November 15, 2011 <Back to Index>
PAGE SPONSOR |
William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham PC (15 November 1708 – 11 May 1778) was a British Whig statesman who achieved his greatest fame leading Britain during the Seven Years' War (known as the French and Indian War in North America). He again led the country (holding the official title of Lord Privy Seal) between 1766 - 68. He is often known as William Pitt, the Elder to distinguish him from his son, William Pitt the Younger. He was also known as The Great Commoner, because of his long standing refusal to accept a title until 1766. The major American city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is named after him, as are numerous other cities and towns in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Pitt was born at Westminster, the grandson of Thomas Pitt, the governor of Madras known as "Diamond" Pitt because he had sold a diamond of extraordinary size to the Regent Orléans for around £135,000. It
was mainly by this fortunate transaction that the governor was enabled
to raise his family, which was one of old standing, to a position of
wealth and political influence. The latter he acquired by purchasing the burgage tenures of the rotten borough of Old Sarum. William's father was Robert Pitt, also an MP, and his mother was Hon. Harriet Villiers, sister of 5th Viscount Grandison. William Pitt was educated at Eton College, and, in January 1727, was entered as a gentleman commoner at Trinity College, Oxford. There is evidence that he was an extensively read, if not a minutely accurate classical scholar; and it is noteworthy that Demosthenes was
his favourite author, and that he diligently cultivated the faculty of
expression by the practice of translation and re-translation. In these
years he became a close friend of George Lyttelton, who would later become a leading politician. A violent attack of gout,
from which he had suffered even during his time at school, compelled
him to leave Oxford University without finishing his degree, in order
to travel abroad. He spent some time in France and Italy on the Grand Tour and from 1728 to 1730 he attended Utrecht University. He
had recovered from the attack of Gout, however the disease proved
intractable, and he continued to be subject to attacks of growing
intensity at frequent intervals until the close of his life. In
1727, Pitt's father had died, and, on his return home three years
later, it was necessary for him, as the younger son, to choose a
profession. He had at one point been considered likely to join the Church but instead opted for a military career. Having chosen the army, he obtained, through the interest of his friends, a cornet's commission in the dragoons. George II never forgot the jibes of 'the terrible cornet of horse'. It was reported that the £1,000 cost of the commission had been supplied by the Prime Minister out of Treasury funds
in an attempt to secure the support of Pitt's brother Thomas in
Parliament. Alternatively the fee may have been waived by the commanding officer of the regiment, Lord Cobham, who was related to the Pitt brothers by marriage. Pitt was to grow close to Cobham, whom he regarded as something close to a surrogate father. He was stationed for much of his service in Northampton, in peace time duties. Pitt was particularly frustrated that, due to the isolationist policies of the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, Britain had not entered the War of the Polish Succession and he had not been given a chance to test himself in battle. Pitt's military career was destined to be relatively short. His elder brother Thomas having been returned at the general election of 1734 both for Okehampton and for Old Sarum, and having chosen to sit for the former, the family borough fell to the younger brother. Accordingly, in February 1735, William Pitt entered parliament as
member for the rotten borough of Old Sarum. He became one of a large
number of serving army officers in the House of Commons. Pitt soon
joined faction of discontented Whigs, known as the Patriots, whose disagreements with Walpole had forced them into opposition under Pulteney. Pitt swiftly became one of the faction's most prominent members. The group commonly met at Stowe, the country estate of Lord Cobham. Pitt's maiden speech was delivered in April 1736, in the debate on the congratulatory address to George II on the marriage of his son Frederick, Prince of Wales.
He used the occasion to pay compliments, and there was nothing striking
in the speech as reported but it helped to gain him the attention of
the house when he took part on debates on more controversial subjects.
He attacked in particular, Britain's non-intervention in the ongoing European war, which he believed was in violation of the Treaty of Vienna and the terms of the Anglo-Austrian Alliance. He
became such a troublesome critic of the government that Walpole moved
to punish him by arranging his dismissal from the army in 1736, along
with several of his friends and political allies. This provoked a wave
of hostility to Walpole because many saw such an act as unconstitutional — that members of Parliament were being dismissed for their freedom of speech in attacking the government, something protected by Parliamentary privilege. None of the men had their commissions reinstated, however, and the incident brought an end to Pitt's military career. The loss of his commission was soon compensated to him. The heir to the throne, Frederick, Prince of Wales was involved in a long running dispute with his father, George II, and was the patron of the opposition. He appointed Pitt a Groom of the Bedchamber. His
hostility to the government did not stop. He had all the natural gifts
an orator could desire — a commanding presence, a graceful though
somewhat theatrical bearing, an eye of piercing brightness, and a voice
of the utmost flexibility. His style, if occasionally somewhat turgid,
was elevated and passionate, and it always bore the impress of that
intensity of conviction which is the most powerful instrument a speaker
can have to sway the convictions of an audience. During
the 1730s Britain's relationship with Spain had slowly declined.
