PITT 



205 



censured when in opposition ; and very soon the bill 

 of the government for subverting in some important 

 respects the charter of the East India Company 

 and reorganising the government of India, pro- 

 duced another great change in the disposition of 

 power. 



The feature of the scheme which chiefly excited 

 indignation and alarm was the creation by the 

 existing legislature of a new supreme body in 

 England, consisting of seven commissioners who 

 were to be immovable except by an address from 

 either house for four years, and who were during 

 that period to have an absolute control of the 

 patronage of India. It was contended that this 

 measure would give the party who were now in 

 power an amount of patronage which would enable 

 them to overbalance the influence of the crown, 

 dominate the [>arliament, and control succeeding 

 administrations. These objections were brought 

 forward by Pitt with great power, but with 

 extreme exaggeration, and the king and the nation 

 were speedily alarmed. The India Bill passed by 

 large majorities through the Commons, but when it 

 came into the House of Lords the king authorised 

 Lord Temple to say that he would consider any 

 man his enemy who voted for the bill. The com- 

 munication produced an immediate effect. The 

 bill was rejected in the Lords by 95 to 76 ; the 

 ministry refused to resign, and the House of 

 Commons supported them ^>y large majorities ; but 

 the king |>ereiiiptorily dismissed them on 18th 

 December 1783, and next day it was announced 

 that Pitt had Wn called to the head of affairs as 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the 

 Treasury. 



1'itt had already abundantly displayed his parlia- 

 mentary ability, his judgment, and his discretion. 

 He was now tx> display in the highest degree hU 

 <-ourage. In the eyes of nearly all the best judges 

 in England his position was a hopeleag one, and his 

 administration was likely to be even more brief 

 than the three which had preceded it. There was 

 a majority of more than a hundred against him in 

 the Commons, and the parliamentary influence 

 behind it was so great that an immediate dissolu- 

 tion must have been disastrous. He was called to 

 office by a grossly unconstitutional interference 

 on the part of the king, and every day which he 

 remained in office under the censure or the House 

 of Commons added to the falseness of his position. 

 Temple, on whom he had greatly relied, threw up 

 the Reals of Secretary of State which he had 

 accepted, and in the House of Commons Pitt was 

 himself at this time the only cabinet minister, 

 while Dundas was the only considerable debater 

 who supported him against the united attacks of 

 North, Fox, Burke, and Sheridan. But Pitt 

 fought his battle with a skill and a resolution that 

 have never been 8urj>assed in parliamentary history. 

 A long succession of hostile votes was carried, but 

 they failed to drive him from office, and soon un- 

 equivocal signs apjieared that the country was with 

 him. The magnanimity with which at this critical 

 period he refused to take for himself a great sine- 

 cure office which fell vacant added greatly to his 

 j>opularity. Addresses in liis favour poured in from 

 all the leading ror[xirations in the country. The 

 majorities against him grew steadily smaller. At 

 last, on 25th March 1784, the long-deferred Mow 

 was struck. Parliament was dissolved, and an 

 election ensued which swept away nearly 160 

 members of the opposition, made Pitt one of the 

 most powerful ministers in all English history, 

 and prepared the way for a ministry which lasted, 

 with a few months' intermission, for no less than 

 twenty yearn. 



In this great and ixiwerful ministry English 

 political life assumed much of its modern aspect. 



The House of Commons acquired a new importance 

 in the constitution, the people a new control over 

 its proceedings, and the First Lord of the Treasury 

 complete ascendency in the government. The 

 system of ' king's friends ' controlling the ministry 

 was finally destroyed, and when the chancellor, 

 Lord Thurlow, attempted to perpetuate it, he was 

 peremptorily dismissed. The skilful management 

 of the regency question established the right of 

 parliament to provide for the exercise of supreme 

 power during the incapacity of the king. Direct 

 parliamentary corruption was finally put down. 

 Great numbers of sinecure places were abolished, 

 and great reforms were introduced into the system 

 of collecting the revenue and issuing public loans. 

 The government of India was reorganised on the 

 system of a double government, which continued 

 with little change tfll the abolition of the East 

 India Company in 1858. The whole system of 

 taxation and 01 trade duties was thoroughly revised, 

 and no minister since Walpole had approached Pitt 

 in his complete competence in dealing with trade 

 questions. The finances of the country, which had 

 been extremely disorganised by the American war, 

 became once more flourishing. A commercial 

 treaty, based upon more enlightened commercial 

 doctrines than any English statesman, except 

 Shelburne, had jet adopted, was negotiated with 

 France. In foreign politics Pitt was for some years 

 equally successful. Some troubles that had arisen 

 with Spain were put down by a display of prompt 

 and judicious firmness. In conjunction with 

 Prussia a revolutionary movement in Holland 

 which was fomented by French influence was 

 suppressed, and the triple alliance of England, 

 Prussia, and Holland contributed largely to ter- 

 minate the wars between Sweden and Denmark 

 and between the emperor and the Turks, though it 

 met with a mortifying failure in its dealings with 

 Russia. Pitt's love of peace was very sincere, but 

 the influence of England in European councils rose 

 greatly under his ministry, and he showed much 

 decision and tact in extricating England from a 

 dangerous complicity with the ambitious designs 

 of her Prussian ally. Up to the time of the French 

 Revolution there was no decline in his ascendency, 

 his popularity, or his success. 



A few adverse criticisms, however, may be justly 

 made. He cast aside too lightly on the first serious 

 opposition parliamentary reform and the abolition 

 of the slave-trade, and it became evident to good 

 observers that he cared more for power than for 

 measures, and was ready to sacrifice great causes 

 with which he had sincerely sympathised and which 

 he might have carried, rather than raise an opposi- 

 tion that might imperil his ascendency. His once 

 famous Sinking Fund is now universally recog- 

 nised to have been thoroughly vicious in its prin- 

 ciple ; and in the latter part of his career it led him 

 to the absurdity of borrowing largely at high 

 interest in order to pay off a debt that had been 

 contracted at low interest. His attempt to estab- 

 lish free trade between England and Ireland failed 

 through an explosion of manufacturing jealousy 

 in England, which obliged him to modify his 

 original propositions in a way which was unpala- 

 table to the Irish. More real blame attaches to 

 him for his opposition to all serious measures to 

 remedy the enormous abuses in the Irish parlia- 

 ment and for the great uncertainty of his policy 

 towards the Irish Catholics. The great evils which 

 grew up in England in his time in connection with 

 the sudden development of the factory system 

 appear never to have attracted his attention, and 

 he made no effort to mitigate them. He created 

 peerages with extreme lavishness and with very 

 little regard to merit, and although his patronage 

 was not positively corrupt, few ministers have 



