We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The triumph of Pitt's ministry in 1784 over the Fox-North Coalition is a familiar event in British political history. But the consolidation of the ministry after 1784 has yet to be analyzed in detail. Though the general election of 1784, accompanied by spectacular demonstrations of public opinion in support of the government, clinched Pitt's victory, there was no immediate return to tranquillity. Within two years, Pitt was defeated on four major issues: the Westminster scrutiny, the Irish Resolutions, parliamentary reform, and the duke of Richmond's scheme for the fortification of the dockyards.
1 See below, p. 739.
2 Mitchell, L. G., Charles James Fox and the Disintegration of the Whig Party, 1782–1794 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 102–3.Google Scholar
3 Ginter, D. E., ‘The Financing of the Whig Party Organization, 1783–1793’, American His torical Review, LXXI, no. 2 (1966)Google Scholar; Whig Organization in the General Section of 1700 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967), pp. xi–Ivii.Google Scholar
4 O'Gorman, F., The Whig Party and the French Revolution (London, 1967), pp. 12–31.Google Scholar
5 Cannon, J. A., The Fox-North Coalition: Crisis of the Constitution, 1782–4 (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 235–43.Google Scholar
6 The list is printed as an appendix to vol. 1 of Stockdale's Debates and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 1784–90 - hereafter cited simply as Stockdale.
7 Sir Fortescue, J. (ed.), The Correspondence of King George III (London, 1928), vi no. 4520: Earl Temple to the king, 15 Nov. 1783.Google Scholar
8 Sir Feiling, K., The Second Tory Party, 1714–1832 (London, 1938), App. 1, pp. 397–8Google Scholar: Earl Spencer to his mother, 21 and 22 Dec. 1783; Pin to Spencer, 21 Dec. 1783.
9 Strutt MSS (microfilm copy in Essex Record Office T/B 251/4/4), Maldon election papers, 1784: T. B. Bramston to John Strutt, endorsed 23 Jan. 1784.
10 Sinclair of Ulbster MSS penes the Rt. Hon. Viscount Thurso (microfilm copy in Scottish Record Office RH/4/49), volume lettered ‘Correspondence of Sir John Sinclair’, fo. 155: memo randum endorsed ‘Necessity for Public Union, Feb. 1784’.
11 Fox and Pitt's Speeches … on the Westminster Scrutiny (London, 1784), pp. 141–55Google Scholar: Pitt's speech of 8 June 1784.
12 Debrett's Parliamentary Register, 1780–96, XVII, 385–6. Hereafter, this is cited simply as Debrett.Google Scholar
13 Kent Archives Office, Chevening MSS 677: Hester Countess of Chatham to the Rev. Edward Wilson, 19 Mar. 1785. Quoted with the permission of Kent County Council and the Administrative Trustees of the Chevening Estate.
14 Hist. MSS. Comm. 14th Rep., app., part i (Rutland Papers) III, 191–203Google Scholar; Pulteney to the duke of Rutland, 19 Mar., 6 Apr., 16 Apr., and 23 Apr. 1785. On Pulteney, see Sir Namier, L. B., Crossroads of Power (London, 1962), pp. 7–23Google Scholar: ‘Daniel Pulteney, M.P., an Ordinary Man‘.
15 Whitehall Evening Post, 24–26 Mar. 1785; Public Advertiser, 29 Mar. 1785.
16 Blackburne, J., Caswall, T., Cruger, H., Egerton, J. W., Egerton, W., Harley, T., Master, T., Rogers, J., Sneyd, W., Wraxall, N. W.. The list of the minority is printed in Debrett, XVIII, 310–14.Google Scholar
17 Debrett, , XVIII, 307.Google Scholar
18 Chatham MSS P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice] 30/8/116, fo. 277: Browne to Pitt, 25 July fI785]; (unpublished Crown Copyright material reproduced by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office) Norris, J. M., ‘Samuel Garbett and the Early Development of Industrial Lobbying in Great Britain’, Economic History Review, second series, x, 3 (1957–1958), 457.Google Scholar
19 H.M.C. Rutland, III, 283, 285Google Scholar: Pulteney, to Rutland, , 23 Feb., 28 Feb. 1786.Google Scholar
20 Kelly, P., ‘The Establishment of Pitt's Administration, 1783–6‘ (unpub. Oxford D.Phil. thesis, 1971), pp. 300–17.Google Scholar At least 49 government supporters voted against Pitt on this occasion. See also Olson, A. L., The Radical Duke: Career and Correspondence of Charles Lennox, third Dufe of Richmond (Oxford, 1961), pp. 81–6.Google Scholar
21 Debrett, , xix, 224.Google Scholar
22 H.M.C, Rutland, III, 289Google Scholar: Lord Sydney to the duke of Rutland, 16 Mar. 1785; Kent Archives Office, Chevening MSS 677: Hester Countess of Chatham to the Rev. Edward Wilson, 20 Mar. 1786.
