THE ROUT OF A COALITION (1784) At the present time it is superfluous to dwell on the complexity of the material interests which usually dominate a General Election. But that strange imponderable, mass-mentality, has received little or no attention. Except at great crises, it appeared rarely before the great Reform Bill of 1832. Nevertheless, now and again there seem to be signs of its working even under the old clogging electoral system; and historians have found in it an explanation of the decisive result of that dramatic and exciting contest of the spring of 1784, which routed the Fox-North Coalition and confirmed Pitt the younger in his hitherto very precarious tenure of office. Certainly the antecedent events and the magnitude of the issues at stake then aroused the nation to an unparalleled degree. Should it retain in office the 'boy' Prime Minister, who had entered on it at the previous Christmastide (a' mince-pie Administration,' Mrs. Crewe called it), or should it reinstate the Fox-North Coalition, which, under that respectable mediocrity, the Duke of Portland, had seized on power in April 1783, and was ejected by George III. in mid-December? In the background there lurked these further questions: Did those former enemies, Fox and Lord North, in combining to seize the reins, betray the essential principles of the Whig and Tory parties? Was their union prompted by the patriotic aim of carrying on the King's government (then in a state of confusion owing to the balance of parties), or had they, as their enemies asserted, turned out the composite Shelburne Administration in order to create confusion, foist themselves on the King, and enjoy the spoils? Was Fox's famous India Bill, introduced in the autumn session of 1783, a disinterested attempt at remedying the abuses of the East India Company's administration, or an ingenious device for capturing the valuable patronage of that company? In this last question lay the crux of the problem pressing heavily upon England in December 1783. Very much depended upon its solution. If the Coalition forced the India Bill through Parliament, it would dispose of patronage valued at 300,000l. a year-a sum sufficient to procure overwhelming political support. Doubtless Burke (the chief framer of the Bill) honestly believed that so effective a political lever must be wrenched from the hands of George III. in order once for all to defeat his longcherished designs of strengthening the royal prerogative. But Burke and his colleagues forgot that the appropriation of that immense driving force would expose them to the charge of bartering away their principles for pelf and power. At Westminster Governor Johnstone declaimed against their rapacity, and declared their measure to be more detested from day to day by the wisest and most impartial men throughout the nation.' Of course, the Company worked hard to confirm this opinion, and bade all corporations combine against the confiscating principle embodied in the India Bill. But the increase of antipathy to Fox and North throughout the country can be explained only by the growing conviction that they had cast their principles to the winds in order to entrench themselves behind the formidable ramparts of India patronage. Nor were these the only counts against them. They proposed to the King,' as a thing decided,' to confer on the Prince of Wales, whose dissolute extravagance was notorious, the enormous income of 100,000l. a year. This proposal infuriated the King. He even informed Earl Temple (the future Marquis of Buckingham) that he would try the spirit of the Parliament and of the people upon it.' Temple urged him to be patient and to throw upon the Portland Cabinet the odium of ratifying the recent peace with France and Spain, which when in opposition they had so loudly condemned and when in office had not appreciably improved. To this advice George deferred, and agreed not to dismiss them unless some very particular opportunity presented itself.'1 The proposal to mulct a nearly bankrupt country of 100,000l. a year in order to enhance the power and pleasure of a spendthrift prince strengthened the belief that the Coalition had resolved to retain office at all costs, for the future George IV. (a fanatical Foxite) was certain to use his money and influence at Westminster and in Cornwall to bolster up the fortunes of his favourite. Here, then, was another weighty reason for driving out a Coalition which, if it controlled the funds and favours of the East India House in Leadenhall Street and of Carlton House in Westminster, could pile Pelion on Ossa in the annals of political corruption. The King, then, was on fairly safe ground even in his unconstitutional act of ensuring the rejection of the India Bill and the dismissal of its authors. Such were the circumstances in which George summoned to his aid the son of Chatham, then aged twenty-four. It is at this point that The Parliamentary Papers of John Robinson, recently edited by Professor William T. Laprade 1 Duke of Buckingham, Court and Cabinets of George III., i., 304. for the Royal Historical Society, furnish evidence of some value. Robinson was M.P. for Harwich and had long been Senior Secretary of the Treasury Board, in which capacity he controlled the funds used in support of Government candidates in the General Elections of 1774, 1780, also (to some extent) of 1784. Shortly before the exercise of royal influence against Fox's India Bill he reported as to the probable issue of a General Election. His written estimate, now before us, is probably the most detailed forecast ever published on English elections of the old type. In general it is creditably correct, considering that Robinson penned it in mid-December, shortly before Pitt's accession to office. Therefore the writer could not possibly foresee the enthusiasm which the plucky fight of the young leader was soon to arouse. The document is the output of an old wire-puller, who expects the forthcoming election to proceed on the old lines; and his forecast is fairly accurate in regard to the 'close boroughs' and the Scottish constituencies, the latter of which were under the control of Henry Dundas, now Pitt's henchman. But Robinson went astray respecting the verdicts of the more independent constituencies, e.g., Norfolk, where he stated that Coke, the local Whig magnate, had a safe seat, whereas he was ousted by a Pittite; Yorkshire, which he divided equally between the Coalition and Pitt, whose supporters easily captured both seats; and the University of Cambridge, which he assigned to the former Coalition members, though Pitt and his friend Lord Euston won at a canter. Other examples might be cited of Robinson's failure to foresee the utter rout of the Coalition. Dr. Laprade, however, deserves the thanks of historical students for editing a document which proves that