Repeated cases of reported Spanish mistreatment of British merchants
caused outrage, particularly the incident of Jenkins' Ear. Pitt
was a leading advocate of a more hard-line policy against Spain, and
often castigated Walpole's government for its weakness in dealing with
Madrid. Pitt spoke out against the Convention of El Pardo which aimed to settle the dispute peacefully. In the speech against the Convention in the House of Commons on 8 March 1739 Pitt said: When
trade is at stake, it is your last entrenchment; you must defend it, or
perish... Sir, Spain knows the consequence of a war in America; whoever
gains, it must prove fatal to her... is this any longer a nation? Is
this any longer an English Parliament, if with more ships in your
harbours than in all the navies of Europe; with above two millions of
people in your American colonies, you will bear to hear of the
expediency of receiving from Spain an insecure, unsatisfactory,
dishonourable Convention? Owing to public pressure, the British government was pushed towards declaring war with Spain in 1739. Britain began with a success at Porto Bello. However
the war effort soon stalled, and Pitt alleged that the government was
not prosecuting the war effectively - demonstrated by the fact that the
British waited two years before taking further offensive action
(fearing further British victories would provoke the French into
declaring war.). When they did so, a failed attack was made on the South American port of Cartagena which left thousands of British troops dead, almost all of them from disease. The decision to attack during the rainy season was held as further evidence of the government's incompetence. After
this, the colonial war against Spain was almost entirely abandoned as
British resources were switched towards fighting France in Europe. The
war with Spain was essentially a draw, and many of the underlying
issues remained unresolved by the later peace treaties leaving
the potential for future conflicts to occur. Pitt considered the war a
missed opportunity to take advantage of declining Spanish power,
although he later became an advocate of wamer relations with Spain in
an effort to prevent them forming an alliance with France. Walpole and Newcastle were now giving the war in Europe, which had recently broken out, a much higher priority than the colonial conflict with Spain in the Americas. Prussia and Austria were at war from 1740, with many other European states soon joining in. There was a fear that France would launch an invasion of Hanover, which was linked to Britain through the crown of George II.
To avert this Walpole and Newcastle decided to pay a large subsidy to
both Austria and to Hanover, in order for them to raise troops and
defend themselves. Pitt
now launched an attack on such subsidies, playing to widespread
anti-Hanoverian feelings in Britain. This boosted his popularity with
the public, but earned him the lifelong hatred of the King, who was
emotionally committed to Hanover, where he had spent the first thirty
years of his life. In response to Pitt's attacks, the British
government decided not pay a direct subsidy to Hanover, but instead to
pass the money indirectly through Austria - which was considered more
politically acceptable. A sizeable Anglo-German army was formed which
George II himself led to victory at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743, reducing the immediate threat to Hanover. The best-known specimen of Pitt's eloquence, his reply to the sneers of Horatio Walpole at
his youth and declamatory manner, which has found a place in so many
handbooks of elocution, is evidently, in form at least, the work, not
of Pitt, but of Dr Johnson, who furnished the report to the Gentleman's Magazine.
Probably Pitt did say something of the kind attributed to him, though
even this is by no means certain in view of Johnson's repentant
admission that he had often invented not merely the form, but the
substance of entire debates. Much
of Pitt's attacks on the government were directed personally at Sir
Robert Walpole who had now been Prime Minister for twenty years. He
spoke in favour of the motion in 1742 for an investigation into the
last ten years of Walpole's administration. In 1742, following poor
election results and the disaster at Cartagena, Walpole was at last
forced to succumb to the long continued attacks of opposition, resigned
and took a peerage. Pitt now expected a new government to be formed led by Pulteney and dominated by Tories and Patriot Whigs in which he could expect a junior position. Walpole was instead succeeded as Prime Minister by Lord Wilmington, though the real power in the new government was divided between Lord Carteret and the Pelham brothers (Henry and Thomas, Duke of Newcastle).
Walpole had carefully orchestrated this new government as a continuance
of his own, and continued to advise it up to his death. Pitt's hopes
for a place in the government were thwarted, and he continued in
opposition. He was therefore unable to make any personal gain from the
downfall of Walpole, to which he had so largely contributed. The administration formed by the Pelhams in
1744, after the dismissal of Carteret, included many of Pitt's former
Patriot allies, but Pitt was not granted a position because of
continued ill-feeling about his views on Hanover. Before the obstacle
to his admission was overcome, he had received a remarkable accession
to his private fortune. When the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough died
in 1744 she left him a legacy of £10,000 as an "acknowledgment of
the noble defence he had made for the support of the laws of England
and to prevent the ruin of his country". It was probably as much a mark
of her detestation of Walpole as of her admiration of Pitt. About twenty years after the Marlborough legacy, Sir William Pynsent, a Somerset baronet to whom he was personally quite unknown, left him his entire estate, worth
about three thousand a year, in testimony of approval of his political
career. It
was with deep reluctance that the King finally agreed to give Pitt a
place in the government. Pitt had changed his stance on a number of
issues to make himself more acceptable to George, most notably the
heated issue of Hanoverian subsidies. To force the matter, the Pelham
brothers had to resign on the question whether he should be admitted or
not, and it was only after all other arrangements had proved
impracticable, that they were reinstated with Pitt appointed as Vice Treasurer of Ireland in February 1746. George continued to resent him however. In May of the same year Pitt was promoted to the more important and lucrative office of paymaster general, which gave him a place in the privy council, though not in the cabinet.
Here he had an opportunity of displaying his public spirit and
integrity in a way that deeply impressed both the king and the country.
It had been the usual practise of previous paymasters to appropriate to
themselves the interest of all money lying in their hands by way of
advance, and also to accept a commission of 1/2% on all foreign
subsidies. Although there was no strong public sentiment against the
practice, Pitt completely refused to profit by it. All advances were
lodged by him in the Bank of England until
required, and all subsidies were paid over without deduction, even
though it was pressed upon him, so that he did not draw a shilling from his office beyond the salary legally attaching to it. Pitt ostentatiously made this clear to everyone, although he was in fact following what Henry Pelham had
done when he had held the post between 1730 and 1743. This helped to
etablish Pitt's reputation with the British people for honesty and
placing the interests of the nation before his own. The administration formed in 1746 lasted
without major changes until 1754. It would appear from his published
correspondence that Pitt had a greater influence in shaping its policy
than his comparatively subordinate position would in itself have
entitled him to. His support for measures, such as the Spanish Treaty
and the continental subsidies, which he had violently denounced when in
opposition was criticised by his enemies as an example of his political opportunism.
