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

to come over from Eastbourne and discuss public affairs. The

conference seems to have caused him much concern; for Tomline in July

1802 jotted down notes of a conversation with Pitt, in which Addington

is described as "without exception the vainest man he (Pitt) had ever

met with." Pitt's advice had often been asked before the Preliminaries

of Peace were signed, but afterwards he was neglected. Cornwallis, too,

had evidently believed that by the Treaty of Amiens all former treaties

with France were revived without being named; and probably Ministers

were under the same delusion. The last King's Speech was also annoying

to Pitt, who characterized Addington as "a man of little mind, of

consummate vanity and of very slender abilities." As to resumption of

office Pitt thought it impossible during the life of the King, except in

case of some great emergency.[641]

 

Equally frank were Pitt's confessions to Canning, who stayed at Walmer

in September-October 1802. He admitted that his resignation was due

partly to the manner in which the King opposed him on Catholic

Emancipation. But he quitted office with a clear conscience, leaving

full means for attacking Egypt and the Armed Neutrals, so that the

reproaches of desertion of duty were unjust. He pledged himself to

support Addington; and from this only Addington could release him. He

admitted that this was a mistake, now that current events showed

Bonaparte's ambition to be insatiable; but none the less he waved aside

Canning's reiterated appeals that he would apply to Addington for

release from the pledge, on the ground that such a step would seem an

intrigue for a return to power. "My ambition (he proudly said) is

character, not office."

 

Was a statesman ever placed in a more embarrassing situation? Pitt had

resigned office on a point of honour, and yet felt constrained to humour

the royal invalid by abandoning the very measure which caused his

resignation. Incautiously he pledged himself to support Addington,

thereby alienating some of his own supporters. He defended his pacific

policy until it led to a bad treaty followed by a series of

humiliations. By October 1802 Bonaparte was master of four Republics

bordering on France, and had annexed Piedmont and Elba, besides securing

Parma and Louisiana by profitable exchanges. Such a peace was worse than

a disastrous war. Yet Addington made no protest except against the

virtual subjugation of Switzerland. True, the Cabinet now clung to the

Cape and Malta as for dear life; but elsewhere the eye could see French

influence creeping resistlessly over Europe, while the German Powers

were intent only on securing the spoils of the Ecclesiastical States.

Well might Pitt write to Wilberforce on 31st October: "You know how much

under all the circumstances I wished for peace, and my wishes remain the

same, if Bonaparte can be made to feel that he is not to trample in

succession on every nation in Europe. But of this I fear there is little

chance, and without it I see no prospect but war." Worst of all, there

were sure signs that France and the other Powers distrusted and despised

Addington. Vorontzoff, the Russian ambassador, declared that he would

work hard to form an alliance with Pitt, but despaired of effecting

anything with his successor.[642] In truth, Pitt's excessive

scrupulousness at the time of his resignation had enclosed himself and

his country in a vicious circle from which the only means of escape was

war.

 

A prey to these harassing thoughts, Pitt left Walmer near the close of

October 1802 to take the waters at Bath. On the way he visited Sir

Charles Middleton at Teston in Kent, and sought distraction by inquiries

on farming. Middleton wrote to Wilberforce on 26th October: "His

inquiries were very minute and judicious; and it is incredible how

quickly he comprehended things, and how much further he reasons on them

than I can follow him.... I believe Mr. Pitt has it in his power to

become the first farmer in England if he thinks the pursuit worth his

time and attention."[643] The treatment at Bath suited Pitt so well that

he prolonged his stay. Rose, whom he invited to Bath in the second week

of November, thus describes to Bishop Tomline his manner of life:

 

                                      Bath, _Nov. 21, 1802_.[644]

 

    Mr. Pitt's health mends every day: it is really better than it

    has been ever since I knew him. I am quite sure this place

    agrees with him _entirely_, he eats a small [_illegible_] and a

    half for breakfast, and more at dinner than I ever saw him at

    1/2 past 4: no luncheon: two very small glasses of Madeira at

    dinner and _less_ than a pint of port after dinner: at night,

    nothing but a bason of arrowroot: he is positively in the best

    possible train of management for his health.... He is positively

    decided to have no responsibility whatever respecting what has

    been done or is doing on the subject of foreign politics; he not

    only adheres to his resolution of not going up for the opening

    [of Parliament]; but will not attend even on the estimates

    unless a necessity should arise: he writes to day both to Mr.

    Addington and Lord Hawkesbury in a style that will not only

    manifest the above, _but will prevent all further attempts to

    draw him into confidential communication_. He has also made up

    his mind to take office again whenever the occasion shall arise,

    when he can come in properly, and has now no reluctance on the

    subject. I dare not say more by the Post. If my letter is

    opened, the Ministers will know the first part is true, and I

    don't care about their learning the latter. Lord Grenville will

    positively not take a line to render it difficult for Mr. Pitt

    and him to act together; he will move no amendment to the

    Address....

