[440] Pellew, i, 183.
[441] Ashbourne, 162, 179; G. Rose, "Diaries," i, 410, 429.
[442] "Auckland Journals," iii, 359. George III, who disliked Auckland, ordered the appointment of Chatham.
[443] _Ibid._, iii, 387.
[444] See Appendix for the sums borrowed, expended on the army and navy, and raised by the Permanent Taxes in 1792-1801.
[445] "Parl. Hist.," x.x.xii, 1297-1347; Pitt MSS., 102. Pitt to Boyd, 4th January 1796.
[446] "Mems. of Sir John Sinclair," ii, 276.
[447] W. Newmarch, "Loans raised by Pitt (1793-1801)," pp. 16, 25-33.
[448] On 2nd December 1796, Thomas Coutts, Pitt"s banker, wrote to him: "Mr. Dent, Mr. h.o.a.re, Mr. Snow, Mr. Gosling, Mr. Drummond, and myself met today, and have each subscribed 50,000.... I shall leave town tomorrow, having staid solely to do any service in my power in forwarding this business, which I sincerely wish and hope may be the means of procuring peace on fair and honourable terms. P.S.--We have subscribed 10,000 in your name, and shall take care to make the payments" (Pitt MSS., 126). Mr. Abbot ("Lord Colchester"s Diary," 76) states that fear of a compulsory contribution helped on the Loyalty Loan.
[449] Pitt MSS., 272.
[450] Ann. Reg. (1797), 130-42.
[451] Sir J. Sinclair, "Hist. of the Public Revenue," ii, 143.
[452] Pitt MSS., 272; "Parl. Hist.," x.x.xii, 1517; Gilbart, "History ...
of Banking" (ed. by E. Sykes), i, 46. On 25th February 1797 Pitt wrote a memorandum (Pitt MSS., 102), stating that the crisis was due to the too great circulation of paper notes by banks having limited resources.
Their stoppage affected larger Houses and paralysed trade. He had wanted to meet the City men, who met on the 22nd to discuss the situation, but failed to agree on any remedy. Finally they agreed to meet at the Mansion House to discuss the issue of Exchequer Bills. Coutts, on 19th March 1797, informed Pitt that gambling in the Prince of Wales"
Debentures, which exceeded 432,000, ruined the market for ordinary securities (Pitt MSS., 126). Sinclair had vainly urged Pitt to compel bankers to find and exhibit securities for the paper notes which they issued ("Corresp. of Sir J. Sinclair," i, 87).
[453] H. F. B. Wheeler and A. M. Broadley, "Napoleon and the Invasion of England," ch. ii, have proved this.
[454] "Parl. Hist.," x.x.xiii, 473-516; "Hist. of the Mutiny at Spithead and the Nore" (Lond. 1842), 61-2; "Dropmore P.," iii, 323.
[455] Pitt MSS., 102. Lord Mornington deemed the surrender to the seamen destructive of all discipline in the future ("Buckingham P.," i, 373).
[456] Holland, i, 84-91.
[457] "H. O.," Geo. III (Domestic), 137.
[458] "Report of the Comm. of Secrecy" (1799), 23; App., v, vi.
[459] From Mr. Broadley"s MSS.
[460] Pitt MSS., 189. See, too, "Life of Wilberforce," ii, 217; Windham ("Diary," 363) saw Williams on and after 13th May.
[461] J. Corbett, "England in the Seven Years" War," i, 191.
CHAPTER XV
NATIONAL REVIVAL
A common feeling of danger has produced a common spirit of exertion, and we have cheerfully come forward with a surrender of part of our property, not merely for recovering ourselves, but for the general recovery of mankind.--PITT, _Speech of 3rd December 1798_.
