Page images
PDF
EPUB

Parliamentary support, and in 1780 Dunning, a lawyer, carried his famous resolution "That the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”

ation.

In 1778-9 the Government, who were in favour of a iv. Religious Tolermeasure of religious toleration, encountered serious opposition in the country, where ignorant Protestantism was strong. Relief was given to Roman Catholics enabling them to worship according to their own usage, and to inherit land. The next year disabilities on Dissenting ministers and schoolmasters were removed. But the former Act caused serious

1780.

riots, largely led by a half-witted fanatic named Lord George The Gordon Riots. Gordon. At the head of 60,000 men, chiefly roughs of the London slums, he marched to the Houses of Parliament. The (Lecky iv, 309-325.) mob of course fell to rioting, Houses were looted, Roman Catholic places of worship were sacked and burnt. London (Dickens' Barnaby was in the power of the mob for three days, and order was only restored by the soldiers.

Rudge).

resignation, 1782.

Lord North's ministry came to an end in 1782. It was Lord North's caused by (1) the determined opposition of the Whigs, (2) the growing demands for religious, civil, and parliamentary reform and (3) anger at the failure of the war in America, especially after the capitulation of Yorktown. The King finally had to allow Lord North to resign after a long ministry in which he had served his master's interests all too faithfully.

1782-1784.

The next two years was a period of party confusion. The 2 Party confusion, triumph of the Whigs was short-lived against the determined opposition of the King, though for a time he had to admit them to office.

Lord Rockingham formed a ministry with the main objects i. Rockingham's 2nd of bringing in some measures of reform, and of definitely ending Ministry & Reform. the American War. The Civil List was regulated and pensions cut down. But there was no real saving. The proceedings about the Middlesex Election (1768-9) were reversed, and Ireland was given legislative independence.

1782.

ii. Shelburne's Min

istry and the ending

of American war.

Ministry, 1783.

Rockingham's death this year left Shelburne to acknowledge the independence of the American Colonies, and to sign the treaties of Versailles, which ended the Anglo-Bourbon war. But a split in the ministry enabled North and Fox to form a coalition ministry, under the nominal leadership of the Duke iii. Coalition of Portland. It was insignificant except for two facts, (a) the rise of Fox to power, and (b) his India Bill. Charles (a) Fox (1749-1806.) James Fox was one of the most brilliant characters of the XVIII. century. Though he left nothing of any permanent (Lecky iv, 253-261.) value behind him in politics or statesmanship, yet his influence on his age was great and important. A younger son of the dissolute Lord Holland his upbringing was that of a gambler and a profligate, and these marks in his character remained throughout his life. He was destitute of morality in his

W

(Lecky v, 364.)

(Lecky v, 208-221.)

(b) Fox's India Bill

younger. 1783-1801.

private life, and he squandered his fortune at the gaming table. In politics except for eleven months he was ever in opposition.

His private life, as well as his political opinions, made him abhorrent to the King, and he did much to ruin the character of the Prince of Wales. His disgraceful character discredited him also in the eyes of the nation, even in an age when morality was low and tastes were coarse. Yet he was a scholar only equalled by Burke ; he was an extraordinarily brilliant debater, a faithful friend, and an enthusiastic Whig. But as a statesman he could never be depended on, and he had none of the qualities of a leader. He looked on Politics, as on everything else, as merely a gambling concern in which the chief object was to take advantage of opponents. It was thus that he came to office with Lord North, whom he had always attacked with the greatest bitterness.

His India Bill, already mentioned, wrecked the Government William Pitt formed the Ministry which followed. He was 3. William Pitt the only twenty-four years of age. His acceptance of office was received with jeers by his contemporaries. "A kingdom trusted to a school-boy's care" aptly represents the general opinion. No one expected him to remain in office for long, and Fox scarcely thought of him as a real political rival. Yet this "schoolboy" directed the policy of the nation for seventeen years, during a time fraught with peril to England and the a, Pitt's character. whole of Europe. He inherited more than his father's talents. He was indeed not a chip of the old block, but the old block itself." Confident of his own ability, a consummate master of language and parliamentary retort, no young man ever possessed to an equal degree the qualities that are needed for a great parliamentary career." Of stainless morals, incorruptible, with a perfect judgment of the condition and prospect of parties, he concentrated all his powers on the highest aims of public life.

(1759-1806)

(Lecky v, 146. 240282)

(Rosebery 60.)

[ocr errors]

The first few weeks of his Ministry were full of political excitement. Deserted by every capable minister, attacked by the whole force of the opposition, defeated in Parliament times without number, he clung to his post with resolution. The country recognised his worth and his courage, and in the General Election of 1784 he was returned with an assured majority. The nation, tired of the humiliation of England, of her warfare against her own kin, of the trickery and jobbery b, His earlier work. Of parties, gladly welcomed a man without political connexions, and who bore the honoured name of Pitt.

i. India.

(Lecky v, 352.)

ii. Finance.

His first great measure was his India Bill.

His share in the impeachment of Warren Hastings (1788) has been already mentioned.

As a peace financier Pitt gained a great name. To check smuggling he reduced the tea duty so as to destroy the smug

gler's profits. He raised £900,000 by taxing a strange variety (Lecky v, 294-330) of articles such as horses, calico, titles, shooting certificates and the like. To meet the deficit and the floating debt he accepted the lowest tender for loans, thus clearing his government of corruption and bribery. He vainly tried, in spite of the hostili- iii. Parliamentary ty of the King and Commons, to bring in a measure for Parliamentary reform.

Reform 1785.