 

Rose, as we have seen, disliked Lord Auckland, who was joint

Postmaster-General; and if Pitt's letters were opened at the Post

Office, we can understand the thinness of his correspondence.[645]

Recently he had advised Addington not to retain Alexandria, Malta,

Goree, and Cape Town, but to trust rather to defensive preparations,

which might include a friendly understanding with other aggrieved

Powers. This surely was the dignified course. Even Malta was not worth

the risk of immediate war unless we were ready both with armaments and

alliances. The foregoing letter, however, shows that Pitt believed his

advice to be useless. Possibly he heard that the Cabinet had decided to

retain those posts; and finally, as we shall see, Pitt approved their

action in the case of Malta. Meanwhile matters went from bad to worse.

Ministers complained of Pitt's aloofness; but his friends agreed that he

must do nothing to avert from Addington the consequences of his own

incompetence. Even the cold Grenville declared Pitt to be the only man

who could save England. But could even he, when under an incompetent

chief, achieve that feat?

 

For by this time Addington had hopelessly deranged the nation's finance.

While giving up Pitt's drastic Income Tax, which had not brought in the

expected £10,000,000 but a net sum of £6,000,000, he raised the Assessed

Taxes by one third, increased Import and Export duties with impartial

rigour, and yet proposed to raise £5,000,000 by Exchequer Bills, which

were to be funded at the end of the Session or paid off by a loan. This

signal failure to meet the year's expenses within the year exasperated

Pitt. At Christmas, which he spent with Rose at his seat in the New

Forest, he often conversed on this topic; and his host thus summed up

his own conclusions in a letter to Bishop Tomline:

 

                             Cuffnells, _December 24, 1802_.[646]

 

    ... There is hardly a part of the Budget that is not too

    stupidly wrong even for the doctor's dullness and ignorance. I

    am sure Mr. Pitt must concur with me; and I have all the

    materials for him.--Wrong about the increase of the revenue;

    wrong as to the produce of the Consolidated Fund; scandalously

    wrong as to what is to be expected from it in future by at least

    £2,800,000 a year; wrong as to the money he will want this year

    by millions....

 

During his stay at Cuffnells Pitt received a letter from Addington

urging the need of an interview. Viewing the request as a sign of

distress with which he must in honour comply, Pitt agreed to stay a few

days early in January 1803 at the White Lodge in Richmond Park, which

the King had for the time assigned to his favoured Minister. Addington

described him as looking far from well, though his strength had improved

and his spirits and appetite were good.[647] Apparently Pitt found the

instruction of his host in finance a subject as dreary as the winter

landscape. He afterwards told Rose that Addington mooted his entrance to

the Cabinet awkwardly during their farewell drive to town. But this does

not tally with another account, which is that Pitt, on the plea of

winding up the transfer of Holwood, suddenly left the White Lodge on 6th

January. On the 11th he wrote from Camden's seat, The Wilderness, in

Kent, that his views on foreign affairs were nearly in accord with those

of the Cabinet, but that he failed to convince Addington of his

financial error.

 

This, then, was still the rock of offence. Nevertheless, Pitt begged

Rose not to attack the Cabinet on that topic, as it would embarrass him.

If it were necessary on public grounds to set right the error, he (Pitt)

would do so himself on some fit occasion. Malmesbury and Canning did

their utmost to spur him on to a more decided opposition; and the latter

wrote him a letter of eight pages "too admonitory and too fault-finding

for even Pitt's very good humoured mind to bear."[648] Pitt replied by

silence. In vain did friends tell him that Ministers had assured the

King of his intention to bring forward Catholic Emancipation if he

returned to office. In vain did Malmesbury declare that Pitt must take

the helm of State, otherwise Fox would do so. In vain did Rose predict

the country's ruin from Addington's appalling ignorance of finance. Pitt

still considered himself in honour bound to support Addington. At the

close of January he held friendly converse with him, before setting out

for Walmer for a time of rest and seclusion. Canning's only consolation

was that Bonaparte would come to their help, and by some new act of

violence end Pitt's scrupulous balancing between the claims of national

duty and of private obligations. The First Consul dealt blow upon blow.

Yet even so, Canning's hopes were long to remain unfulfilled. As we saw

in the former volume, the relations of Pitt to Addington had for many

years been of an intimate nature; but occasions arise when a statesman

ought promptly to act upon the maxim of Mirabeau--"_La petite morale est

ennemie de la grande._" In subordinating the interests of England to the

dictates of a deep-rooted but too exacting friendship, Pitt was guilty

of one of the most fatal blunders of that time.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

[606] Wraxall, iii, 458. For Pitt's earlier friendships see my former

volume.

 

[607] "Mems. of Lady Hester Stanhope," iii, 187.

 

[608] From Mr. Broadley's MSS. Hayley's efforts on behalf of Cowper have

been described by Professor E. Dowden, "Essays: Modern and Elizabethan"

(1910). Ultimately a pension of £300 a year was assigned to Cowper: the

authorization, signed by the King and Pitt, and dated 23rd April 1794,

is now in the Cowper Museum, Olney, Bucks, so the secretary, Mr. Thomas

Wright (editor of Cowper's Letters), kindly informs me.

 

[609] "Rutland Papers," iii, 229, 241 (Hist. MSS. Comm.). So, too,

Tomline said that Pitt had no ear for music, and little taste for

drawing or painting, though he was fond of architecture, and once drew

from memory the plan of a mansion in Norfolk, with a view to improving

it (Lord Rosebery, "Tomline's Estimate of Pitt," 34).

 

[610] "Glenbervie Journals," 195.

 

[611] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 26; G.