23 Essex Record Office, Braybrooke MSS D/DBy/C5/n: Neville to Lord Bulkeley, 19 May 1786.
24 See Fergusson, J. (ed.), Letters of George Dempster to Sir Adam Fergusson, 1756–1813 (London, 1934), p. 131Google Scholar: Dempster to Fergusson, 26 May 1784. Dempster, M.P. for Perth, was an independent supporter of Fox. But he gradually moved over to Pitt's side after 1784.
25 H.M.C. Rutland, III, 186Google Scholar: Pulteney, to Rutland, , 4 Mar. 1785.Google Scholar
26 Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt: The Years of Acclaim (London, 1969), p. 236.Google Scholar
27 Debrett, , xix, 224.Google Scholar
28 cf. Thomas, P. D. G., The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1971), pp. 45–6, 82–5.Google Scholar Dr Thomas's monograph uses evidence in the period 1714–84 (see p. v).
29 See Binney, J. E. D., British Public Finance and Administration, 7774–92 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 36–7, 278–9Google Scholar; Kennedy, W., English Taxation, 1640–1799: An Essay on Policy and Opinion (London, 1913), p. 159, n. 5.Google Scholar See also the debate on Sheridan's motion of 6 Apr. 1790 for a com mittee to consider petitions against the tobacco bill. William Windham stated the issue succinctly: ‘The tobacco act, like all Excise acts, was to be considered in two different views, as a matter of finance, and as a constitutional question. In the latter light Excise bills were usually considered, because their effect was clearly unconstitutional, inasmuch as those upon whom they attached were placed in a situation where innocence was no protection, but punishment might fall where there was no criminality to call for it …’ (Debrett, , XXVII, 427Google Scholar). The constitutional issue dominated the whole debate. Sheridan's motion was rejected by 191 to 147. While Kennedy possibly underestimates the force of the constitutional objections, I cannot agree with Dr O'Gorman's unsubstantiated asser tion that, had a motion for outright repeal been made, the government might have been defeated (The Whig Party and the French Revolution, p. 50Google Scholar). There is no sign that the government's majority was in danger - albeit the opposition mustered a respectable figure.
30 Aspinall, A. (ed.), The Later Correspondence of George III (Cambridge, 1962), vol. I, no. 84Google Scholar: George III to Pitt, 25 May 1784.
31 National Library of Scotland. Minto MSS M43: Elliot to Sir James Harris, 5 May 1784.
32 Morning Post, 22 June 1784.
33 B[ritish] M[useum], Add. MS 47561 (Fox Papers), fos. 80–1: Fox to the duke of Portland, 27 July 1784.
34 Debrett, , XV, 291–4.Google Scholar
35 Sir Cunynghame, W., Hussey, W., Stanley, T., Lord Surrey. (Parker's General Advertiser, 2 July 1784.)Google Scholar
36 Ibid.
37 London Chronicle, 10–13 July 1784.
38 Chatham MSS P.R.O. 30/8/267, fo. 95: Hill to Pitt, 7 July 1784.
39 Caledonian Mercury, 10 July 1784.
40 W. Adam, J. Anstruther, Sir D. Carnegie, F. Charteris, Sir W. Cunynghame, Sir T. Dundas, T. Dundas, G. K. Elphinstone, Sir J. Erskine, J. A. Stuart.