1785

With rare foresight he endeavoured to unite Ireland and iv. Ireland. England by a commercial treaty. But the English manufacturers opposed it, and Pitt had to remodel his plans, restricting the Irish and their legislative powers. Fox at once opposed the new proposals and the Irish utterly refused to have anything to do with them. But in 1786 he included Ireland in the commercial treaty which he made between England and France, and in 1800 he passed the Act of Union with Ireland.

In the autumn of 1788 the supremacy of Pitt was in danger. v. The King suffered from a mental attack, and it seemed doubtful for a time whether he would recover his wits. If the Prince of Wales became Regent, it was certain that he would dismiss the Minister who opposed the payment of his debts, and was the avowed foe of his boon-companions. Pitt declared that it was for Parliament to choose the Regent and to fix his powers. Fox, on the other hand, asserted that the Regency was the Prince's right. The Irish Parliament, ever anxious to proclaim its independence, at once declared the Heir-Apparent Regent. Amidst universal joy, and to the general relief, the King recovered. The difficulty about the Regency occurred again in 1810 when the King became permanently insane. Parliament then met and appointed Commissioners to act in the King's name. These then opened Parliament which proceeded to legalise the action of the Commissioners and to make the heir-apparent Regent with limited powers. In 1812 he received full royal authority.

Soon after the King's recovery in 1789 the French Revolution broke out.

[blocks in formation]

The Regency Question. 1788.

(Lecky v, 382-401-)

1810

(Stephens, Revolu

tionary Europe; Mrs.

Rose, Revolutionary

cf. Carlyle's Fr.

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

3. War against England

a. Ireland-Hoche's Expedition, 1797; Expedn. of 1798

b. Naval-Cape S. Vincent, Texel, Camperdown

c. India-Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign: B. of the Nile

4. The 2nd Coalition 1799

(5) Napoleon "First Consul"

1800

1. Defeat of Austria: Marengo, Hohenlinden

2. Alliance with Russia

3. Attack on England

a. Armed Neutrality

b. 'B. of the Baltic "

c. B. of Alexandria

d. Peace of Amiens 1802

[ocr errors]

The career of Pitt, and the whole history of Europe was Gardiner's Fr.Revol. profoundly affected by the great movement which became the Symes, Fr. Revol.; "French Revolution.' (1) It changed the character of Pitt's and Napoleonic Era. domestic policy and made him an opponent of Reform; Revol. and Mahan's (2) it broke down his policy of Peace and entangled England Sea Power on Fr. in a great Continental War; (3) it destroyed the Whig Party : I. Influence on most of the Whigs joined Pitt and became Tories, while the English Politics.) rest found themselves out of harmony with public opinion and

Revol).

(Lecky vi, 183.)

II. Causes.

a, Intellectual.

(Lecky vi, 184-206, 239-265, 362.)

therefore unable to influence the course of politics. (4) It postponed Parliamentary Reform for a generation.

:

The causes of the French Revolution were many. All over Europe there was profound dissatisfaction with existing abuses: kings and statesmen were discussing, and sometimes attempting, reforms philosophers and writers were everywhere putting forth ideas of religious and political liberty and equality. France had long been the leader of intellectual thought in Europe, and there in particular it was fashionable to profess a zeal for such philosophy. While the country remained full of all sorts of abuses, political as well as social, great admiration was pretended for reforming ideas. These had largely been learnt from England; and the English Revolution of 1688, with its resulting supremacy of Parliament, was much admired.

Montesquieu in particular held up England as a model. Voltaire's genius was destructive. He attacked abuses everywhere, in the Government, in the Church, in the social system; and he did this with such vigour that he undermined respect for authority of all kind, not only that of the Monarchy but also that of religion. It was largely owing to Voltaire's exposure of the corrupt and worldly condition of the French Clergy, that the French Revolution was so atheistic in nature. Diderot was even more definitely hostile to Religion.

It was however Rousseau who gave the movement its enthusiasm and its ideal. His social and political philosophy is full of contradictions and is absolutely without historical basis, but it took extraordinary hold on French imagination. He taught that human nature was originally good, but that it had been spoilt by civilisation. The remedy was a return to primitive simplicity in all directions. He urged this in an Essay on Inequality (1753) and immediately fashionable society began to wear simple dresses and to talk about the wrongs of the poor. He applied the same sort of argument to politics in his Social Contract (1762). This book taught that once upon a time all the people met together and agreed to obey one of their number, whom they appointed to be king, and to whom in return for the work of governing they gave certain privileges. Obviously, according to the theory of the Social Contract, the people were the real source of authority and should be the real makers of laws. Obviously, too, if the king failed to perform his duties properly he should lose his privileges.

All this was harmless enough so long as it was merely a topic of conversation in the fashionable drawing-rooms of Paris, and it harmonised well with the plain dresses and simple habits which his earlier book had brought in.

But the condition of France was such that ideas like these would be sure to have terrible consequences if they filtered down to the common people. It was indeed the attempt of the people to put them into practice that produced the French Revolution.

(Lecky vi, 272.

For the condition of France was thoroughly bad. The king ь, Political. was a despot. The States General,” as the French Parliament was called, had not met since 1614. The nobles had lost all their share in the work of governing but had retained all their privileges. The Clergy, like the nobles, enjoyed privileges quite out of proportion to the work they did. The people were unrepresented in the government and were completely at the mercy of the Seignieurs. They were moreover c, Social. miserably poor and ignorant. This was mainly due to the (Lecky vi, 279-292). fact that most of the taxes were paid by the poor alone, the Seignieurs and the Clergy being exempt. The property tax (taille) increased with any improvement which the tenant made.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »