Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:34:39.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cabinet Politics and Executive Policy-Making Procedures, 1794–1801

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Richard E. Willis
Get access

Extract

Current knowledge of politics during the coalition government headed by William Pitt between July, 1794 and March, 1801 resembles a fen set amid drained lands, in that neither ministerial relations within the executive nor the internal affairs of the opposition have attracted much recent attention. For the government, such attention has been directed toward questions of foreign policy and of the motives and effects of the domestic repression. For the Foxites, a relative paucity of materials and the fact of the 1797 secession have conspired substantially to halt scholarly concern at 1794. I have elsewhere attempted to redress somewhat the latter state of affairs. In this essay I propose to deal with two interrelated topics of wartime politics during Pitt's government; the nexus of allegiances among the ministers, and some procedural aspects of executive decision-making. The first, centering upon the specific question of the degeneration of the Portland Whigs, also throws some additional light on the formation of the coalition ministry; the second, attending to restrictions on participation and information and their effects on the subtle dialectic between George III and his ministers, can further explicate the fall of the government.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Spring 1975 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Willis, Richard E., “Fox, Grenville, and the Recovery of Opposition, 1801-1804,” Journal of British Studies, Vol. II. (1972), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Mitchell, L. G., Charles James Fox and the Disintegration of the Whig Party 1782-1794 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 194–238.Google Scholar

3 O'Gorman, Frank, The Whig Party and the French Revolution (London, 1967), pp. 174–208.Google Scholar

4 Thomas Grenville to Fox, 29 Dec. 1793, British Museum, Add. MSS 47569, fos. 30-31; Fox to Grenville, 6 Jan. 1794: Add. MSS 42058, tos. 135-138.

5 O'Gorman, , Whig Party and French Revolution, p. 196.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., pp. 175-176.

7 Ibid., pp. 199-203.

8 Dundas came close to wrecking the proposed arrangements because of his loss of colonial patronage, but was mollified by retaining that of Scotland. Sec Dundas to Pitt. 9 July 1794, Register House, GD 51/1/17/24/1.

9 Dundas to George III, 13 Dec. 1794; Aspinall, Arthur, ed., The Later Correspondence of George III (Cambridge, 1962-1970), II: 282.Google Scholar

10 Lord Grenville, for example, encouraged William Wickham's missions not to further royalism but to hamper French offensive efforts by encouraging insurrections. See Mitchell, Harvey C., The Underground War against Revolutionary France (Oxford, 1965). p. 122.Google Scholar

11 Cabinet minute. 14 Aug. 1795, Later Correspondence, II: 380Google Scholar; cabinet minute, 7 Sept. 1795. Add. MSS 40102. fo. 10.

12 Windham to Pitt, 27 April 1796, Add. MSS 37844. fos. 122-124.

13 O'Gorman, , Whig Party and French Revolution, pp. 216–217.Google Scholar

14 Rose to Bishop Tomline, 14 July 1794, Rev.Harcourt, Leveson V., ed., The Diaries and Correspondence of the Right Hon. George Rose (London, 1860), I: 194.Google Scholar

15 The conservative Whigs conceived themselves to be as good party men as the Foxites: their difference was that while the Foxites remembered the defeat of 1783-1784 as an attack on the privileges of parliament, Portland and his friends came to interpret it as an attack on the Whig aristocracy, which their taking office could rectify.

16 Fitzwilliam to Grenville, 3 April 1795, Add. MSS 41855, fos. 62-65. See also the Lords debate of 8 May 1795, reported in the Parliamentary History, XXXI: 1502–1520.Google Scholar

17 Pitt to Westmorland, 19 Nov. 1794, Later Correspondence, II: 268–271.Google Scholar

18 Fitzwilliam to Windham, 11 Oct. 1794. Add, MSS 37854. fos. 83-84: also Grenville to Thomas Grenville, 15 Sept. 1794. duke of Buckingham and Chandos, , ed., Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George III (London, 1853-1855), II: 301–302.Google Scholar