41 J. H. Blair, C. A. Cathcart, H. Dalrymple, G. Dempster, G. Douglas, Sir J. Duff, Sir A. Edmondstone, Sir J. Johnstone, W. Macdowall, Sir C. Preston.
42 Scottish Record Office, Buccleugh MSS GD224/30/6: Henry Dundas to the duke of Buccleugh, 24 Aug. 1784.
43 H.M.C. Rutland, III, 125, 129Google Scholar: Pulteney to Rutland, 15 and 31 July 1784.
44 Debrett, , xv, 289–90.Google Scholar
45 See Binney, J. E. D., British Public Finance and Administration, 1774–1792 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 98–9Google Scholar; Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt, I, 259–60.Google Scholar
46 English Chronicle, 13–15 July 1784; London Chronicle, 13–15 July 1784.
47 B.M. Add. MS 47561 (Fox Papers), fo. 81; Fox to the duke of Portland, 27 July 1784.
48 Debrett, , xvi, 272–3, 354–6.Google Scholar
49 Ibid. p. 275. For his biography, see Sir Namier, L. B. and Brooke, J. (eds.), The House of Commons, 1754–1790 (London, 1964), II, 575.Google Scholar
50 Sinclair of Ulbster MSS volume lettered ‘Bishops, Barons, Baronets, and Knights’, fo. 14: Rev. George Pretyman to John Sinclair, 29 July 1784.
51 General Evening Post, 29–31 July 1784.
52 Debrett, , xvi, 368: speech of 6 Aug. 1784.Google Scholar
53 H.U.C. Rutland, III, 131.Google ScholarPulteney, to Rudand, , 13 Aug. 1784.Google Scholar
54 Scottish Record Office, Buccleugh MSS GD224/30/6: Dundas to the duke of Buccleugh, 24 Aug. 1784. Quoted with the permission of His Grace the duke of Buccleugh and Queensberry.
55 Gazetteer, 7 Jan. 1785.
56 Morning Chronicle, 19 Jan. 1784.
57 West Suffolk Record Office, Grafton MSS Ace. 423/100: Lord Camden to the duke of Grafton, 27 Jan. 1785. But it had become a general rule that there should not be a major trial of strength on the Address (Thomas, P. D. G., The House of Commons …, pp. 42–3).Google Scholar
58 It is not specified whether this was William Drake senior or junior - they both sat for the same constituency. But it is probably the latter. A political list of 1788 noted that William Drake, senior, did not attend. (Kent Archives Office, North MSS 011/5.)
59 Debrett, , XVIII, 221–2.Google Scholar
60 Stockdale, , vi, 413Google Scholar: debate of 8 June 1785.
61 Sir E. Astley, J. Grant, Sir R. Hill, Sir J. Johnstone, G. Medley, Sir T. Rich, J. Rolle, B. Watson, S. Whitbread. (Debrett, , XVIII, 221–49.)Google Scholar
62 On 4 Dec. 1783, Sir Cecil Wray had put forward the idea of such a tax, claiming that he had been instructed by his constituents to do so. But, according to the election propaganda, it was used against him, and detracted from his popularity, during the 1784 contest for Westminster (Debrett, , XII, 333Google Scholar; History of the Westminster Election … by Levers of Truth and Justice (2nd ed., London, 1785), pp. 288, 296, 298Google Scholar).
63 Debrett, , XVIII, 248–9.Google Scholar
64 The Pittites were: W. Drake, J. Hill, R. S. Milnes, S. Thornton. The Foxites were: Lord G. Cavendish, F. Charteris, J. Courtenay, Sir W. Cunynghame, E. Foley, P. Francis, C. J. Fox, R. Fitzpatrick, Sir H. Fletcher, D. Howell, W. Lawrence, Lord Maitland, R. Phillipps, W. Plumer, Sir W. Rawlinson, E. Rushworth, S. Salt, R. B. Sheridan, C. Sturt. The tellers were J. Crewe and Lord Surrey (General Evening Post, 10–12 May 1785). There is at least one error in this list. R. Phillipps (Hereford) had left parliament in Mar. 1785. He may have been confused with the Foxite J. G. Philipps (Carmarthen).
