned Bishop of Llandaff, and

from Lords Auckland and Minto. Only Lords Holland, King, and Thanet

protested against the measure. In the Commons, Lord Sheffield, while

supporting the Union, reproved Ministers for allowing their aim to

become known in Ireland several weeks before the details of their

proposals were made public. The measure received warm support from

Canning, who a month earlier had resigned the Under-Secretaryship for

Foreign Affairs, and was now for the time merely on the India Board of

Control, with a sinecure superadded. The sensitive young Irishman had

found it impossible to work with the cold and austere Grenville; and his

place was taken for a time by his coadjutor on the "Anti-Jacobin,"

Hookham Frere, to whom the Grenville yoke proved scarcely less irksome.

 

Canning flung himself with ardour into the struggle for the Union, and

proved a match for his brilliant fellow countryman, Sheridan. He

combated the notion that the Irish Parliament was unalterably opposed to

the measure, and, arguing from the contemptuous manner in which the

French had met our overtures for peace, he inferred their resolve to

sever Ireland from the Empire. In animated style he declared that

Ireland would not lose but gain in dignity by the Union, which would

confer on her what she most needed, stronger and steadier government. On

this occasion Sheridan did not speak, and Fox was absent. After a

protest by Lord William Russell against infringing the final settlement

of 1782, Pitt arose merely in order to challenge this statement and to

read the letters of the Duke of Portland to Lord Shelburne of May-June

1782; they refuted Russell's contention only in so far as to show that

Ministers then designed to legislate further on the subject. The Irish

Parliament certainly regarded the legislative independence then granted

as complete and final. The House of Commons supported Pitt by a

unanimous vote.

 

During the summer the outlook at Dublin became somewhat brighter, as

appears from the following "secret" letter of Cooke to Lord Camden.

After congratulating him on receiving the Garter, he continues:

 

                                         Dublin, _14 Aug., 1799_.

 

    ... I think Union gains ground. Lord Cornwallis is in earnest on

    the subject and feels himself committed. The Catholics have been

    chiefly courted by him, and he has always been of opinion that,

    if they would act heartily in support, the Protestants would not

    resist the efforts of the British Government, assisted by the

    population of the kingdom. I believe this position to be true.

    It cannot, however, be fully acted upon, in my mind, unless

    there be a determination to make further concessions to that

    body. To such concessions I confess I do not see insuperable,

    tho' I do strong, objections. I think they vanish in the

    superior importance of the question of Union. From the present

    state of the country I conceive the question may be brought

    forward with safety. If the Catholics were steady, Dublin might

    be preserved quiet, tho' the Opposition would be clamorous. Our

    difficulties will be in Parliament. I think the Speaker will not

    relax. Lord Downshire, I am sorry to say, seems very hostile.

    Lord de Clifford is also unfriendly. Lord Donegal I hear is

    coming round. Could Lord Downshire and Lord de Clifford be made

    cordial, the Parliament would be secure. I see not any great

    difficulty in settling the terms except as to the representation

    of the Commons and compensation to the boroughs. Allowing two

    members for each county--which makes 64--there is no principle

    which can be exactly applied for classing the boroughs and

    selecting the great towns, and tho' it would be easy to

    compensate the close boroughs, it is almost impossible to

    compensate pot-walloping boroughs.[565] The difficulties here

    are enhanced by the consideration that in this case private not

    public interests are concerned. When I thus represent the

    probability of success, I am aware of the strange volatility of

    the Irish mind; and I should not be surprised at any sudden turn

    of the present appearances....

 

Very interesting is the statement as to the courting of the Catholics by

Cornwallis. Pitt certainly knew of these advances; for on New Year's Day

1801 Castlereagh reminded him by letter that Cornwallis did not venture

to make them until the Cabinet had discussed the matter sometime in the

autumn of 1799, and had come to a conclusion entirely favourable to the

Catholic claims, finally assuring him that he "need not hesitate in

calling forth the Catholic support in whatever degree he found it

practicable to obtain it." This and other passages in Castlereagh's

letter prove conclusively that not only Pitt, but the Cabinet as a whole

was responsible for the procedure of Cornwallis, which ensured the more

or less declared support of the Irish Catholics.[566]

 

The chief difficulty was with the Protestant clique which largely

controlled State patronage. In the autumn Pitt had another interview

with Downshire, but found him full of complaints, demanding among other

things that Ireland should send at least 300 Commoners to Westminster.