The desire of Pitt for peace with France led him in the autumn of 1796 to renew more formally the overtures which he had inst.i.tuted early in that year. His first offer was repelled in so insolent a way that the King expressed annoyance at its renewal being deemed necessary to call forth the spirit of the British lion. Pitt, however, despatched Lord Malmesbury on a special mission to Paris; and the slowness of his journey, due to the bad roads, led Burke to remark: "No wonder it was slow; for he went all the way on his knees." Pitt"s terms were by no means undignified. He offered that France should keep San Domingo and her conquests in Europe except those made from Austria. The French reverses in Swabia and the check to Bonaparte at Caldiero made the French Directory complaisant for a time; but his victory at Arcola (17th November), the death of the Czarina Catharine, and the hope of revolutionizing Ireland, led it to adopt an imperious tone. Its irrevocable resolve to keep Belgium and the Rhine boundary appeared in a curt demand to Malmesbury, either to concede that point or to quit Paris within forty-eight hours (19th December).[462]
It argued singular hopefulness in Pitt that, despite the opposition of the King, he should make a third effort for peace in the summer of the year 1797, when the loyalty of the fleet was open to grave doubt, when rebellion raised its head in Ireland, and Bonaparte had beaten down the last defences of Austria; but so early as 9th April he urged on George the need of making pacific overtures to Paris, seeing that Austria was at the end of her resources and seemed on the point of accepting the French terms. The untoward events of the next weeks deepened his convictions; and to a letter of the Earl of Carlisle, pressing on him the urgent need of peace, he replied as follows:
[_Draft._] _Private._ Downing St., _4 June 1797_.[463]
I can also venture to a.s.sure you that I feel not less strongly than yourself the expediency of taking every step towards peace that can be likely to effect the object, consistent with the safety and honour of the country; and I have no difficulty in adding (for your _private_ satisfaction) that steps are taken of the most direct sort, and of which we must soon know the result, to ascertain whether the disposition of the enemy will admit of negotiation. On this point the last accounts from Paris seem to promise favourably. You will have the goodness to consider the fact of a step having been actually taken, as confidentially communicated to yourself.
Three days previously Pitt had sent to Paris suggestions for peace.
Delacroix, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose asperities were so unbearable in 1796, now replied with courtesy. Pitt therefore persevered, declaring it to be his duty as a Christian and a patriot to end so terrible a war. On the other hand Grenville p.r.o.nounced the negotiation mischievous at the present crisis, when the French Government would certainly proffer intolerable demands. Much, it was true, could be said in favour of concluding peace before Austria definitely came to terms with France; and if Russia and Prussia had shown signs of mediating in our favour, the negotiation might have had a favourable issue. But neither of those Courts evinced good-will, and that of Berlin angered Grenville. He therefore strongly opposed the overture to France, and herein had the support of the three Whig Ministers, Portland, Spencer, and Windham. The others sided with Pitt, Lord Liverpool after some hesitation. On 15th June there were two long and stormy meetings of the Cabinet, the latter lasting until midnight; but on the morrow, the day after the collapse of the Nore Mutiny, the Cabinet endorsed the views of Pitt. Thereupon Grenville entered a written protest, and wrote to the King, stating that he would offer his resignation if the times were not so critical. George thanked him, and in a highly significant phrase urged him to remain at his post so as "to stave off many farther humiliations."[464]
Malmesbury proceeded to Lille and entered into negotiations with the French plenipotentiaries, Letourneur, Pleville, and Maret. The last was he who came on a fruitless errand to London in January 1793, and finally became Duc de Ba.s.sano, and Foreign Minister under Napoleon. It soon appeared that the only hope of peace lay in the triumph of the Moderates over the Jacobins at Paris. The former, who desired peace, and had an immense majority in the country, at first had the upper hand in the Chambers. They were willing to give up some of the French conquests on the Rhine and in the Belgic Provinces, if their distracted and nearly bankrupt country gained the boon of peace. Their opponents, weak in numbers, relied on the armies, and on the fierce fanaticism which clung alike to the principles and the conquests of the Jacobins. Pitt was willing to meet France half-way. He consented to leave her in possession of her "const.i.tutional" frontiers, _i.e._, Belgium, Luxemburg, Avignon, Savoy, and Nice, besides restoring to her and her allies all naval conquests, except the Cape of Good Hope and Trinidad. Ceylon, a recent conquest, was to be reserved for exchange. So far, but no farther, Pitt consented to go in his desire for peace. Later on he a.s.sured Malmesbury that he would have given way either on Ceylon or the Cape of Good Hope.