Pitt
in office, looking back on the commencement of his public life, might
have used the plea "A good deal has happened since then", at least as
justly as some others have done. Allowance must always be made for the
restraints and responsibilities of office. In Pitt's case, too, it is
to be borne in mind that the opposition with which he had acted
gradually dwindled away, and that it ceased to have any organized
existence after the death of the prince of Wales in 1751. Then in
regard to the important question with Spain as to the right of search,
Pitt has disarmed criticism by acknowledging that the course he
followed during Walpole's administration was indefensible. All
due weight being given to these various considerations, it must be
admitted, nevertheless, that Pitt did overstep the limits within which
inconsistency is usually regarded as venial. His one great object was
first to gain office, and then to make his tenure of office secure by
conciliating the favour of the king. The entire revolution which much
of his policy underwent in order to effect this object bears too close
a resemblance to the sudden and inexplicable changes of front habitual
to placemen of the Tadpole stamp to be altogether pleasant to
contemplate in a politician of pure aims and lofty ambition.
Humiliating is not too strong a term to apply to a letter in which he
expresses his desire to "efface the past by every action of his life",
in order that he may stand well with the king. Between
1746 and 1748 Pitt worked closely with Newcastle in formulating British
military and diplomatic strategy. He shared with Newcastle a belief
that Britain should continue to fight until it could receive generous
peace terms - in contrast to some such as Henry Pelham who favoured an immediate peace. Pitt was personally saddened when his friend and brother-in-law Thomas Grenville was killed at the naval First Battle of Cape Finisterre in 1747. However,
this victory helped secure British supremacy of the sea which gave the
British a stronger negotiating position when it came to the peace talks
that ended the war. At the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 British colonial conquests were exchanged for a French withdrawal from Brussels. Many saw this as merely an armistice and awaited an imminent new war. In
1754, Henry Pelham died suddenly, and was succeeded as Prime Minister
by his brother, the Duke of Newcastle. As Newcastle sat in the House of Lords, he required a leading politician to represent the government in the House of Commons. Pitt and Henry Fox were
considered the two favourites for the position, but Newcastle instead
rejected them both and turned to the less well known figure of Sir Thomas Robinson, a career diplomat,
to fill the post. It was widely believed that Newcastle had done this
because he feared the ambitions of both Pitt and Fox, and believed he
would find it easier to dominate the inexperienced Robinson. Despite
his disappointment there was no immediate open breach. Pitt continued
at his post; and at the general election which took place during the
year he even accepted a nomination for the Duke's pocket borough of Aldborough. He had sat for Seaford since 1747. The government won a landslide, further strengthening its majority in parliament. When
parliament met, however, he made no secret of his feelings. Ignoring
Sir Thomas Robinson, Pitt made frequent and vehement attacks on
Newcastle himself, though still continued to serve as Paymaster under
him. From 1754 Britain was increasingly drawn into conflict with France
during this period, despite Newcastle's wish to maintain the peace. The
countries clashed in North America, where each had laid claim to the Ohio Country. A British expedition under General Braddock had been despatched and defeated in summer 1755 which caused a ratcheting up of tensions. Eager
to prevent the war spreading to Europe, Newcastle now tried to conclude
a series of treaties that would secure Britain allies through the
payment of subsidies - which he hoped, would discourage France from
attacking Britain. Similar subsidies had been an issue of past
disagreement, and they were widely attacked by Patriot Whigs and Tories.
As the government came under increasing attack, Newcastle replaced
Robinson with Fox who it was acknowledged carried more political weight
and again slighted Pitt. Finally
in November 1755, Pitt was dismissed from office as paymaster, having
spoken during a debate at great length against the new system of
continental subsidies proposed by the government of which he was still
a member. Fox
retained his own place, and though the two men continued to be of the
same party, and afterward served again in the same government, there
was henceforward a rivalry between them, which makes the celebrated
opposition of their illustrious sons seem like an inherited quarrel. Pitt's
relationship with the Duke slumped further in early 1756 when he
alleged that Newcastle was deliberately leaving the island of Minorca ill-defended
so that the French would seize it, and Newcastle could use its loss to
prove that Britain was not able to fight a war against France and sue
for peace. When in June 1756 Minorca fell after a failed attempt by Admiral Byng to relieve it, Pitt's allegations fuelled the public anger against Newcastle - leading him to be attacked by a mob in Greenwich. The loss of Minorca shattered public faith in Newcastle, and forced him to step down as Prime Minister in November 1756. In December 1756, Pitt, who now sat for Okehampton, became Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and Leader of the House of Commons under the premiership of the Duke of Devonshire. Upon entering this coalition, Pitt said to Devonshire: "My Lord, I am sure I can save this country, and no one else can".
He
had made it a condition of his joining any administration that
Newcastle should be excluded from it which proved fatal to the
lengthened existence of his government. With the king unfriendly, and
Newcastle, whose influence was still dominant in the Commons,
estranged, it was impossible to carry on a government by the aid of
public opinion alone, however emphatically that might have declared
itself on his side. The historian Basil Williams has
claimed that this is the first time in British history when a "man was
called to supreme power by the voice of the people" rather than by the
king's appointment or as the choice of Parliament. Pitt
drew up his plans for the campaigning season of 1757 in which he hoped
to reverse Britain's string of defeats during the wars opening years. In
April 1757 Pitt was dismissed from office on account of his opposition
to the continental policy and the circumstances surrounding the
court martial and execution of Admiral John Byng. He was succesed by the Duke of Devonshire who formed the 1757 Caretaker Ministry.
