The
London Review, in a late number, contains a long article devoted to the praise of this great English statesman.
Like all other men who in their day headed a party, the place of
Pitt in history has never been settled to the satisfaction of the world in general.--The same parties that then divided
England and
Europe still exist.
By the one he is still revered as a demigod; the other reduce him to the level of quite an ordinary man. Both, we think, are wrong, and truth, as usual, lies in the middle.
The man who, at the age of twenty-four, could triumph in the British Parliament over the most powerful opposition that had ever banded itself within the walls of
St. Stephen's to pull down a Ministry --who could, almost single handed, resist the united efforts of
Fox,
Burke,
Sheridan, Enskine,
Windham,
Grey, and a host of others, and resist it with success --who could retain power almost uninterruptedly for the space of twenty-three years, in the face of such a combination, was surely no ordinary man.--On the other side, we see nothing in his life to entitle him to that lofty praise which his partizans still continue to lavish on him.--That he was a great declaimer, we have no doubt; for O'
Connel, who surely was a competent judge, and was certainly not a very friendly one, declared he had never, in all his life, heard anything like his declamation.--That he was a skillful financier, his scheme for the payment of the national debt by means of the sinking fund, abundantly proves.
But that he was a great minister, in the large sense of that term, may seriously be doubted.
If it be true, as has lately been said, that he engaged in the long war with
France reluctantly, and at the instigation of the
King, much must be subtracted from the strength of will, and disinterested devotion to country, for which he has so largely been credited.
If he entered into it of his own accord, as has been generally supposed, then he was, in our view, the greatest enemy
England ever had,
Bonaparte himself not excepted.
We are well aware of the contemptible subterfuge to which his partizans resorted, when charged with bringing on that war. It is true,
France first declared war; but she was forced into it by
England.
A clause in the treaty of 1787, stipulated that when either party withdrew its ambassador, with a view to put an end to diplomatic intercourse, it should be regarded as a declaration of war.
England not only withdrew her own ambassador, but refused to receive one from
France, and for that
Pitt was responsible.
He found the
English debt about £250,000,000.
It had swelled to four times that amount before the end of the war.
At the close of the
American war, the very period at which
Pitt became Prime Minister, the demand for reform had become very general in
England.
People could not fail to see that that war, with its consequences, the loss of the thirteen colonies to the crown, and the dishonor of the
British arms, had arisen from the defective representation in Parliament. --These demands, originating not with the poor and suffering classes of the nation, but with a large and growing country party, were becoming, every year, more important and importunate, when the
French Revolution broke out, to arouse their hopes and stimulate their exertions.
The aspect which
France at first presented, was well calculated to fire the hopes of those in
England, who had entered heart and soul into the demand for reform. --But the excesses of the dominant party in
France soon produced a reaction, commencing with the timid and moderate, and gradually extending its circle, until it embraced the greater part of the nation, who dreaded that the same scenes which had rendered the
French Revolution odious, might be re-enacted on English soil.
The dominant party did not fail to take advantage of this recoil in public sentiment, and they succeeded in precipitating
England, which boasts of her freedom, into a war with
France, with the avowed object of restoring the grinding tyranny from which she had just escaped.
At the very time that they were uniting with the continental despotisms, to put down liberty in
France, the
English people were taught to believe that they were waging a war for national liberty and the rights of mankind.
When once engaged in conflict, reason, of course, became silent in the roar of battle.
The nation forgot or what they were fighting, and looked neither at the allies by their side, nor the cause which those allies were asserting.
As time rolled on,
France, instead of being trampled under foot with impunity, roused herself to furious action.
She chased her invaders, who had come for the avowed purpose of riveting her chains, across her frontiers.
She did more.
They had invaded her soil without the slightest provocation.
Roused to frenzy by the insult, she retaliated.
She pursued her enemies into their own countries.
She exacted heavy vengeance for the injuries she had received.
That she may have been wrong, in a strictly moral sense, is true enough.
But who can blame her for doing what she did?
When a nation is roused by causeless insult, and injury without provocation, who has right to prescribe the limits of her just revenge?
We do not hesitate to say that the war into which the dominant portion of the
English aristocracy, represented by
Pitt, precipitated the
English people with
France, was the most atrocious war that was ever waged against an unoffending people.
It was neither more nor less than a war of old, established abuses, against the increasing knowledge of mankind.
For their own selfish purposes, the ruling aristocracy interfered in the domestic quarrels of a people struggling to be free, taking advantage of the moment when they were in the very convulsions of change, from a degrading system of despotic government, from which they had been suffering for ages.
That was the moment that
Pitt, representing the ruling power of
England, chose for joining a league of despots, to put down a people who were trying to be free.
It was not enough that
France was suffering almost the pangs of death, from the excesses of her revolution.
Those very excesses, to her the greatest of miseries, were made the pretext by the despotic governments for leaguing against her. And
England joined this league;
England, who had always maintained the responsibility of rulers to the people;
England, that had brought one
King to the block and expelled another from the throne, upon this very principle;
England, that resented with fierce enthusiasm the attempt of Louis XIV.
to restore the Stuarts to the throne;
England, that had always protested against the right of any power whatever to interfere with her perfect independence.
The aristocracy of
England (that is, the ruling portion of it) represented by
Pitt, were now waging the bloodiest war of modern times, to force upon
France a detested family, doing the very thing which Louis had attempted to do, and for attempting which he nearly lost his throne, by the arms of
England and her allies; for though that was not the ostensible, there can be little doubt that it was the real, cause of that war which is called the war of the succession.