But this latter concession would have galled him deeply; for, as we shall see, he deemed the possession of the Cape essential to British interests in the East. Spain"s demand for Gibraltar he waived aside as wholly inadmissible, thus resuming on this question the att.i.tude which he had taken up in the years 1782-3.[465]
Far though Pitt went on the path of conciliation, he did not satisfy the haughty spirits dominant at Paris. It was soon evident that the only means of satisfying them were subterranean; and a go-between now offered himself. An American, Melvill, who claimed to be on intimate terms with the most influential persons at Paris, a.s.sured Malmesbury that he could guarantee the concession of the desired terms, on consideration of the payment of 450,000 to the leading men at Paris. Malmesbury at first believed in Melvill"s sincerity and sent him over to see Pitt. They had some interviews at Holwood at the close of August, apparently to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister; for, after referring the proposal to Grenville, he laid it before the King. His reply, dated Weymouth, 9th September, advised a wary acceptance of the terms, provided that France also gave up her claim of indemnity for the ships taken or burnt at Toulon in 1793.
The King did not then know of the _coup d"etat_ of Fructidor 18 (4th September), whereby Augereau, the right hand of Bonaparte, coerced the Moderates and installed the Jacobins in power. The work was done with brutal thoroughness, prominent opponents being seized and forthwith deported, while the triumphant minority annulled the elections in forty-nine Departments, and by unscrupulous pressure compelled voters to endorse the _fiat_ of the army. Thus did France plunge once more into a Reign of Terror, and without the golden hopes which had made the former experiment bearable. Such was virtually the end of parliamentary government in France. It is indeed curious that critics of Pitt, who label his repressive measures a "Reign of Terror," bestow few words of regret on the despicable acts of the "Fructidorians," whose policy of leaden repression at home and filibustering raids abroad made the name of Liberty odious to her former devotees.
The new tyrants at Paris withheld all news of the _coup d"etat_ until they could override the policy of the French plenipotentiaries at Lille.
There it seemed probable that peace might ensue, when, on 9th September, the first authentic news of Augereau"s violence arrived. Even so, Pitt hoped that the triumphant faction would be inclined to enjoy their success in peace. It was not to be. A member of the French emba.s.sy at Lille discerned far more clearly the motives now operating at Paris, that the new Directory, while making peace with Austria, would continue the war with England in order to have a pretext for keeping up its armies and acquiring compensations. In any case the successors of the pacific trio with whom Malmesbury had almost come to terms, demanded that England should restore every possession conquered from the French or their allies. This implied the surrender of the Cape, Ceylon, and Trinidad, besides minor places on which Pitt and his colleagues held firm. Brief discussions took place, Malmesbury continuing to show tact and good temper; but on Sunday, 17th September, the French plenipotentiaries requested him, if he could not grant their demands, to leave Lille within twenty-four hours. He departed early on Monday, reached London by noon of Wednesday, and saw Grenville and Canning immediately. Pitt, owing to news of the death of his brother-in-law, Eliot, was too prostrate with grief to see him until the morrow. It then appeared that the Directory on 11th September issued a secret order to its plenipotentiaries to send off Malmesbury within twenty-four hours if he had not full powers to surrender all Britain"s conquests.[466]
Even now there was a glimmer of hope. By some secret channel, Melvill, O"Drusse, or else Boyd the banker, Pitt received the startling offer, that Talleyrand, if he remained in favour at Paris, could a.s.sure to England the Dutch settlements in question if a large enough sum were paid over to Barras, Rewbell, and their clique. Pitt clutched at this straw, and on 22nd September wrote to the King, stating that for 1,200,000 we could retain Ceylon, and for 800,000 the Cape of Good Hope. While withholding the name of the intermediaries, known only to himself and Dundas, he strongly urged that 2,000,000 be paid down when a treaty in this sense was signed with France, provided that that sum could be presented to Parliament under the head of secret service.
George, now at Windsor, cannot have been pleased that Pitt and Dundas had a state secret which was withheld for him; but he replied on the morrow in terms, part of which Earl Stanhope did not publish. "I am so thoroughly convinced of the venality of that nation [France] and the strange methods used by its Directors in carrying on negotiations that I agree with him [Pitt] in thinking, strange as the proposal appears, that it may be not without foundation."