But the power that was insufficient to keep him in office was strong
enough to make any arrangement that excluded him impracticable. The
public voice spoke in a way that was not to be mistaken. Probably no
English minister ever received in so short a time so many proofs of the
confidence and admiration of the public, the capital and all the chief
towns voting him addresses and the freedom of their corporations (e.g.,
London presented him with the first ever honorary Freedom of the City awarded in history). Horace Walpole recorded the freedoms of various cities awarded to Pitt: ...for
some weeks it rained gold boxes: Chester, Worcester, Norwich, Bedford,
Salisbury, Yarmouth, Tewkesbury, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Stirling, and other
populous and chief towns following the example. Exeter, with singular
affection, sent boxes of oak. After some weeks' negotiation, in the course of which the firmness and moderation of "The Great Commoner", as he had come to be called, contrasted favourably with the characteristic tortuosities of the crafty peer,
matters were settled on such a basis that, while Newcastle was the
nominal, Pitt was the virtual head of the government. On his acceptance
of office, he was chosen member for Bath. A coalition with Newcastle was
formed in June 1757, and held power until October 1761. It brought
together several various factions and was built around the partnership
between Pitt and Newcastle which a few months earlier had seemed
impossible. The two men used Lord Chesterfield as an intermediary and had managed to agree a division of powers that was acceptable to both. For
the past few months Britain had been virtually leaderless, although
Devonshire had remained formally Prime Minister, but now Pitt and
Newcastle were ready to offer stronger direction to the country's
strategy. By
summer 1757 the British war effort over the previous three years had
broadly been a failure. Britain's attempts to take the offensive in
North America had ended in disaster, Minorca had been lost, and the Duke of Cumberland's Army of Observation was retreating across Hanover following the Battle of Hastenback. In October Cumberland was forced to conclude the Convention of Klosterzeven which would take Hanover out of the war. The French Invasion of Hanover posed
a threat to Britain's ally Prussia, who they would now be able to
attack from the west as well as facing attack from Austria, Russia,
Saxony and Sweden. Although
it was late in the campaigning season when he had come to power, Pitt
set about trying to initiate a more assertive strategy. He conspired
with a number of figures to persuade the Hanoverians to revoke the
Convention and re-enter the war on Britain's side, which they did in late 1757. He also put into practice a scheme of Naval Descents which would see amphibious landings on the French coast. The first of these, the Raid on Rochefort took place in September, but was not a success. The centrepiece of the campaign in North America, an expedition to capture Louisbourg had to be cancelled due to inclement weather. In
1758 Pitt began to put into practice a new strategy to win the Seven
Years War, which would involve tying down large numbers of French
troops and resources in Germany, while Britain used its naval supremacy
to launch expeditions to capture French forces around the globe.
Following the Capture of Emden he ordered the dispatch of the first British troops to the European continent under the Duke of Marlborough, who joined Brunswick's army. This was a dramatic reversal of his previous position, as he had recently been strongly opposed to any such commitment. Pitt had been lobbied by an American merchant Thomas Cumming to launch an expedition against the French trading settlements in West Africa. In April 1758 British forces captured the ill-defended fort of Saint-Louis in Senegal. The mission was so lucrative that Pitt sent out further expeditions to capture Goree and Gambia later in the year. He also drew up plans to attack French islands in the Caribbean the following year at the suggestion of a Jamaican sugar planter William Beckford. In North America, a second British attempt to capture Louisbourg succeeded. However, Pitt's pleasure over this was tempered by the subsequent news of a significant British defeat at Battle of Carillon. Towards the end of the year the Forbes Expedition seized the site of Fort Duquesne and began constructing a British settlement that would become known as Pittsburgh. This gave the British control of the Ohio Country, which had been the principal cause of the war. In Europe, Brunswick's forces enjoyed a mixed year. Brunswick had crossed the Rhine, but faced with being cut off he had retreated and blocked any potential French move towards Hanover with his victory at the Battle of Krefeld.
The year ended with something approaching a stalemate in Germany. Pitt
had continued his naval descents during 1758, but the first had enjoyed
only limited success and the second ended with near disaster at the Battle of St Cast and no further Descents were planned. Instead the troops and ships would be used as part of the coming expedition to the French West Indies.
The scheme of amphibious raids was the only one of Pitt's policies
during the war that was broadly a failure, although it did help briefly
relieve pressure on the German front by tying down French troops on
coastal protection service. In France a new leader, the Duc de Choiseul,
had recently come to power and 1759 offered a duel between their rival
strategies. Pitt intended to continue with his plan of tying down
French forces in Germany while continuing the assault on France's
colonies. Choiseul hoped to repel the attacks in the colonies while
seeking total victory in Europe. Pitt's war around the world was largely successful. While a British invasion of Martinique failed, they captured Guadeloupe shortly afterwards. In India, a French attempt to capture Madras was repulsed. In North America, British troops closed in on France's Canadian heartland. A British force under James Wolfe moved up the Saint Lawrence with the aim of capturing Quebec. After initially failing to penetrate the French defences at the Montmorency Falls, Wolfe later led his men to a victory to the west of the city allowing the British forces to capture Quebec. Choiseul had pinned much of his hopes on a French invasion of Britain,
which he hoped would knock Britain out of the war and make it surrender
the colonies it had taken from France. Pitt had stripped the British Isles of troops to send on his expeditions,
leaving an opportunity for the French if they could land in enough
force. The French invested huge amounts of money and resources in
building an invasion fleet. However the French naval defeats at Lagos and Quiberon Bay forced
Choiseul to abandon the invasion plans. France's other great hope, that
their armies could make a breakthrough in Germany and invade Hanover,
was thwarted at the Battle of Minden.