65 Stockdale, , vi, 408 ff.Google Scholar
66 Debrett, , XVIII, 222.Google Scholar
67 Ibid. 219.
68 General Evening Post, 14–17 May 1785.
69 Morning Herald, 17 May 1785.
70 Stockdale, , vi, 226–9.Google Scholar
71 Public advertiser, 31 May 1785.
72 Stockdale, , vi, 289–90.Google Scholar
73 He was no relation of, and ought not to be confused with, Daniel Pulteney, who sat for Bramber, and whose letters to the duke of Rutland have been cited above.
74 Stockdale, , vi, 296–7.Google Scholar
75 Debrett, , XVIII, 358.Google Scholar
76 Stockdale, , vi, 305–6.Google Scholar
77 Debrett, , XXII, 173.Google Scholar
78 Ibid. p. 177.
79 Ehnnan, J., The Younger Pitt, I, 254.Google Scholar
80 Public Advertiser, 5 Jan. 1786.
81 H.M.C. Rutland, III, 276, 280Google Scholar: Pulteney to Rutland, 23 Jan., 3 Feb. 1786.
82 It has been estimated that 96 supporters of Fox were turned out at the 1784 general election (Cannon, J., The Fox-North Coalition, pp. 244–5Google Scholar). According to Stockdale's list, 260 members were voting with Fox at the time of the dissolution (Scockdale, 1, App.). According to my estimate, there were 26 new members who came in at the general election, and who then voted with Fox on party issues. These were: O. Bridgeman, R. Burton, Sir D. Carnegie, W. M. Colhoun, E. Cotsford, J. Dawkins, T. Dundas, T. Fane, P. Francis, B. B. Hopkins, D. Howell, T. Hunt, Lord Inchiquin, E. Leeds, F. H. Mackenzie, E. M. Mundy, G. Osbaldeston, T. B. Parkyns, Lord Penrhyn, R. Phillipps, R. L. Savile, G. S. Conway, C. Sturt, Lord Waltham, W. Windham, W. Wrightson. I have not included those subsequently unseated on petition, those who came in at by-elections after 1784, or defectors from the ministerial ranks.
83 National Library of Scotland, Minto MSS M43B: Cornewall to Sir Gilbert Elliot [19 Dec. 1783], 2 Oct. 1786.
84 B.M., Egerton MS 3262 (Hertford Papers), fo. 115: Lord Beauchamp to his father, Lord Hertford, 8 Jan. [1788].
85 Namier, and Brooke, , op. cit. III, 576–7Google Scholar; Chatham MSS P.R.O. 30/8/185, fo. 36: Vaughan to Pitt, 30 Aug. 1788; P.R.O. 30/8/173, fos. 16–18: John Rolle to Pitt, 9 Aug., 6 Sept. 1788. Rolle, a respectable country gentleman, acted as intermediary for Vaughan.
86 B.M., Egerton MS 3262, fo. 109: Beauchamp to Hertford, 21 July [1786].
87 Ibid. fos. 114–15. An embittered Humphrey Minchin noted die same point in July 1793 when defectors from opposition were given an immediate reward: ‘When Favors are given with a liberal hand to those who have come in at the last Hour of the Day, may not one who has borne the whole heat & labour of it expect some?’ (Chatham MSS P.R.O. 30/8/160, fo. 7: Minchin to Pitt, July 1793).
88 Fraser, P., ‘The Conduct of Public Business in the House of Commons, 1812–1827’ (unpub. London Ph.D. thesis, 1957), p. 22.Google Scholar