George, then, was more sceptical than Pitt; and Grenville and Malmesbury soon had cause to believe the offer to be merely an effort of certain Frenchmen to speculate in the English funds. Nothing came of the matter. Melvill, O"Drusse, and Talleyrand on the French side, and Boyd in London, seem to have been the wire-pullers in this affair, which was renewed early in October; it may have been only a "bull" operation. The secret is hard to fathom; but Pitt and Dundas were clearly too credulous. Such was the conclusion of Malmesbury. It tallied with the p.r.o.nouncement of Windham, who in one of his captious moods remarked to Malmesbury that Pitt had no knowledge of the world, and kept in office by making concessions, and by "tiding it over." Grenville (he said) thought more of the nation"s dignity, but was almost a recluse. In fact, the Cabinet was ruled by Dundas, whom Grenville hated. Dundas it was who had sacrificed Corsica, which involved the loss of Italy.[467] Windham of course detested the author of the colonial expeditions, which had diverted help from the Bretons. In the Chouans alone he saw hope; for how could England struggle on alone against France if she could use all the advantages offered by Brest and Cherbourg?
Much can be said in support of these contentions; for now that the Directory threw away the scabbard, England felt the need of the stout Bretons, whose armies had become mere predatory bands. The last predictions of Burke were therefore justified. That once mighty intellect expended its last flickering powers in undignified gibes at the expense of Pitt and his regicide peace. Fate denied to him the privilege of seeing Malmesbury again expelled from France and whipped back "like a cur to his kennel." The great Irishman pa.s.sed away, amidst inconceivable gloom, in his 68th year, at Beaconsfield (8th July 1797).
In the view of Windham and other extreme Royalists, Burke was wholly right, and Pitt"s weakness was the cause of all his country"s ills.
We may grant that the summer of the year 1797 was one of the worst possible times in which to open a negotiation with triumphant France; for she was certain to exact hard terms from a power whose credit and whose prestige at sea had grievously suffered. Nevertheless, the mistake, if mistake it was, is venial when compared with the unstatesmanlike arrogance of the French Directors, who, when an advantageous and brilliant peace was within their reach, chose to open up a new cycle of war. Of late France had made use of the pretext that she must gain her "natural frontiers"--the Rhine, the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Ocean--for the sake of security against the old dynasties. By rejecting Pitt"s overtures, her leaders now proclaimed their resolve to dominate Italy and Germany and to secure supremacy at sea. Their intrigues with British malcontents and the United Irishmen also showed their determination to revolutionize our inst.i.tutions. Thus England was to be abased and insulted, while France lorded it over all her neighbours and prepared to become mistress of the seas. The war therefore ceased to be in any sense a war of principle, and became for France a struggle for world-wide supremacy, for England a struggle for national existence; and while democratic enthusiasm waned at Paris, the old patriotic spirit revived everywhere in Great Britain. The newspapers were full of appeals for unanimity; and on 20th November appeared the first number of that bright and patriotic paper, the "Anti-Jacobin,"
under the editorship of Canning and Hookham Frere, which played no small part in arousing national ardour. On the next day the French Directory issued an appeal to France to bestir herself to overthrow the British power, and to dictate peace at London.
There was need of unanimity; for while France was stamping out revolt, and Great Britain felt increasingly the drag of Ireland, Pitt encountered an antagonist of unsuspected strength. Over against his diffuse and tentative policy stood that of Bonaparte, clear-cut, and for the present everywhere victorious. While Pitt pursued that will o" the wisp, a money-bought peace, the Corsican was bullying the Austrian negotiators at Udine and Campo Formio. Finally his gasconnades carried the day; and on 17th October Austria signed away her Netherlands to France and her Milanese and Mantuan territories to the newly created Cisalpine Republic. Bonaparte and the Emperor, however, agreed to part.i.tion the unoffending Venetian State, the western half of which went to the Cisalpines, the eastern half, along with Venice, Istria, and Dalmatia, to the Hapsburgs. The Court of Vienna struggled hard to gain the Ionian Islands; but on these, and on Malta, the young general had set his heart as the natural stepping-stones to Egypt. At the close of the year he returned to Paris in triumph, and was invited by the Director, Barras, to go and conquer England.