Britain ended the year victorious in every theatre of operations in
which they were engaged, with Pitt receiving the credit for this. Britain completed the conquest of Canada in 1760 by capturing Montreal which effectively brought the war to an end on mainland North America. Pitt's
power had now reached its peak, but was soon under threat. The domestic
political situation was altered dramatically when George II died in
October 1760. He was succeeded by his grandson, George III,
who had once considered Pitt an ally but had become angered by Pitt's
alliance with Newcastle and acceptance of the need for British
intervention in Germany – which George was strongly opposed to. The new king successfully lobbied for his favourite Lord Bute to be given the post of Northern Secretary. Bute was inclined to support a withdrawal from Germany, and to fight the war with France largely at sea and in the colonies. Pitt's plan for an expedition to capture Belle Île was put into force in April 1761 and it was captured after a siege. This provided yet a further blow to French prestige, as it was the first part of Metropolitan France to be occupied. Pitt
now expected France to offer terms, although he was prepared for a
longer war if necessary. Envoys were exchanged, but neither side could
reach an agreement. Pitt's refusal to grant the French a share in Newfoundland proved
the biggest obstacle to peace, as Pitt declared he would rather lose
the use of his right arm than give the French a share there and later
said he would rather give up the Tower of London than Newfoundland. Newfoundland was at the time seen as possessing huge economic and strategic value because of the extensive fishing industry there. The
war in Germany continued through 1761 with the French again attempting
to overcome Brunswick and invade Hanover, but suffering a defeat at the Battle of Villinghausen.
Pitt had substantially increased the number of British troops serving
with Brunswick, and he also planned further conquests in the West
Indies. A strategy he hoped would compel the French to conclude a
reasonable peace treaty. The London Magazine of 1766 offered 'Pitt, Pompadour, Prussia, Providence' as the reasons for Britain's success in the Seven Years' War.
Posterity, indeed, has been able to recognize more fully the
independent genius of those who carried out his purposes. The heroism of James Wolfe would have been irrepressible, Clive would have proved himself "a heaven-born general", and Frederick the Great would
have written his name in history as one of the most skilful strategists
the world has known, whoever had held the seals of office in England. But
Pitt's relation to all three was such as to entitle him to a large
share in the credit of their deeds. He inspired trust in his chosen
commanders by his indifference to rules of seniority — several of
'Pitt's boys', like Keppel, captor of Gorée, were in their thirties — and by his clear orders. It was his discernment that selected Wolfe to lead the attack on Quebec, and gave him the opportunity of dying a victor on the heights of Abraham.
He had personally less to do with the successes in India than with the
other great enterprises that shed an undying lustre on his
administration; but his generous praise in parliament stimulated the
genius of Clive, and the forces that acted at the close of the struggle
were animated by his indomitable spirit. Pitt's
particular genius was to finance an army on the continent to drain
French men and resources so that Britain might concentrate on what he
held to be the vital spheres: Canada and the West Indies; whilst Clive successfully defeated Siraj Ud Daulah, (the last independent Nawab of Bengal) at Plassey (1757), securing India. The Continental campaign was carried on by Cumberland, defeated at Hastenbeck and forced to surrender at Convention of Klosterzeven (1757) and thereafter by Ferdinand of Brunswick, later victor at Minden; Britain's Continental campaign had two major strands, firstly subsidising allies, particularly Frederick the Great, and second, financing an army to divert French resources from the colonial war and to also defend Hanover (which was the territory of the Kings of England at this time) Pitt, the first real Imperialist in
modern English history, was the directing mind in the expansion of his
country, and with him the beginning of empire is rightly associated. The Seven Years' War might well, moreover, have been another Thirty Years' War if
Pitt had not furnished Frederick with an annual subsidy of
£700,000, and in addition relieved him of the task of defending
western Germany against France: this was the policy that allowed Pitt to boast of having 'won Canada on the banks of the Rhine'. Contemporary opinion was, of course, incompetent to estimate the permanent results gained for the country by the brilliant foreign policy of
Pitt. It has long been generally agreed that by several of his most
costly expeditions nothing was really won but glory: the policy of
diversionary attacks on places like Rochefort was
memorably described as 'breaking windows with gold guineas'. It has
even been said that the only permanent acquisition that England owed
directly to him was her Canadian dominion; and, strictly speaking, this
is true, it being admitted that the campaign by which the Indian empire
was virtually won was not planned by him, though brought to a
successful issue during his ministry. But material aggrandisement,
though the only tangible, is not the only real or lasting effect of a
war policy. More may be gained by crushing a formidable rival than by
conquering a province. The loss of her Canadian possessions was only
one of a series of disasters suffered by France, which included the
victories at sea of Boscawen at Lagos and Hawke at Quiberon Bay. Such defeats radically affected the future of Europe and the world. Deprived of her most valuable colonies both in the East and in the West, and thoroughly defeated on the continent, France's humiliation was the beginning of a new epoch in history. The
victorious policy of Pitt destroyed the military prestige which
repeated experience has shown to be in France as in no other country
the very life of monarchy, and thus was not the least of the influences
that slowly brought about the French Revolution.
It effectually deprived France of the lead in the councils of Europe
which she had hitherto arrogated to herself, and so affected the whole
course of continental politics. It is such far reaching results as
these, and not the mere acquisition of a single colony, however
valuable, that constitute Pitt's claim to be considered as the most
powerful minister that ever guided the foreign policy of England. The
first and most important of a series of changes which ultimately led to
the fall of Pitt was the death of George II on 25 October 1760, and the
accession of his grandson, George III.
The new king was inclined to view politics in personal terms and taught
to believe that 'Pitt had the blackest of hearts'. The new king had
counsellors of his own, led by Lord Bute. Bute soon joined the cabinet as a Northern Secretary and Pitt and he were quickly in dispute over a number of issues. In 1761 Pitt had received information from his agents about a secret Bourbon Family Compact by which the Bourbons of
France and Spain bound themselves in an offensive alliance against
Britain. Spain was concerned that Britain's victories over France had
left them too powerful, and were a threat in the long term to Spain's own empire.
