Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]

The Siege of Gibraltar, 1781: from a contemporary print.

be more likely than any of the other ministers to help him to keep down the Whig aristocracy. Fox, who detested Shelburne, and had for some time been engaged in a bitter dispute with him on the subject of the negotiations for peace, resigned together with others of Rockingham's followers. When Shelburne became Prime Minister the negotiations were far advanced. France and Spain were, however, anxious, before they signed a peace, to regain Gibraltar, which their fleets and armies had been besieging for more than three years. On September 13 a tremendous attack was made on the fortress with floating batteries which were thought to be indestructible. The British, on the other side, fired red-hot shot at the batteries till they were all burnt. After this failure, France and Spain were ready to come to terms with Great Britain. The preliminaries of peace with the United States of America were signed at Paris, on November 30, 1782, and with France and Spain on January 20, 1783. The preliminaries were converted into definitive treaties on September 3, 1783. The Dutch held out longer, but were obliged to yield to a peace a few months later.

31. Terms of the Treaty of Paris. 1783.—The treaties with France and Spain restored to France the right of fortifying Dunkirk, which had been taken from her by the Treaty of Utrecht (see p. 699), and to Spain the possession of Minorca, whilst certain exchanges were effected in the West Indies, Africa, and India. In America, Florida went back to Spain. By the treaty with the United States their independence was acknowledged, and their western border was fixed on the Mississippi, beyond which was Louisiana, ceded by France to Spain at the end of the Seven Years' War. (See p. 766.)

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1. The Younger Pitt. 1782-1783.-Chatham's second son, William Pitt, had entered Parliament in 1780, at the age of twentyone. He had supported Burke's Economical Reform and denounced the American War. "Pitt," said some one to Fox, "will be one of the first men in the House of Commons." "He is so already," replied Fox. "He is not a chip of the old block," said Burke, "he is the old block itself." Burke's saying was not strictly accurate. The qualities of the younger Pitt were different from those of his father. He had none of the fire of the impetuous Chatham, but he had what Chatham did not possess, unerring tact in the management of men and high sagacity in discriminating between things possible to be done and things which were not possible. When the second

Rockingham Ministry was formed, he was offered a post which did not carry with it a seat in the Cabinet, but which brought a salary of 5,000l. a year. Pitt, who was a young barrister making a bare 300l. a year, refused the offer, and astonished the House by asserting that he never would accept a subordinate situation.' He soon asked for a committee to inquire into the need for Parliamentary reform, adopting the views of his father on this subject, in opposition to those of the Rockingham Whigs. When Shelburne became Prime Minister, he made Pitt Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the leadership of the House of Commons.

2. Resignation of Shelburne. 1783.—Shelburne's Ministry did not last long, Shelburne never continued for any length of time

on good terms with other men. He was unreasonably suspicious, and his profuse employment of complimentary expressions gave rise to doubts of his sincerity., In the beginning of 1783 most of his colleagues had ceased to attend his Cabinet meetings. It was obvious that Shelburne, with all his ability, was not a ruler of men, and it is almost certain that if Fox had had a little patience, Shelburne must have resigned, and the way have been opened for a strong and reforming Ministry, in which Fox and Pitt would have played the leading part. Unfortunately, Fox had neither patience nor tact. He formed a coalition with North, and as the two together had a large majority in the House of Commons at their disposal, Shelburne resigned on February 24.

[graphic]

Costumes of persons of quality, about 1783.

3. The Coalition Ministry. 1783.-The king was furious, but for the time, helpless. He regarded North as an ungrateful deserter, and he had more than one reason for disliking Fox. Not only was Fox the most Parliamentary connection,

brilliant supporter of the system of which George III. had set himself to break down, but he was personally intimate with the Prince of Wales, afterwards King George IV. The Prince was now living a dissipated life, and the king attributed the mischief to the evil influence of Fox, though the low character of the Prince himself, and the repulsiveness of the very moral, but exceedingly dull, domestic life of the royal family, had, no doubt, some part in the unfortunate result. The people at large were scandalised at a coalition formed appa

1757-1772

CLIVE'S RETURN TO BENGAL

801

rently for the mere purpose of securing power for Fox and North, who had been abusing one another for many years, and who did not come into office to support any policy which Shelburne had opposed, or to frustrate any policy which Shelburne had supported. Nevertheless, sufficient indignation had not yet been shown to enable the king to dissolve Parliament with a fair hope of success. He was, therefore, after various attempts to avoid yielding, obliged on April 2 to admit the Coalition to office. Fox and North became secretaries of state, and the Duke of Portland, a man of no great capacity, became nominally Prime Minister. During the remainder of the session, Pitt again brought forward a motion for Parliamentary reform, attacking the secret influence of the Crown as strongly as the venality of the electors in the petty boroughs. Fox supported and North opposed him; after which his motion was lost by a majority of nearly two to one. When the House of Commons met again, Fox laid before it a bill for the government of India.

4. The English in Bengal. 1757-1772.-Clive returned to England in 1760. Before he left India he had obtained from the Great Mogul the grant of the quit-rent with which the Company had to pay for its zemindary (see p. 764), and thus became himself the landlord of the Company. Whatever might be the nominal position of the Company's servants, in reality they were masters of Bengal. They used their power to fill their own pockets at the expense of the natives. After a career of plunder and extortion many of them returned home with enormous fortunes. In 1765 Clive was sent out again to correct the evil. This he endeavoured to do by increasing the scanty pay of the officials, and by forbidding them to engage in trade or to receive gifts from the natives. On the other hand, he obtained for the Company from the Great Mogul, the weak Shah Alum, who nominally ruled at Delhi, the Dewanni, or financial administration of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, though the criminal jurisdiction was left in the hands of the Nawab a descendant of Meer Jaffier. Constitutionally this grant of the Dewanni first placed the Company in a legal position in Bengal as administrators under the Great Mogul. In 1767 Clive finally left India. For the next five years everything in Bengal was in confusion. The Company's agents collected the revenue and paid the army; but they had no authority to punish crime, and the Nawab, who had, was too weak to enforce order. In 1772, Warren Hastings was appointed governor of Bengal, with orders to put an end to the confusion.

« ForrigeFortsett »