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 it. 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 ent.i.tle 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 embarra.s.sments, 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 grat.i.tude 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 embarra.s.sments, 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 a.s.sent 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 la.s.situde; 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 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 Emanc.i.p.ation. 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 embarra.s.sing 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 circ.u.mstances 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 amba.s.sador, 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 hara.s.sing 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 gla.s.ses 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 a.s.sessed 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 a.s.signed to his favoured Minister. Addington described him as looking far from well, though his strength had improved and his spirits and appet.i.te 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 embarra.s.s 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 a.s.sured the King of his intention to bring forward Catholic Emanc.i.p.ation 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 pet.i.te 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 a.s.signed 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. Rose, "Diaries," i, 4.
[612] Pitt MSS., 189.
[613] "Life of Wilberforce," ii, 270.
[614] The estimate of Pitt by Wellesley, summarized above, refutes the ungenerous remark of Lecky (v, 72) that he took little delight in books and "was a politician, and nothing more." Lecky was perhaps misled by the ignorant libel on Pitt in Wraxall, iii, 223.
[615] "Diary of D. Scully," quoted by Dr. Hunt, "Transactions of Royal Hist. Soc." (1908), p. 12.
[616] Lord Rosebery, "Tomline"s Estimate of Pitt," 33.
[617] _I.e._, Mantua rejoices in Wurmser, Rovereda in Davidovitch, Verona is open to Quosdanovitch. "Woe is me," says the greedy Gaul, Bonaparte, "I shall have to be off through the Alps and go to the dogs."
[618] Pitt MSS., 188.
[619] Pitt MSS., 188. Hobart married Pitt"s early love, Eleanor Eden, and became Minister at War under Addington. For Mornington"s comments on his factious conduct at Madras, see "Dropmore P.," iv, 384, 476; v, 268; vi, 338.
[620] Stanhope, iii, 232; Rosebery, "Pitt," 213-7.
[621] Pitt MSS., 188.
[622] Gabrielle Festing, "J. H. Frere and his Friends," 31.
[623] "Malmesbury Diaries," iv, 8; Pellew, i, ch. xi; G. Festing, "Hookham Frere," 42-4; R. Bell, "Canning," 176; H. W. V. Temperley, "Canning," 62-3.
[624] Stanhope, iii, 315; Festing, 47-51.
[625] May, "Const.i.t. Hist.," i, 232-8; Lecky, v, 27.
[626] Wraxall, ii, 286.
[627] Stanhope, iii, 352; "Dropmore P.," vii, 49-51. For new letters of Canning and Grenville, see "Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies."
[628] See Rose, "Life of Napoleon," i, ch. xiv, for details.
[629] B.M. Add. MSS., 37844.
[630] "Private Papers of Wilberforce," 110.
[631] For the pa.s.sing misunderstanding of February 1802, see Pellew, ii, 489-92, with Pitt"s letters.
[632] B.M. Add. MSS., 37844.
[633] Pellew, ii, 75, 76.