Equally they may have believed that the British had become overstretched by fighting a global war and decided to try and seize
British possessions such as Jamaica.
A secret convention pledged that if Britain and France were still at
war by 1 May 1762, Spain would enter the war on the French side. Pitt
urged that such a clear threat should be met by a pre-emptive strike
against Spain's navy and her colonies - with emphasis on speed to
prevent Spain bringing the annual Manila galleon safely to harbour. Bute and Newcastle refused to support such a move, as did the entire cabinet except Temple,
believing it would make Britain look the aggressor against Spain
potentially provoking other neutral nations to declare war on Britain.
Pitt believed he had no choice but to leave a cabinet in which his
advice on a vital question had been rejected and presented his
resignation. Many of his cabinet colleagues secretly welcomed his
departure as they believed his dominance and popularity were a threat
to the Constitution. On
his resignation, which took place in October 1761, the King urged him
to accept some signal mark of royal favour in the form most agreeable
to himself. Accordingly he obtained a pension of £3000 a year and
his wife, Lady Hester Grenville was created Baroness Chatham in her own right - although Pitt refused to accept a title himself. Pitt's domestic life was happy. Pitt's
spirit was too lofty to admit of his entering on any merely factious
opposition to the government he had quit. On the contrary, his conduct
after his retirement was distinguished by a moderation and
disinterestedness which, as Burke has
remarked, "set a seal upon his character." The war with Spain, in which
he had urged the cabinet to take the initiative, proved inevitable; but
he scorned to use the occasion for "altercation and recrimination", and
spoke in support of the government measures for carrying on the war. To the preliminaries of the peace concluded
in February 1763 he offered an indignant resistance, considering the
terms quite inadequate to the successes that had been gained by the
country. When the treaty was discussed in parliament in December of the
preceding year, though suffering from a severe attack of gout, he was
carried down to the House, and in a speech of three hours' duration,
interrupted more than once by paroxysms of
pain, he strongly protested against its various conditions. These
conditions included the return of the sugar islands (but Britain
retained Dominica); trading stations in West Africa (won by Boscawen); Pondicherry, (France's Indian colony); and fishing rights in Newfoundland. Pitt's opposition arose through two heads: France had been given the means to become once more formidable at sea, whilst Frederick had been betrayed. Pitt
believed that the task had been left half finished and called for a
final year of war which would crush French power for good. Pitt had
long held plans for further conquests which had been uncompleted.
Newcastle, by contrast, sought peace but only if the war in Germany
could be brought to an honourable and satisfactory conclusion (rather
than Britain suddenly bailing out of it as Bute proposed). However the
combined opposition of Newcastle and Pitt was not enough to prevent the
Treaty passing comfortably in both Houses of Parliament. However,
there were strong reasons for concluding the peace: the National Debt
had increased from £74.5m. in 1755 to £133.25m. in 1763,
the year of the peace. The requirement to pay down this debt, and the lack of French threat in Canada, were major movers in the subsequent American War of Independence. The
physical cause which rendered this effort so painful probably accounts
for the infrequency of his appearances in parliament, as well as for
much that is otherwise inexplicable in his subsequent conduct. In 1763
he spoke against the unpopular tax on cider, imposed by his brother-in-law, George Grenville,
and his opposition, though unsuccessful in the House, helped to keep
alive his popularity with the country, which cordially hated the excise and all connected with it. When next year the question of general warrants was raised in connexion with the case of Wilkes, Pitt vigorously maintained their illegality, thus defending at once the privileges of Parliament and the freedom of the press. During 1765 he seems to have been totally incapacitated for public business. In the following year he supported with great power the proposal of the Rockingham administration for the repeal of the American Stamp Act,
arguing that it was unconstitutional to impose taxes upon the colonies.
He thus endorsed the contention of the colonists on the ground of
principle, while the majority of those who acted with him contented
themselves with resisting the disastrous taxation scheme on the ground
of expediency. The Repeal Act, indeed, was only passed pari passu with another censuring the American assemblies,
and declaring the authority of the British parliament over the colonies
"in all cases whatsoever"; so that the House of Commons repudiated in
the most formal manner the principle Pitt laid down. His language in
approval of the resistance of the colonists was unusually bold, and
perhaps no one but himself could have employed it with impunity at a time when the freedom of debate was only imperfectly conceded. Pitt
had not been long out of office when he was solicited to return to it,
and the solicitations were more than once renewed. Unsuccessful
overtures were made to him in 1763, and twice in 1765, in May and June
- the negotiator in May being the king's uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, who went down in person to Hayes, Pitt's seat in Kent.
It is known that he had the opportunity of joining the Marquis of
Rockingham's short lived administration at any time on his own terms,
and his conduct in declining an arrangement with that minister has been
more generally condemned than any other step in his public life. In
July 1766 Rockingham was dismissed, and Pitt was entrusted by the King
with the task of forming a government entirely of his own selection.
