Walpole said, "to hang Whigs on." He had, it is true, been Lord Chamberlain in the first Rockingham administration, and had recently been Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland during five months. But in his thrifty home behind the ramparts of Burlington wall, where, crippled with debt, he lived in ducal dudgeon with half-a-dozen toad-eaters, he almost escaped the notice of mankind. Scarcely a hundred persons in England knew of his existence when he was announced as First Lord of the Treasury.* * George Selwyn described his elevation in the words of the title to an old Puritan tract, as "A shove to a heavy-breeched Christian.” Caricatures without number of the new ministry did honour to the pencils of Sayer and Gillray. The policy of the mongrel government was of course a jumble, a delusion and a snare. The articles of peace which they proposed substituting for those of Lord Shelburne were almost identical with the treaty against which they had blustered so loudly. They would have nothing to do with Parliamentary Reform, for compromise is the basis of coalition. The pledges Fox had given so often were forgotten, because Burke thought the representation perfect, and Lord North would not declare war against borough-mongers. But the policy Pitt was bent on pursuing differed widely from theirs, and had a twofold aspect. He stood forth as the champion of two branches of the legislature each, in his opinion, improperly controlled in its * Horace Walpole's "Letters," vol. viii. pp. 261, 253, 351. * action-the King and the people. Each, he believed, was oppressed by an oligarchical tyranny of Whig nobles, who had long exercised undue sway; who, in consequence of their wealth and influence, filled the House of Commons with their minions; who often resisted the King when he was in the right; and always discouraged the freedom of elections and the extension of the franchise. Herein was Pitt's strength-he was doing battle for two great parties, two great principles. He was at once the friend of monarchy and of democracy. He secured the favour of the Sovereign and the hurrahs of smiths and scavengers. He assailed the strong-built fortress of Whiggery with the battering-ram of Parliamentary Reform, but he seemed to make little impression on the frowning bastions. He had supported Alderman Sawbridge's plan for shortening the duration of parliaments, and proved himself "an advanced liberal." He had spoken in favour of Burke's Economical Reform, and advocated American independence. He proposed, in 1783, the disfranchisement of boroughs convicted of corruption practised by more than half the voters. The measure was rejected of course. He strove also to put a wholesome restraint on the system of fees and perquisites, which had reached such a height that Lord North cost the country in one year £1,300 for stationery and £340 * See Jesse's "George III.," vol. i. pp. 59-61. + Earl Stanhope's "History of England," vol. vii. p. 167; Jesse's "George III.," vol. ii. p. 418. Rose's "Diaries," vol. i. pp. 33-4, note. for whip cord. Two years later he attempted an enlargement of county constituencies by the admission of copyholders, the enfranchisement of Manchester, Birmingham, and six other manufacturing towns, and the transfer of seventy-two members for thirty-six decayed boroughs to the metropolis and the counties. Nearly a hundred thousand electors were thus to be added to the electoral body, and the borough-mongers were to be so humoured that they might, if they pleased, sell their boroughs to the government! But even this moderate and most conciliatory scheme was rejected like the former. The craftsmen would not part so easily with their silver shrines. In 1785 we find the King promising by letter† that he would conceal his opinion on Parliamentary Reform from all but his prime minister, and in the opening of the ensuing session he was even understood to recommend the ministerial measure to the consideration of parliament. This forbearance was praiseworthy, for the royal prejudices leaned strongly to the other side. As late as 1790 Pitt's opinion was unchanged, but he despaired of being able to rectify the existing abuses. The horrors of the reign of Danton and Marat in the French capital at a later period indisposed the country gentlemen of England to any change in a popular direction, and retarded the destined reform in our representation for many years. *Rose's "Diaries," vol. i. p. 34. The King to Mr. Pitt, March 20, 1785; Stanhope's "Life of Pitt," vol. i. p. 15. ་ The alliance between Fox and North appeared at first to be compact and strong. But though it commanded for a time a majority in both Houses, it was soon in difficulties. The heads, indeed, of the parties were united, but the parties themselves were as hostile as ever. The absolutists and the Whigs regarded the respective chiefs of the new government as traitors, and were ready to desert them when the first favourable opportunity should occur. Oxford, which had chosen Lord North for its chancellor, and the city of London, which had resisted the court two-and-twenty years, were equally indignant. King and people, therefore, looked about for a deliverer, and it was Pitt's rare good fortune to attract the attention and esteem of both. All sides, in short, were preparing to tender him their support, and the variety of their motives only strengthened the hands of him on whom their confidence reposed. Fox and North had but to propose some important measure, and it was pretty sure that his enemies would find it full of vulnerable points. Such a measure was Fox's East India Bill. It proposed that the power of the Company should be transferred to seven commissioners, to be nominated by parliament for four years, and then to receive their appointment from the Crown. Earl Fitzwilliam, Fox's most intimate friend, was to be chairman of the board, and Lord North's eldest son was to be one of its members. It is evident that, if this plan had succeeded, it would have thrown immense and dangerous influence into the hands of Fox.* Commanding, as he then did, a majority in both Houses, it would have made him virtually the governor of India and the distributer of unbounded patronage. Sayer represented him, in a notable caricature, as Carlo Khan making his triumphal entry into Leadenhall Street. His face was that of North; he bestrode an elephant; and Burke, blowing a trumpet, led him to the door of the India House. † The Common Council of London petitioned against the bill, and their example was followed by other corporations. Lord Temple, afterwards Marquis of Buckingham, and eldest son of George Grenville, is pointed out in the "Rolliad as the man who, on the 11th of December, first opened the King's eyes to the manifold mischief the bill would work. "On that great day when Buckingham, by pairs Ascended, heaven-impelled, the King's back stairs; And each particular hair stands stiff with fear." Yet the measure certainly would have passed, had not the King, with malicious ingenuity, devised a scheme for its rejection. Never was a Sovereign more tricky and more successful. He defeated the bill, the parliament, See Marshman's "History of India," vol. i. p. 431; Rose's “Diaries,” vol. i. pp. 44-5, 96; “Life of Wilberforce,” vol. i. p. 54. "Caricature History of the Georges," p. 373. |