89 B.M. Add. MS 34419 (Auckland Papers), fos. 357–8: Fox to Eden, [?II Apr. 1785].
90 Debrett, , XVIII, 144–51Google Scholar: speech of 29 Apr. 1785.
91 Dacres Adams MSS P.R.O. 30/58/1/17 (i): Dundas to Pitt, 25 Oct. 1785.
92 Headlam, C. (ed.), The Letters of Lady Harriet Eliot, 1766–1786 (Edinburgh, 1914), p. 140Google Scholar: Lady Harriet Eliot to the Countess of Chatham, 30 Mar. 1786. According to at least one contem porary expert, Pitt's assessment was too optimistic. Eden had discussions with Dr Richard Price, who had pioneered the idea of a sinking fund, and who wrote to Eden in June 1785: ‘Mr. Pitt indeed seems to have been too hasty in the account he gave of the revenue, and it was injudicious to raise the expectations of the public on such insufficient grounds. Our prospect is certainly dis couraging …’ (B.M. Add. MS 34420, fo. 29). Nor was the question raised as to what was going to happen about the unfunded debt. There was still no check on its creation; and exchequer bills increased steadily, and navy bills rapidly, in the latter part of the decade (Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt, I, 268, n. 6).Google Scholar
93 Ehrman, , op. cit. 207–9Google Scholar; Nottingham University Library, Portland MSS PwF/3971/1: duke of Portland to Eden, 24 Apr. 1785; B.M. Add. MS 45728 (Auckland Papers), fo. 39: Eden to Sheffield, [c. 7 July 1785]; Add. MS 34420 (Auckland Papers), fo. 34: Sheffield to Eden, 8 July 1785.
94 B.M. Add. MS 47579 (Fox Papers), fo. 129; Fitzpatrick to Lord Upper Ossory, [28 May 1785].
95 Ashbourne, Lord, Pitt: some Chapters of his Life and Times (London, 1898), p. 128Google Scholar: Pitt to Thomas Orde, 24 May 1785.
96 B.M. Add. MS 45728 (Auckland Papers), fo. 25: Eden to Lord Sheffield, 13 Oct. [1784].
97 B.M. Add. MS 34420 (Auckland Papers), fo. 23, 25–6: North to Eden, 20 May, 14 June 1785.
98 H.M.C. Rutland, III, 209.Google Scholar
99 Chatham MSS P.R.O. 30/8/151, fos. 37–8: Lord Carmarthen to Pitt, 28 Oct. 1785.
100 B.M. Add. MS 47580 (Fox Papers), fo. 129: Fox to Richard Fitzpatrick, [c. Nov. 1785].
101 Debrett, , xix, 8–24.Google Scholar
102 Morning Chronicle, 3 Feb. 1786.
103 Mitchell, L. G., Charles James Fox and the Disintegration of the Whig Party, p. 104 ff.Google Scholar
104 Debrett, , XII, 29–49Google Scholar: speech of 18 Nov. 1783.
105 Mitchell, , loc. cit.Google Scholar
106 B.M. Add. MS 34419 (Auckland Papers), fo. 357: Fox to Eden, [?II Apr. 1785].
107 B.M. Add. MS 34421 (Auckland Papers), fo. 328: J. Hatsell to Eden, 14 June 1786.
108 Cf. Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt, I, 447–8Google Scholar, and Marshall, P. J., The Impeachment of Warren Hastings (Oxford, 1965), pp. 46–7.Google Scholar
109 Furber, H., Henry Dundas, First Viscount Melville, 1742–1811 (Oxford, 1931), p. 42Google Scholar: Dundas to Sir Archibald Campbell, 23 Mar. 1787.
110 Chatham MSS P.R.O. 30/8/67, fos. 126–7: Rev. Edward Wilson to the Countess of Chatham, 21 June 1786; East Suffolk Record Office, Pretyman MSS HA/53/562/1: George Rose to the Rev. George Pretyman Tomline, 8 Aug. 1816
111 See above, p. 748.
112 B.M., Egerton MS 3262 (Hertford Papers), fos. 154–6: Beachamp to Hertford, 4 Dec. 1788.
113 Mitchell, , op. cit. pp. 151–2.Google Scholar
114 See above, p. 733.
115 Ginter, D. E., Whig Organization in the General Election of 1790, pp. Iv–lvi.Google Scholar Cf. O'Gorman, F., The Whig Party and the French Revolution, p. 31.Google Scholar
116 Mitchell, A., The Whigs in Opposition, 1815–1830 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
117 In the preparation of this article, I have been greatly assisted by the invaluable criticisms of Mr John Ehrman who supervised the thesis from which it is derived. I am also indebted to rhe encouragement of Professor Ian Christie and to many fruitful discussions with Mr Michael Collinge. But I do not wish to commit these gentlemen to the views expressed here; and any errors of judgment or of fact are entirely my own.