The result was a cabinet, strong much beyond the average in its
individual members, but weak to powerlessness in the diversity of its
composition. Burke, in a memorable passage of a memorable speech, has
described this "chequered and speckled" administration with great
humour, speaking of it as "patriots and courtiers, King's friends and
republicans; Whigs and Tories... indeed a very curious show, but utterly
unsafe to touch and unsure to stand on." Pitt chose for himself the
office of Lord Privy Seal, which required his elevation to the House of Lords, and in August he became Earl of Chatham and Viscount Pitt. His
principle, 'measures not men', appealed to the King whom he proposed to
serve by 'destroying all party distinctions'. The problems which faced
the government he seemed specially fitted to tackle: the observance of
the Treaty of Paris by France and Spain, tension between American colonists and the mother country, the status of the East India Company. Choosing for himself freedom from the routines of office, as Lord Privy Seal he made appointments without regard for connections but perceived merit. Charles Townshend to the Exchequer, Shelburne as
Secretary of State, to order American affairs. He set about his duties
with tempestuous energy. Yet in October 1768 he resigned after a
catastrophic ministry, leaving such leadership as he could give to Grafton, his First Lord of the Treasury. What had gone wrong? By the acceptance of a peerage,
the great commoner lost a great deal of public support. One significant
indication of this may be mentioned. In view of his probable accession
to power, preparations were made in the City of London for
a banquet and a general illumination to celebrate the event. But the
celebration was at once countermanded when it was known that he had
become Earl of Chatham. The instantaneous revulsion of public feeling
was somewhat unreasonable, for Pitt's health seems now to have been
beyond doubt so shattered by his hereditary malady, that he was already
in old age though only fifty-eight. It was natural, therefore, that he
should choose a sinecure office,
and the ease of the Lords. But a popular idol nearly always suffers by
removal from immediate contact with the popular sympathy, be the
motives for removal what they may. One of the earliest acts of the new ministry was to lay an embargo upon corn,
which was thought necessary in order to prevent a dearth resulting from
the unprecedented bad harvest of 1766. The measure was strongly
opposed, and Lord Chatham delivered his first speech in the House of
Lords in support of it. It proved to be almost the only measure
introduced by his government in which he personally interested himself. In 1767, Townshend produced the duties on tea, glass and paper, so offensive to the American colonists whom Chatham thought he understood. His
attention had been directed to the growing importance of the affairs of
India, and there is evidence in his correspondence that he was
meditating a comprehensive scheme for transferring much of the power of
the East India Company to
the crown, when he was withdrawn from public business in a manner that
has always been regarded as somewhat mysterious. It may be questioned,
indeed, whether even had his powers been unimpaired he could have
carried out any decided policy on any question with a cabinet
representing interests so various and conflicting; but, as it happened,
he was incapacitated physically and mentally during nearly the whole
period of his tenure of office. He
scarcely ever saw any of his colleagues though they repeatedly and
urgently pressed for interviews with him, and even an offer from the
king to visit him in person was declined, though in the language of
profound and almost abject respect which always marked his
communications with the court. It has been insinuated both by
contemporary and by later critics that being disappointed at his loss
of popularity, and convinced of the impossibility of co-operating with
his colleagues, he exaggerated his malady as a pretext for the inaction
that was forced upon him by circumstances. But
there is no sufficient reason to doubt that he was really, as his
friends represented, in a state that utterly unfitted him for business.
He seems to have been freed for a time from the pangs of gout only to
be afflicted with a species of mental alienation bordering on insanity.
This is the most satisfactory, as it is the most obvious, explanation
of his utter indifference in presence of one of the most momentous
problems that ever pressed for solution on an English statesman. Those
who are able to read the history in the light of what occurred later
may perhaps be convinced that no policy whatever initiated, after 1766
could have prevented or even materially delayed the United States Declaration of Independence;
but to the politicians of that time the coming event had not yet cast
so dark a shadow before as to paralyse all action, and if any man could
have allayed the growing discontent of the colonists and prevented the
ultimate dismemberment of the empire, it would have been Lord Chatham. The
fact that he not only did nothing to remove existing difficulties, but
remained passive while his colleagues took the fatal step which led
directly to separation, is in itself clear proof of his entire
incapacity. The imposition of the import duty on tea and other
commodities was the project of Charles Townshend,
and was carried into effect in 1767 without consultation with Lord
Chatham, if not in opposition to his wishes. It is probably the most
singular thing in connexion with this singular administration, that its
most pregnant measure should thus have been one directly opposed to the
well known principles of its head. For
many months, things remained in the curious position that he who was
understood to be the head of the cabinet had as little share in the
government of the country as an unenfranchised peasant.
As the chief could not or would not lead, the subordinates naturally
chose their own paths and not his. The lines of Chatham's policy were
abandoned in other cases besides the imposition of the import duty; his
opponents were taken into confidence; and friends, such as Amherst and Shelburne,
were dismissed from their posts. When at length in October 1768 he
tendered his resignation on the ground of shattered health, he did not
fail to mention the dismissal of Amherst and Shelburne as a personal
grievance.
Soon
after his resignation a renewed attack of gout freed Chatham from the
mental disease under which he had so long suffered. He had been nearly
two years and a half in seclusion when, in July 1769, he again appeared
in public at a royal levee. It was not, however, until 1770 that he
resumed his seat in the House of Lords. The same year when Britain and Spain became involved in the Falklands Crisis and
came close to war, Pitt was a staunch advocate of taking a tough stance
with Madrid and Paris (as he had been during the earlier Corsican Crisis) and made a number of speeches on the subject rousing public opinion. The
North Government was pushed into taking a firmer line because of this,
mobilising the navy, and forcing Spain to back down. Some had even
believed that the issue was enough to cast North from office and
restore Pitt as Prime Minister - although the ultimate result was to
strengthen the position of North who took credit for his firm handling
of the crisis and was able to fill the cabinet with his own supporters.
