A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy

by J. Franck Bright

This was not the only defeat which the ministry suffered. It was no more successful in its efforts at parliamentary reform in England. In fact, the interest felt in the question had begun to flag; it had been raised to its utmost by the separation between the representatives of the people and the people they represented, which had been so obvious during the administration of Grenville, and by Failure of Pitt's Reform Bill. the long and disastrous triumph of royal influence under Lord North. But Pitt's success rested entirely upon the will of the constituencies after the late dissolution, and the people were on the whole satisfied with their representation. But with Pitt, as with his father, the reform of Parliament had always been a favourite object; he now produced a Bill by which he hoped to win all parties to his side, but its very timidity weakened its popularity. He proposed to disfranchise thirty-six rotten boroughs, and to give the seventy-two seats thus gained to the counties and to London and Westminster. Thus far he was true to his old plan, but afraid of the opposition of borough proprietors, he consented to recognize as a part of the Constitution their rights of proprietorship, and designed to set apart a fund of £1,000,000 to satisfy the claims of the possessors of the boroughs which he wished to destroy. Such as it was the Bill was rejected by a majority of seventy, and Pitt regarded the question henceforward as settled against him. It is to be observed that all these measures, whether successful or not, were such as we should now speak of as Liberal measures.

His financial success.

The success of the Government in its financial schemes, on the other hand, was marked, although the arrangement which at this time excited most admiration has since been recognized as based upon an absurd fallacy. Alarmed at the great increase of the National Debt, and inspired with an honest wish to reduce it, Pitt produced his plan for a sinking fund. His taxes had been so successful, and the financial recovery of the nation at peace and under a firm Government had been such, that he found himself possessed of a surplus closely bordering on a million, and suggested that this million should annually be set aside and vested in commissioners to accumulate at compound interest. It was to be beyond the control of Government, and this fund with its accumulations was to be applied, as circumstances permitted, to the reduction of the debt. The principle is obviously sound as far as it goes, that is to say, what a nation saves it can clearly apply to the purpose of reducing its liabilities, but there the matter ends; there is and can be no peculiar and mysterious power in a sinking fund. But this was not seen by Pitt, or by those who approved of his plan, and when times of difficulty arose, the million went on year by year being religiously set aside, although not only one million, but many millions were yearly borrowed for the purpose of covering the current expenses of the year. Interest, and often much higher interest, was thus paid out on the one side in order that a less interest might be gained on the other. It was not till the year 1828 that this fallacy was finally exposed by Lord Grenville, who, strangely enough, had been the chairman of the committee who first recommended its adoption. It had however been virtually abandoned in 1807. Although Commercial treaty with France. Sept. 1786. he fell into this error, Pitt's financial views were generally broad; thus about this time he entered into a commercial treaty with France, by which, with some very few exceptions, prohibitory duties between the countries were repealed, a moderate tariff was established, and the famous Methuen Treaty with Portugal, which had almost excluded French wines, and changed the habits of the English nation, giving them a taste for the hot wines of the Peninsula, was abrogated. He also greatly simplified the custom duties, supplying their place in some instances with excise or customs levied inland, a most beneficial measure, but formerly so unpopular that it had almost proved fatal to the ministry of Walpole, the only great financial minister England had had during the century.

Charges against Warren Hastings.

