CHAPTER XLV

THE YOUNGER PITT: THE NEW TORYISM AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM (1784–1793)

The Coalition Ministry (April-December, 1783). Shelburne was forced out of office, 24 February, 1783, by a combination of Fox and North against their common political enemy; an "unnatural junction which was defended by Fox on the ground that the country needed a "broad and stable administration," and that, with the close of the war and the end of George's personal rule, his chief grounds of difference with North were at an end. After a stubborn fight, the King, who had always hated Fox and who was infuriated at North for deserting his cause, was obliged to accept the Coalition Ministry. The Duke of Portland was made nominal head, but the real leaders were North and Fox, who became Secretaries of State. George's hostility to Fox was accentuated because of his intimacy with the Prince of Wales, a dissipated spendthrift, who warmly supported the Coalition, which the King was accustomed to designate as "my son's Ministry." Determined to get them out as speedily as possible, he nearly succeeded on the question of providing for the Prince's establishment; but the rock on which the Coalition foundered was a bill for the settlement of the government of India.

The State of India at the Close of the Seven Years' War, 1763. – Up to 1763, the English in India had been mainly occupied in overcoming European competitors. By that date they had practically excluded their rivals, and, henceforth, they were concerned chiefly with extending their sway over the native rulers and in establishing a satisfactory system of government. The Company, under its royal charter, renewed at intervals of about twenty years, consisted of a court of proprietors or stockholders and a board of directors. In India, where it was represented by the governors, or presidents, and their councils at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, the affairs of the Company were sadly mismanaged during the period following its triumph over the French. The authority of the Moguls at Delhi

had faded almost to a shadow. Beside the viceroys of provinces and the rulers of tributary states, who exercised practically independent powers, there were the Maráthás, a group of tribes of Hindoo stock who, under the Peshwa of Poonah, were very strong in the western and central districts, though they too were somewhat on the decline.

North's Regulating Act (1773). — Suddenly, Madras was exposed to dangerous attacks from a native ruler on its western border. This menace, added to the absence of Clive who, owing to ill-health, was never in India after 1760 except for a short interval from 1765-1767 — to dissensions at the India House and the general ineffectiveness of the Company's rule, caused its stock to drop to 60 per cent. At length, a famine in Bengal, in 1770, so reduced the Company's resources that it had to turn to the Government for help, as the result of which Lord North, in 1773, passed a measure known as the Regulating Act, providing, among other concessions, that a loan of £1,000,000 should be advanced and that bonded tea might be shipped to America free from English duties. In addition, the government in India was extensively reorganized: a supreme court was set up; the Governor of Bengal was made Governor-General, and was surrounded by a Council of four members named by Parliament.1

Warren Hastings (1732-1818). Warren Hastings, the Governor of Bengal, who was appointed the first Governor-General, had come to India as a youth, and had worked his way up to the top by sheer force of ability. Frail in appearance, he was a masterful and even ruthless man. The situation which he had to face was one of enormous difficulty: the people were in the depths of distress, affairs had been grossly mismanaged, the English in India were intent on private gain, and the directors in London were at odds among themselves in everything except a consuming desire for dividends. Hastings brought order out of chaos; by improved methods of taxation and by careful economies, he increased the revenue, while at the same time he protected the people against plunderers. Unfortunately, however, the pressure of war and the financial demands of the Company led him to adopt too many high-handed and cruel measures. One of the earliest was to let to the Wazir of Oudh, for forty lacs of rupees,2 a

1 During the investigation leading up to the passage of this Act, a fire of criticism was directed against Clive, and a vote of censure was passed condemning many of his acts. Though it was declared that he "did at the same time render great and meritorious services to his country," he was so unstrung by the strain of the conflict that he died by his own hand, 22 November, 1774.

2 A rupee is worth about fifty cents and there are a hundred thousand in a lac.

body of English troops to destroy his enemies the Afghans who had conquered Rohilcund on the northern border. Confronted, after he became Governor-General, first with a war against, the Maráthás and then with another in the south, he resorted to acts of pitiless extortion. He required from the Raja of Benares, in addition to his annual tribute of £50,000, a war contribution and a contingent of troops. When the Raja, already suspected of disaffection, refused, Hastings promptly increased his tribute tenfold —a penalty out of all proportion to the offense-and displaced him by a successor pledged to obedience. Then he made a bargain with the young ruler of Oudh to deprive his mother and grandmother, the Begums or Princesses, of the lands and treasure of the late Wazir, and in order to accomplish his purpose subjected them to a siege, wasted their territories, and tortured and starved their chief ministers. The landed property was given to the reigning Prince, the treasure was appropriated for the Company. While it does not excuse the inhumanity and injustice of the acts for which he was responsible, it must be borne in mind that Hastings took nothing for himself,1 that his sole aim was to secure resources to save the British dominion in India.