Pitt's resolve, in mid-December 1783, to take office against a majority in the House of Commons, was no foolhardy venture, but a careful calculation of chances. Yet, though Robinson's December forecast could not explain the course of the April elections, the editor claims, on the strength of it, that they were decided by secret influence and were not appreciably directed by public opinion. Mr. Hawke also, in a brief review of the evidence in The Nineteenth Century and After for October 1923, sums up even more dogmatically and ridicules the historians who have seen in the issue of those elections clear signs of the force of public sentiment. Both of them also seem to assume that Pitt won owing to underhand intrigues, while the official Whig and Tory parties, headed by Fox and North, maintained a virtuous and suicidal aloofness. The truth is, of course, that both the Coalition and the Pittites fought desperately, and used all possible means to ensure success; but the Coalition's electioneering accounts were lost or suppressed, while Robinson (imprudent in this matter) allowed his to survive. Over against Robinson's one-sided and largely irrelevant evidence I propose to place the verdicts of writers or speakers who witnessed the growth of popular feeling in those exciting spring months of 1784. But, first, we may note that George III. was neither able nor willing to spend the large sums which he had disbursed in the General Election of 1780, the 'immense expense' of which greatly annoyed him and depleted his private electioneering fund. In April 1782 he complained to Lord North that he could not possibly meet an outstanding account of 19,7451. It is therefore improbable, after Burke's Economy Bill had further impoverished the Privy Purse, that much money would be forthcoming from that source for the election of April 1784. Further, Burke's Bill disfranchised revenue and excise officers, thus restricting Government influence in many towns. Also it must be remembered that, though the East India Company used all its influence to defeat Fox and North, yet they and their exasperated followers certainly strained every nerve in order to recover the India patronage which the manoeuvres of George had snatched from them. Proofs abound as to the disgust aroused by the Fox-North Coalition. Addington's old schoolmaster, Dr. Joseph Warton, expressed the general opinion when he called it the most shameful and the most pernicious Coalition that, I think, ever disgraced the annals of any kingdom,' and the universal conviction was that it could not possibly last. Here lay the chief cause of its defeat. By their union Fox damned North, and North damned Fox. Further, Pitt's clean record, his brilliant debating powers, and his firm composure under the savage attacks of the Opposition speedily marked him out as the one man who could save England from the old gangs. Early in 1784 Lords Stafford and Percy stated their conviction that he alone could rescue the nation from otherwise hopeless confusion. So, too, Earl Cornwallis wrote: The mass of the people are certainly with the present Ministry,' and again (March 9), 'The Ministry are triumphant, and if they manage their affairs with as much prudence and wisdom as they have hitherto done, they may keep their ground many years.' '5 On that day the majority in the House against Pitt, which in January had been 39, sank to I; and it is clear that the change was due largely to pressure from the public. His new India Bill conciliated the very interests which Fox's Bill had antagonised; and London, Middlesex, Southwark, even Fox's constituency, Westminster, sent up addresses in support of Pitt. Nearly 3000 electors of Westminster signed that petition. These • Donne, Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, ii., 423. Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmouth, i., 30, 35. • Diaries . . . of George Rose, i., 50, 60. • Cornwallis Correspondence, i., 167, 173. examples were followed by York, Edinburgh, Worcester, Exeter, and several other cities. Large meetings were held in many places, the trend being favourable to Pitt. At Aylesbury the freeholders of Bucks shouted down Burke until Lord Mahon begged them to hear him. The meetings of the Middlesex freeholders at Hackney and of the electors of Westminster in Westminster Hall afforded strong proofs of the confidence felt in Pitt. Fox was refused a hearing; he and his supporters were hustled out of the Hall, and had to repair to the King's Arms Tavern for an overflow meeting (March 14). At this tumultuous scene in the historic Hall the Radical Lord Mahon (soon to become Earl Stanhope) was foremost in denouncing Fox. As a sign of the detestation now felt for the Whig leader Horace Walpole mentions on April II that a fox was roasted alive at Dover' by the most diabolic allegory.' In general, the county associations which heralded the reform movement now repudiated Fox and supported Pitt. This was especially the case in Yorkshire, where the 'associators' on March 24 carried an address to Parliament begging for a dissolution and an appeal to the people as the only true constitutional measure.' To that step, bitterly opposed by the Coalition, Pitt at that very time had recourse, for he knew that the tide had now set in strongly in his favour. The Yorkshire Association formed the backbone of the popular movement in that county which gave an overwhelming majority for the two Pittite candidates, Wilberforce and Duncombe, in the teeth of the opposition of the great Whig aristocracy. During their canvass they found the domains of the Cavendishes, Fitzwilliams, Lord Surrey, and Lord Carlisle invincibly hostile. Yet, despite the keen efforts of the Coalition for its nominees, the feeling of the great concourse which met in the Castle Yard at York went strongly for Wilberforce and Duncombe. The Whig lords retired baffled in their coaches-and-six. Finally, the Pittites received promises of 11,173 votes, as against 2510 which were hostile or doubtful. Their victory was unprecedented, for, as a rule, the Yorkshire election had been decided beforehand in the drawing-room of one of the great Whig houses. Now the blow to the Coalition was fatal. Numbers of members have confessed to me,' wrote Duncombe to Wilberforce later on, that they owed their success in their own counties to the example set by ours.' 8 A case in point was Norfolk, where Coke was rejected. That the nation's will must prevail, even amidst the many anomalies of the old representation, was assumed in the many • N. Wraxall, Hist. Memoirs, iii., 295-299; H. Jephson, The Platform, i., 159; G. Stanhope and G. P. Gooch, Life of Charles, Third Earl Stanhope, 59; Letters of H. Walpole (ed. Cunningham), viii., 469. ' Wyvill Papers, ii., 325-327; Veitch, Genesis of Parliamentary Reform, 98. Life of Wilberforce, i., chap. iii. 8 |