Strange said the King must know what force was wanting, and if necessary it must be granted; but if the King would give it up, it showed it was not necessary; and therefore himself should be for the lesser number. Sir John Philipps, Lord George Sackville, and Rigby tried in Parliament to obtain the additional six thousand, but could not carry the point, though they endeavoured to prove that the King was not limited by the act of King William to but twelve thousand men in Ireland.
CHAPTER XVII.
Mr. Pitt’s opinion on the Army Reductions.—Address to the King.—Symptoms of disunion among Ministers.—Fox’s rage.—Apprehensive of treachery, he seeks to propitiate his old connections.—Sir Francis Dashwood’s Budget.—Tax on Cider.—Discussion on Ways and Means.—Pitt and George Grenville.—Ardent opposition to the Cider-tax.—Petition from Newfoundland.—Humiliation of Fox.—Debate in the House of Lords on the Cider-bill.—Passing of the Bill.—Lord Bute’s alarm.—His resignation.—Its effect on Fox.—George Grenville first Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.—Removal of Sir Francis Dashwood.—Ministerial changes and promotions.
When the day came for voting the army, Mr. Pitt attended. He approved the measure, he said, as far as it went, but wished more troops were allotted to America. That he had a very different opinion from many of the peace: thought it hollow and insecure, and that it would not last ten years. He showed no acrimony to Fox, he and Lord Temple both seeming more hostile to Lord Bute; but he dropped, that if any body would point out the right way to inquire what was the cause of so many dismissions, he would second the motion. Beckford having wished the army more reduced, Pitt said, such reductions had hurt us formerly. After the peace of Ryswick the army was lessened to seven thousand; but war followed in three years. After the treaty of Utrecht, but eight thousand men were kept up, but that reduction produced a rebellion and an army of fifteen thousand. Charles Townshend, dreading the lash of Pitt on his late inconsistencies, retired early in the debate; but the General, his brother, just arrived from Portugal, was lavish in encomiums on the peace and peacemakers.
In a few days after, Beckford, seconded by Pitt, moved to address the King to prefer officers on half-pay to those whose commissions were fresher; and though Fox and the ministers objected, it was suffered to pass. Sir Henry Erskine in the course of the debate frequently sounding the King’s name, Mr. Pitt severely reprimanded the Speaker for not stopping him.
In the progress of these debates, it was observed, that at least the Favourite’s faction, if not himself, were hostile to Fox. On the committee of accounts, Elliot and Lord North had been so personal to him, that he lost his temper; and Beckford desiring him to save appearances, he replied, he never minded appearances, but—he was going to say, realities, when a loud burst of laughter from the whole House interrupted him. His rage was so great, that, sitting down, he said to Onslow,296 though an enemy, “Did you ever see a man so treated in my situation? but, by G—, I will have an explanation and ample submission, or I will never set my foot in this House again.” Another symptom of disunion was, that Lord Ravensworth297 having moved for the whole accounts of the war, Lord Hardwicke said it was impossible to produce them yet; the paymaster had a deputy abroad who could not have made them up. This being understood as a reflection on Fox, Lord Hardwicke said, on the contrary, he had meant to vindicate him. Lord Talbot concurred with this explanation; adding, “Nobody can imagine that I want to screen Mr. Fox;” an expression warmly taken up by Lord Hilsborough, one of Fox’s friends.
If Lord Bute countenanced these hostilities, it was but consonant to the folly of his character. Fox had boldness and wickedness enough to undertake whatever the Court wished to compass. Fox seemed so apprehensive of treachery, that he cast about to recover his old connections. By Lord Albemarle, Lord Frederick Cavendish,298 and Lord Waldegrave, he laboured to be reconciled to the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Devonshire. He asked Lord Waldegrave if the former was still incensed against him. The other replied, he had not heard the Duke mention him of late, but supposed his Royal Highness could not be ignorant how much he had been abused by Murphy, known to write under Fox’s direction. “Formerly he did so,” said Fox, “but I had not seen him in a year and a half, till hearing how violent the ‘Auditors’ were, I sent for him and stopped them;”—an excuse too weak for a sensible man to make to a sensible man through a sensible man. Lord Waldegrave suspected that Fox’s views went deeper than reconciliation; for shortly after this conversation Rigby came to the Earl, and sounded him whether he would not take the Treasury, Lord Bute, he said, not being able to stand his ground. As Lord Waldegrave had married my niece,299 I knew all these intrigues from him, and was actually in his house at the time of this overture, of which he immediately told me with an expressive smile, which in him, who never uttered a bitter word, conveyed the essence of sense and satire.
We must now quit Fox, to make room for a doughty hero of more comic cast, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.300 Hitherto he had but just acted enough as minister, to show that he neither was one nor was fit to be one. The time was now come for opening the budget, when it was incumbent on him to state the finances, debts, and calls of Government; and to chalk out a plan of proper supplies. All this he performed so awkwardly, with so little intelligence or clearness, in so vulgar a tone, and in such mean language, that he, who had been esteemed a plain country gentleman of good sense, said himself afterwards, “People will point at me, and cry, there goes the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer that ever appeared!” His famous measure was the tax on cider; and whoever would know more of his ability in conducting that business, will find it amply detailed in the North-Britons; a coarse and satiric picture, yet but little exaggerated. The tax itself deserves far more than the author of it to live in the memory of English history, for the crisis it occasioned or drove on.
In the discussion of these ways and means, George Grenville complained that men objected to laying burthens on the sinking fund, and called rather for new taxes. He wished gentlemen would show him where to lay them. Repeating this question in his querulous, languid, fatiguing tone, Pitt, who sat opposite to him, mimicking his accent aloud, repeated these words of an old ditty—Gentle shepherd, tell me where! and then rising, abused Grenville bitterly. He had no sooner finished than Grenville started up in a transport of rage, and said, if gentlemen were to be treated with that contempt—Pitt was walking out of the House, but at that word turned round, made a sneering bow to Grenville and departed. The latter had provoked him by stating the profusions of the war. There is use in recording this anecdote: the appellation of The Gentle Shepherd long stuck by Grenville; he is mentioned by it in many of the writings on the stamp act, and in other pamphlets and political prints of the time.
The tax on cider raised a great flame in the western counties, and by management, that flame was transported to the metropolis. All the western members, however, attached to the Court, could not avoid defending the interests of their constituents; and thus joining what standing Opposition there was, the minority often divided near 120: and as every step of the bill was ardently fought, divisions happened frequently, and threw a kind of vivacity into the session. In the city Sir William Baker acted strenuously against the Court, and Wilkes’s pen was never idle.
In the meantime Fox received another humiliation. He had received a petition for relief from the sufferers at Newfoundland. It was objected to from all quarters of the House: general indemnification could not be made to all the sufferers by the war, why then partial? Sir Francis Dashwood, Lord Barrington, and Nugent supported Fox faintly; Ellis and Rigby warmly; Lord George Sackville with panegyric, for which he was reproved by Lord Strange, who, with G. Grenville, Stanley, and Lord Frederick Campbell, treated Fox and his petition harshly. During this altercation Lord Middleton, casting his eye over the paper, observed that all the names to the petition were signed by the same hand. This occasioned such an uproar, that Fox was obliged to ask pardon, and withdraw the petition, pleading, that the paper had been written out fair from the original, which had really been signed by the petitioners. In private, he said that there had been a paragraph not worded with sufficient respect to the House, which occasioned his having the petition copied out by a clerk, and there had not been time to get it signed