These measures, important as they were, excited little attention in comparison with the threatened impeachment of Warren Hastings. Though, as we have seen, censured, and almost recalled in 1781, the Governor-General had latterly retained his post unmolested, and came home in June 1785 on the natural expiration of his office. At home he was well received, but he had two vindictive enemies in the House of Commons, one, Edmund Burke, whose imagination had always been strongly drawn towards the majestic history of Hindostan, and whose hatred of oppression had been strongly fired by the accounts which had lately been received from India; the other, Philip Francis, the rancorous and defeated rival of the late Governor-General; and Hastings had scarcely arrived in England before Burke gave notice that he should call attention to his conduct. The feeling in England that Hastings had on the whole done a great work was so strong, that, although the ministry had shown him many marks of favour, it is possible that even Burke might have left him untouched had not his injudicious and wearisome agent, Major Scott, challenged inquiry. Burke accepted the challenge, and in April produced specific charges against him, based principally on his war with the Rohillas and on his conduct to Cheyte Singh and the Begums of Oude. Hastings, who was always unable to understand the feeling of the House of Commons, insisted on being personally heard at the bar, and wearied the House by reading a written document of enormous length, which occupied a day and a half in reading. On the first charge, however, with regard to the Rohilla war, a considerable majority was in his favour; it will be remembered that this belonged to the first period of his administration, and it was upon this that he had been already censured; but as Dundas, the original mover of the vote of censure, urged, with much show of right, the fault was an old one, and had been condoned by the subsequent appointment of Hastings as Governor-General. Hastings and his friends believed that his cause had gained the support of Government and was now secure. Great was their dismay when, upon the second charge with regard to Cheyte Singh, which Pitt supports them. was brought forward by Fox, Pitt rose and declared, that although he regarded Cheyte Singh as the vassal of the Bengal Empire, and liable to be called on for assistance, he could not but regard the infliction of a fine of £500,000 for the non-payment of £50,000 as ridiculously and shamefully exorbitant. On these grounds, he said, he should support the charge, all his friends voted with him, and Fox's resolution passed by a majority of forty. This entirely changed the aspect of affairs, but the lateness of the season (June 1786) rendered it necessary that the completion of the charges should be postponed till the next year. In the February of that year Sheridan, in a speech occupying five hours and forty minutes, produced the charge with regard to the Begums of Oude. So striking was this piece of oratory that it was deemed necessary to adjourn the House lest the excitement produced by it should prevent cool judgment of the matter. Again, and with the same result as Consequent impeachment. 1787. before, Pitt both spoke and voted in favour of the charge. On these and other charges Burke, in May, founded a resolution of impeachment, and proceeding to the Upper House, impeached the late Governor-General, who was taken into custody and admitted to bail. The trial did not actually begin till February 1788.

Conduct of the Prince of Wales.

Another question which now arose, and which was in the next year to be of the greatest importance, was the conduct and character of the Prince of Wales. True to the traditions and customs of his family, he had allied himself to the enemies of his father, and not only in his political but in his domestic life had much outraged the King's feelings. From the respectable and somewhat repellant family life of the Court, the princes, one and all, took refuge in a disorderly and licentious life. The stern propriety of the father, and the somewhat unlovely rigidity of the mother, undid the work which their thoroughly domestic character should have done. The Prince of Wales had everything in his favour upon his entrance into life. Good-looking, of pleasant manners, of considerable ability, and views at all events nominally liberal, there was nothing to prevent his great popularity. Unfortunately the profligacy of his life, which the world might have pardoned, was the mark of a thoroughly depraved character, which led him into breaches of honour. This fault became very obvious in the year 1787. For some time he had been clamouring for the payment of his debts, and on the King's refusal to discharge them, he had in a huff reduced his establishment and pretended to live like a private gentleman. Meanwhile he had been entangled in an awkward love affair. Mrs. Fitzherbert, a Roman Catholic lady, had attracted his attention, and refused to listen to his advances unless he would marry her. This he did. Now, by the Act of Settlement, marriage with a Roman Catholic invalidated all claims to the throne, but by a second statute, the Royal Marriage Act, any marriage contracted without the royal consent was null. By pleading the second, the Prince could therefore avoid the action of the first, but by so doing was virtually taking away the character of his wife, and obviously evading the law. With this slur upon his character, he came to the Parliament for the payment of his debts. The charge against him was raised by Rolle, the member for Devonshire, and Fox, completely duped by his royal friend, was induced to give the fact a flat denial. The Prince completed his treachery by afterwards disavowing his instructions to Fox. Such conduct naturally produced a temporary coolness between them. After so strong a denial, however, it was impossible to refuse the Prince's demand, and his debts were paid, to the amount of £160,000.

Trial of Warren Hastings. Feb. 1788.

The work of the last year was completed by the commencement, in February, of the trial of Warren Hastings. The trial took place in Westminster Hall, the Peers sitting as judges, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, and the accusations being supported by the managers appointed by the House of Commons, assisted by the most eloquent men in England, among their number, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Wyndham. The very talents of the accusers, together with the exaggerated and unlawyer-like style of Burke, tended to the safety of the accused. The trial became a mere exhibition of rhetoric; people crowded to hear the speeches, but withdrew as the legal points were argued, or the evidence produced, while Burke's language was so intemperate that the Lord Chancellor and even the House of Commons censured him. At the same time, in 1789, the gradual change of popular feeling was shown in the trial of Stockdale for libel against the promoters of Hastings' trial. He was prosecuted at the demand of the Commons, at the Government expense, but was acquitted. Three years afterwards Burke himself renounced sixteen of his charges, and all interest in the end of the trial gradually disappeared.