Fox's India Bill (1783). — Rumors of what was going on, and the hostility of the Rockingham Whigs to an official who was a product of North's Regulating Act, led to a parliamentary investigation in 1781. In the report which followed, the administration of the Company was condemned and the removal of Hastings recommended. The directors refused. Since they had the legal right so to do, the only way of effecting any reforms was by a complete reorganization. The struggle became acute in the autumn of 1783, when Fox introduced a famous measure largely the work of Burke- to deprive the Company of its exclusive powers of government and to remedy the crying abuses in the existing system. There were really two bills, one transferring the Company's government of India to a body of seven commissioners nominated, in the first instance, by Parliament and holding office for four years; the other dealing with administrative reforms: for example, the curtailing of monopolies and the extortion of presents. The first part of the arrangement was furiously attacked, both as a party measure and as a violation of vested rights, emphasis being laid on the fact that the first appointees were all supporters of Fox, who would be put in control of patronage worth £300,000 a year which would give them enormous influence. While reforming zeal

2

1 Moreover, the treasure belonged not to the Begums but to the Prince, and the Begums were engaged in a conspiracy to root out the British power in India. 2 Vacancies were to be filled by the Sovereign.

and politics were, to some degree, combined, the measure, however, was defeated, not on the ground of any of the objections which were raised, but by the King's hatred of the Ministers who framed it.

The Defeat of Fox's India Bill and the Overthrow of the Coalition (December, 1783).-After it had passed in the Commons, King George eagerly adopted a suggestion for blocking it in the Upper House. Lord Temple was given a paper to circulate among the peers stating that his Majesty would "consider as an enemy " whoever voted for the India Bill, and was empowered to use stronger words if he thought necessary. By this underhand means it was lost by nineteen votes. The Commons vainly protested in a resolution, declaring that "to report any opinion or pretended opinion of his Majesty upon any bill " pending in Parliament in order to influence votes, was "a high crime and misdemeanor."

Struggle with the Coalition (1783-1784). On 18 December George dismissed the Ministry, and in his perplexity he turned to William Pitt to form a new one. Pitt was the second son of the Earl of Chatham, who had entered Parliament at the age of twenty-one, and Shelburne, in 1782, had paid a tribute to his name and talents by making him Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons. Now, when not yet twenty-five, with a remnant of the Chatham Whigs and a few Tories at his back, and discredited by the fact that he was the appointee of a Sovereign who had been guilty. of a piece of unscrupulous tyranny, he had to face a hostile majority led by two veterans, one the most skillful party manager and the other the most adroit debater of the period. The battle which followed is perhaps the most remarkable in parliamentary history. At first it was an up-hill fight; motion after motion was carried against him; nevertheless, he refused to resign, nor was he keen on dissolving Parliament until he was sure of a majority in the elections. Fox, who led the Opposition, played into his hands by his violence and his blunders. His most fatal error was in insisting that the present Parliament should continue, with the aim of holding on to his majority, till 25 March, 1784, when he hoped, on the expiration of the Mutiny Bill, to paralyze the Administration by refusing to renew it. Pitt's patience, courage, calmness and disinterestedness gradually won him supporters until, when the Mutiny Bill came up for vote, it easily passed. Multitudes of addresses, from all parts of the country, now convinced Pitt. that he could safely try the issue of a general election, in which he secured an overwhelming majority. Fox had offended the Whigs by his outspoken opposition to an appeal to the people during the preceding winter, and had alienated the Tories by his attacks on the

royal prerogative. Although the Whigs had been routed, it was a triumph not for the King but for Pitt. Henceforth the Prime Minister controlled the Government. While he came to call himself a Tory, he represented a new, more liberal form of Toryism, resting on popular more than on royal support.

The Westminster Scrutiny (1784-1785). Pitt's triumph was marred by one ungenerous action his treatment of his rival in the so-called "Westminster Scrutiny." The election was hotly contested, and all eyes had been centred upon it because of the candidacy of Fox, who was supported by numerous powerful friends, among them the Prince of Wales and the charming Duchess of Devonshire, accused of dispensing kisses in return for votes. Westminster returned two members, for which there were three candidates, including Fox. Fox, who started at the bottom of the list, had finally reached second place when the polls were closed at the end of forty days. The rejoicing of the Whigs was cut short when the defeated candidate demanded a scrutiny on the ground of fraudulent voting. As a matter of fact, there had been more votes cast than there were electors, so the High Bailiff was quite within his rights in granting the request, but he should have returned Fox's name on the day the writ was returnable, and left the final settlement to the committee of the Commons appointed under the Grenville Act. This he refused to do, and was supported by Pitt. Although the Bailiff was ordered to proceed with "all possible dispatch," months were wasted, and it was only after a vote had passed the Commons, ordering an immediate return, that Pitt gave way. Fox, who in the meantime had been sitting for a small Scotch borough, finally took his seat as a member for Westminster and ultimately secured £2,000 damages. Parliament sought to prevent such injustice for the future by a law providing that, henceforth, the polls were to be closed at the end of fifteen days, and that, though scrutinies might still be granted on demand, they must be stopped six days before the day on which the writs were returnable, i.e. about a month after the close of the polls. William Pitt. For an unbroken period of seventeen years Pitt was Prime Minister. As a parliamentary leader he had uncommon talents, which had been carefully developed; he spoke with convincing logic, and, when he chose, with extreme clearness; though owing to the need of parrying the searching questions of the Opposition, his utterances were most frequently those of the party manager rather than those of the impassioned orator. This was partly temperamental; he had plenty of courage and resourcefulness and a rare power of sensing the temper of the nation, but little imagination or fervid enthusiasm, nor