Some such effort, either directly against London, or by a deadly ricochet through Ireland, would have been made, had not Duncan, on 11th October, crushed the Dutch off Camperdown, taking nine ships out of fifteen. The consequences were far reaching. The Dutch navy was paralysed; and without it the squadrons at Cherbourg and Brest were not yet strong enough to attack our coasts, until the Toulon and Cadiz fleets sailed northwards. Bonaparte, who was sent to survey the ports in Flanders and the north of France, reported to the Directory on 23rd February 1798 that there were fitting out at Brest only ten sail-of-the-line, which moreover had no crews, and that the preparations were everywhere so backward as to compel Government to postpone the invasion until 1799. The wish was father to that thought. Already he had laid his plans to seize Egypt, and now strongly advised the orientation of French policy. A third possible course was the closing of all continental ports against England, an adumbration of the Continental System of 1806-13 for a.s.suring the ruin of British commerce.
The news of Camperdown and Campo Formio added vigour to Pitt"s appeal for national union in his great speech of 10th November, in which he gave proofs of the domineering spirit of the party now triumphant at Paris. Very telling, also, was his taunt at the Whig press, "which knows no other use of English liberty but servilely to retail and transcribe French opinions." Sinclair, who had moved a hostile amendment, was so impressed as to withdraw it; and thus at last the violence of the French Jacobins conduced to harmony at Westminster.
Already there were signs that the struggle was one of financial endurance. At the close of November 1797 Pitt appealed to the patriotism of Britons to raise 25,500,000 for the estimated expenses of the next year, in order to display the wealth and strength of the kingdom. He therefore proposed to ask the Bank of England to advance 3,000,000 on Exchequer bills; and he urged the propertied cla.s.ses to submit to the trebling of the a.s.sessed Taxes on inhabited houses, windows, male servants, horses, carriages, etc. The trebling of these imposts took the House by surprise, and drew from Tierney, now, in the absence of Fox, the leader of Opposition, the taunt that Pitt had to cringe to the Bank for help. A few days later Pitt explained that the triple duty would fall only upon those who already paid 3 or more on that score. If the sum paid were less than 1 it would be halved. Those who paid 3 or more would be charged at an increasing rate, until, when the sum paid exceeded 50, the amount would be quadrupled. Nor was this all. By a third Resolution he outlined the scheme of what was in part a progressive Income Tax. Incomes under 60 were exempt; those between 60 and 65 paid at the rate of 2_d._ in the pound; and the proportion rose until it reached 2_s._ in the pound for incomes of 200 or more.
Though Pitt pointed out the need of a patriotic rejoinder to the threats of the French Government, the new a.s.sessed Taxes aroused a furious opposition. "The chief and almost only topic of conversation is the new taxes," wrote Theresa Parker to Lady Stanley of Alderley. "How people are to live if the Bill is pa.s.sed I know not. I understand the Opposition are much elated with the hope of the Bill"s being pa.s.sed, as they consider Mr. Pitt infallibly ruined if it does, and that he must go out."[468] The patriotism of London equalled that of the Foxites. City men, forgetting that the present proposals were due to the shameless evasions of the a.s.sessed Taxes, raised a threatening din, some of them declaring that Pitt would be a.s.saulted if he came into the City. Several supporters of Pitt, among them the Duke of Leeds, Sir William Pulteney and Henry Thornton, opposed the new imposts, and the Opposition was jubilantly furious. Sheridan, who returned to the fray, declared that though the poor escaped these taxes they would starve; for the wealth which employed them would be dried up. Hobhouse dubbed the Finance Bill inquisitorial, degrading, and fatal to the virtues of truthfulness and charity. Squires bemoaned the loss of horses and carriages and the hard lot of their footmen. Arthur Young warned Pitt that if the taxes could not be evaded, gentlemen must sell their estates and live in town. Bath, he was a.s.sured, welcomed the new imposts because they would drive very many families thither. He begged Pitt to reconsider his proposals, and, instead of them, to tax "all places of public diversion, public dinners, clubs, etc., not forgetting debating societies and Jacobin meetings"; for this would restrain "that violent emigration to towns, which the measure dreadfully threatens."[469]