Lord Chatham, His Early Life and Connections

by Earl of Archibald Philip Primrose Rosebery

In the division which followed, the Hessian treaty appeared somewhat less acceptable than the Russian. The former was voted by 259 to 72 and the latter by 263 to 69. This was the net result. Yet, as Horace Walpole wrote at the time, 'Pitt had ridden in the whirlwind and directed the storm with abilities beyond the common reach of the genii of the tempest.' Eloquence, reason, and argument avail little against a compact parliamentary majority.[317]

The reader will scarcely regret that an adjournment for Christmas followed this debate, for nothing is so tantalising as these barren husks of great speeches. The Minister employed his holiday appropriately in distributing gifts of office to his friends, and the reconstruction of the Government was completed. No part of it directly touches our story, but some features are of interest. The Dukes of Newcastle and Bedford, the Chancellor and Fox were each allowed to nominate a member of the Board of Trade. But Newcastle would not allow Fox a single voice in the appointment of the Lords of the Treasury; for he guarded that department with the jealousy of a Turk. The other point of interest was the cost to the public of these manipulations. To get rid of Sir Thomas Robinson it had been necessary to settle a pension on him of 2000l. a year for thirty-one years. To make a place for Lord Hillsborough, Mr. Arundel had a pension of 2000l. in exchange for the sinecure office of Treasurer of the Chamber. Lord Lothian had 1200l. a year to vacate the Clerk Registership of Scotland for Hume Campbell. Lord Cholmondeley, who held the Vice-Treasurership of Ireland with one colleague, had 600l. a year to induce him to accept a third partner of the office. Sir Conyers Darcy had 1600l. a year for vacating the Comptrollership of the Household. In all a burden of 7400l. a year was settled on the public to patch up a feeble and odious Ministry for ten months.

While the gentle showers of office and pensions were descending on parched politicians, Pitt wended his valetudinarian way, as usual, to Bath. But when Parliament met in January, he was in his place, alert and thirsting for combat.

1756.

We first catch a glimpse of him, on January 23, paying great court to Beckford; with conspicuous success as it happened, for Beckford hereafter was to be his devoted follower, and his invaluable agent in the City of London. On the same day the new Chancellor of the Exchequer unfolded his Budget, better than was expected, but bewildered with the figures. 'He stumbled over millions, and dwelt pompously over farthings.' His Budget dealt with figures enviably small; duties on plate, calculated to produce 30,000l. a year, which produced 18,000l.; on bricks and tiles which were to produce 30,000l. a year, and on cards and dice which were to produce 17,000l. Bricks and tiles failed the Government; the tax was too unpopular; so, it is scarcely necessary to state, it was moved on to ale-houses. A generation, which passes tens of millions of expenditure without breaking silence, looks back with awe on that which deployed the full splendour of eloquence on taxes which altogether were not to produce 80,000l. a year. Pitt, who was almost as ignorant of finance as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, attacked him with vigour, but Lyttelton replied effectively. In speaking he mentioned Pitt as his friend, but corrected it to 'the gentleman.' This raised a laugh, when Lyttelton remarked, not without pathos, 'If he is not my friend, it is not my fault,' and the contest, after lasting some time, mellowed into good humour.

Jan. 28, 1756.

A few days later Pitt broke out again and declared that the Ministry was disjointed, and united only in corrupt and arbitrary measures. Fox denied this publicly and privately; publicly sneering at Pitt's family connection, privately assuring Pitt that, so far from there being any disunion between Newcastle and himself, the two Townshends had offered to join the Duke if he would give up Fox, and that the Minister had refused them.

Feb. 9, 1756.

The next battle was on a proposal to raise four Swiss battalions to be employed in America, when Pitt, as usual, censured the dilatoriness of the Government and flouted their 'paper' forces. Lord Loudoun commanded only a scroll, he said; the suggested battalions were only adding paper to paper; and so forth. Next day he diverted the debate from its tediousFeb. 10, 1756. course by accusing the Government of having cashiered a brave officer, Sir Henry Erskine, a friend of Bute's by the by, on account of his vote in Parliament. But this ended in nothing.