He departed for Dublin declaring that he would do his duty. In October

the Government's cause was furthered by a state progress of Cornwallis

through the North of Ireland, during which he received numerous

addresses in favour of Union. At Belfast 150 of the chief citizens

attended a banquet in his honour; Londonderry was enthusiastic in the

cause; and it was clear that the opposition of the Protestants of the

North was slackening. But, as often happened in Ireland, many Catholics

now began to doubt the utility of a measure commended by their

opponents. The interest which Pitt felt in this complex problem and in

Cornwallis's tour appears in the following Memorandum which he wrote

probably at the end of October 1799:

 

    The number of placemen in Ireland is 71. Of these such as hold

    office for life or during good behaviour, 11, and 2 holding

    places for pleasure, vote against. It is said 63 seats have been

    vacated by Government by a misuse of the Place Bill. This

    number is exaggerated; but at least 10 were vacated to serve

    Opposition. A charge is made against Lord Cornwallis for

    canvassing for declarations in favour of Union. The fact is that

    Lord Cornwallis, being commander-in-chief, thought it his duty

    to make a progress of inspection thro' the kingdom in order to

    examine the state of the army and to be a judge of the means of

    defence he could rely on. In this progress he received numerous

    addresses in favour of Union. A charge is made against

    Government of intimidation and the exertion of martial law.

    There was only one attempt to substantiate such a charge which

    was by Sir L. Parsons, which, instead of terminating in censure,

    produced a vote of unanimous approbation in favour of

    Government. There have been general charges of corruption

    adduced, but no proof attempted. The charge retorted by

    Government on Opposition for forming the most extensive

    subscriptions for the purpose of corruption has not been denied

    by them.

 

The last sentence refers to a curious incident. Downshire, the most

influential opponent of the Union, had opened a fund for influencing

members of Parliament. It reached a large amount, probably £100,000.

Beresford in a letter to Auckland states that £4,000 was paid to win

over a supporter of Government. Pitt, as we have seen, believed that

Downshire's fund necessitated the extensive use of bribery by

Government. But it is on the whole more likely that Dublin Castle opened

the game by its request early in 1799, for £5,000 immediately from

London. Further sums were forwarded, for on 5th April, Cooke, after

interviews with Pitt and Portland, assured Castlereagh that Portland

would send "the needful" to Dublin. He adds: "Pitt will contrive to let

you have from £8,000 to £10,000 for five years," though this was less

than Castlereagh required. After this, it is absurd to deny that Pitt

used corrupt means to carry the Union. He used them because only so

could he carry through that corrupt Parliament a measure entailing

pecuniary loss on most of its members. Probably he disliked the work as

much as Cornwallis, who longed to kick the men whom he had to

conciliate.--"I despise and hate myself every hour," so Cornwallis wrote

to Ross, "for engaging in such dirty work, and am supported only by the

reflection that without an Union, the British Empire must be

dissolved."[567]

 

The winter of 1799-1800 was marked by fierce discontent; and again,

after the rise of Bonaparte to power, there were rumours of invasion

which excited the peasants of South Ireland. The men of Dublin on some

occasions assaulted Unionist Members of Parliament. Cornwallis, however,

believed that the country as a whole favoured the cause; and Castlereagh

received favourable assurances as to the attitude of the great majority

of Catholics except in County Dublin.[568] Some leading Episcopalians

were appeased by the insertion of a clause uniting the Protestant

Churches of England and Ireland in one body. This concession did not

satisfy the Orangemen, who, despite the prohibition of their Grand

Lodge, clamoured against the Union, and threatened to oppose it by

force.

 

So doubtful were the omens when Cornwallis opened the Irish Parliament

on 5th February 1800, in a speech commending the present plan of

unification. Castlereagh then defended the proposals and