North would go on to dominate politics for the next decade, leading the
country until 1782. As
he realised the gravity of the American situation, Chatham re-entered
the fray, declaring that 'he would be in earnest for the public' and 'a
scarecrow of violence to the gentler warblers of the grove'. They,
moderate Whigs, found a prophet in Edmund Burke,
who wrote of Chatham that he wanted 'to keep hovering in the air, above
all parties, and to swoop down where the prey may prove best'. Such was Grafton, victim of Chatham's swift swoop on behalf of 'Wilkes and
Liberty'. Pitt had not lost his nose for the big issue, the smell of
injustice, a threat to the liberty of subjects. But Grafton was
followed by North, and Chatham went off to farm, his cows typically
housed in palatial stalls. Chatham's
warnings on America went unregarded until the eve of war. Then brave
efforts to present his case, passionate, deeply pondered, for the
concession of fundamental liberties - no taxation without consent,
independent judges, trial by jury, along with the recognition of the
American Continental Congress -
foundered on the ignorance and complacency of Parliament. In his last
years he found again words to express the concern for the rights of
British subjects which had been constant among the inconsistencies of
his political dealings. In January 1775 the House of Lords rejected
his Bill for reconciliation. After war had broken out, he warned that America could not be conquered. He
had now almost no personal following, mainly owing to the grave mistake
he had made in not forming an alliance with the Rockingham party. But
his eloquence was as powerful as ever, and all its power was directed
against the government policy in the contest with America, which had
become the question of all-absorbing interest. His last appearance in
the House of Lords was on 7 April 1778, on the occasion of the Duke of Richmond's
motion for an address praying the king to conclude peace with America
on any terms. In
view of the hostile demonstrations of France the various parties had
come generally to see the necessity of such a measure. But Chatham
could not brook the thought of a step which implied submission to the
"natural enemy" whom it had been the main object of his life to humble,
and he declaimed for a considerable time, though with diminished
vigour, against the motion. After the Duke of Richmond had replied, he
rose again excitedly as if to speak, pressed his hand upon his breast,
and fell down in a fit. His last words before he collapsed were: 'My
Lords, any state is better than despair; if we must fall, let us fall
like men.' James Harris MP, however, recorded that Lord Nugent had
told him that Chatham's last words in the Lords were: 'If the Americans
defend independence, they shall find me in their way' and that his very
last words (spoken to his son) were: 'Leave your dying father, and go to the defence of your country'.
He was removed to his seat at Hayes, where his son William read Homer to him: the passage about the death of Hector.
Chatham died on 11 May 1778. Although he was initially buried at Hayes,
with graceful unanimity all parties combined to show their sense of the
national loss and the Commons presented an address to the king praying
that the deceased statesman might be buried with the honours of a
public funeral. A sum was voted for a public monument which was erected over a new grave in Westminster Abbey. In the Guildhall Burke's
inscription summed up what he had meant to the City: he was 'the
minister by whom commerce was united with and made to flourish by war'.
Soon after the funeral a bill was passed bestowing a pension of
£4,000 a year on his successors in the earldom. He had a family of three sons and two daughters, of whom the second son, William, was destined to add fresh lustre to a name which is one of the greatest in the history of England. Horace Walpole, not an uncritical admirer, wrote of Pitt: It
were ingratitude to him to say that he did not give such a
reverberation to our stagnating councils, as exceedingly altered the
appearance of our fortune. He warded off the evil hour that seemed
approaching, he infused vigour into our arms, he taught the nation to
speak again as England used to speak to foreign powers... Pitt, on
entering upon administration, had found the nation at the lowest ebb in
point of power and reputation... France, who meant to be feared, was
feared heartily... They were willing to trust that France would be so
good as to ruin us by inches. Pitt had roused us from this ignoble
lethargy... The admirers of Mr Pitt extol the reverberation he gave to
our councils, the despondence he banished, the spirit he infused, the
conquests he made, the security he affixed to our trade and
plantations, the humiliation of France, the glory of Britain carried
under his administration to a pitch at which it never had arrived — and
all this is exactly true. Dr.
Johnson is reported to have said that "Walpole was a minister given by
the king to the people, but Pitt was a minister given by the people to
the king", and the remark correctly indicates Chatham's distinctive
place among English statesmen. He was the first minister whose main
strength lay in the support of the nation at large as distinct from its
representatives in the Commons, where his personal following was always
small. He was the first to discern that public opinion, though
generally slow to form and slow to act, is in the end the paramount
power in the state; and he was the first to use it not in an emergency
merely, but throughout a whole political career. He marks the commencement of that vast change in the movement of English politics by
which it has come about that the sentiment of the great mass of the
people now tells effectively on the action of the government from day
to day – almost from hour to hour. He was well fitted to secure the
sympathy and admiration of his countrymen, for his virtues and his
failings were alike English. He was often inconsistent, he was
generally intractable and overbearing, and he was always pompous and
affected to a degree which, Macaulay has remarked, seems scarcely compatible with true greatness. Of
the last quality evidence is furnished in the stilted style of his
letters, and in the fact recorded by Seward that he never permitted his
under secretaries to sit in his presence. Burke speaks of "some
significant, pompous, creeping, explanatory, ambiguous matter, in the
true Chathamic style." But these defects were known only to the inner
circle of his associates. To
the outside public he was endeared as a statesman who could do or
suffer "nothing base", and who had the rare power of transfusing his
own indomitable energy and courage into all who served under him. "A
spirited foreign policy" has always been popular in England, and Pitt
was the most popular of English ministers, because he was the most
successful exponent of such a policy. In domestic affairs his influence
was small and almost entirely indirect. He himself confessed his
unfitness for dealing with questions of finance. The commercial
prosperity that was produced by his war policy was in a great part
delusive, as prosperity so produced must always be, though it had
permanent effects of the highest moment in the rise of such centres of
industry as Glasgow. This, however, was a remote result which he could have neither intended nor foreseen. It
has been suggested that Pitt was in fact a far more orthodox Whig than
has been historically portrayed demonstrated by his sitting for rotten
borough seats controlled by arisocratic magnates, and his life-long
concern for protecting the balance of power on the European continent - which marked him out from many other Patriots. Historians have described Pitt as "the greatest British statesman of the eighteenth century." |