19 Pitt to Windham, 12 Oct. 1794. Add. MSS 37844. fos. 76-77; Portland to Windham, 19 Oct. 1794, Add. MSS 37845, fo. 61. The real magnitude of the crisis, and the importance of the loaves and fishes of patronage, may be gathered from the correspondence of Burke with Windham. Fitzwilliam, and the lord chancellor between 15 October and 18 November, 1794. in McDowell, R. B., ed., The Correspondence of Edmund Burke (Cambridge, 1972), VIII: 31–80.Google Scholar

20 Pitt to Windham, 16 Oct. 1794, Stanhope, Earl, Life of the Right Honourable William Pitt (London, 1861-1862), II: 289–290Google Scholar; Fitzwilliam to Burke, 18 Nov. 1794, Burke Correspondence, VIII: 78.Google Scholar

21 See Fitzwilliam to the earl of Carlisle, 23 March 1795. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Carlisle (H. M. Stationary Office, 1923), pp. 713–721.Google Scholar

22 George III to Portland, 21 Feb. 1795, Later Correspondence, II: 305.Google Scholar

23 Windham's diary, 15 June 1797, Mrs.Baring, Henry, ed., The Diary of the Right Hon. William Windham, 1784-1810 (London, 1866), pp. 367–368Google Scholar: Adams, Ephriam D., The Influence of Grenville on Pitt's Foreign Policy 1787-1798 (Washington, D. C., 1904), pp. 55–67.Google Scholar

24 Pares, Richard, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953), pp. 155, 161–162.Google Scholar

25 See Pitt to George III, 29 Oct. 1795, Later Correspondence, II: 415–416Google Scholar; Same to Same, 23 Sept. 1796, ibid., pp. 506-507.

26 Richard Fitzpatrick to Lord Holland, n.d., Add. MSS 51799. unfoliated.

27 Williams, Trevor, “The Cabinet in the Eighteenth Century,” History, n.s., XXII (1937-1938): 241.Google Scholar

28 Christie, Ian R., “The Cabinet during the Grenville Administration, 1763-1765,” English Historical Review, LXXIII (1958): 86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Cabinet in the Reign of George III, to 1790,” in Christie, Ian R., Myth and Reality in Late-Eighteenth-Century British Politics and Other Papers (Berkeley, 1970), pp. 55–108.Google Scholar

29 The six efficient officers were Pitt, Grenville, Dundas, Portland, Spencer (Admiralty) and Windham (Secretary at War); the three inefficient offices were those of Lord Chancellor (Loughborough), Lord President (Mansfield and Chatham), and Lord Privy Seal (Chatham and Westmorland); the hermaphrodite was Liverpool, the President of the Board of Trade who sat in cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy; Camden sat in cabinet without an office after his return from Dublin Castle. Two military offices were eliminated from the coalition ministry's cabinet: the Commander-in-Chief of the army in 1795. and the Master-general in 1798.

30 Aspinall, Arthur, The Cabinet Council 1783-1835 (London, 1952), pp. 214–217.Google Scholar

31 See Grenville to Windham, 26 Aug. 1799, Add, MSS 37846, fo. 146.

32 This leaves aside the influence derived from the monarch's control over appointments to household offices and to numerous positions annexed to the properties of the monarchy, as well as that derived from his very pervasive authority in military and ecclesiastical preferment, as these powers bear only indirectly on executive policy-making.

33 Dodd has claimed that Pitt had established that principle with the removal of Lord Chancellor Thurloe. but several years later George III was found, for example, discussing foreign affairs with Portland and Catholic emancipation with Grenville. Dodd, A. H., The Growth of Responsible Government from James I to Victoria (London, 1956), p. 149.Google Scholar

34 Malmeshury's diary, 27 Feb. 1801. Earl of Malmesbury, ed., Diaries and Correspondence of James Harris, First Earl of Malmeshury (London, 1844), IV: 22–23Google Scholar. The only entry in Windham's diary which bears upon this is under 26 Aug. 1800. “Much confidential conversation,” Windham Diary, p. 432.Google Scholar

35 Aspinall, , Cabinet Council, p. 20.Google Scholar

36 Malmesbury's diary, 27 Feb. 1801, Malmeshury Diaries, IV: 22.Google Scholar

37 Aspinall, , Cabinet Council, pp. 237–244Google Scholar; Christie, , Myth and Reality, p. 72.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., pp. 82-84.

39 George III was strongly opposed to the renewal of peace talks in April 1797, but sent “a letter of reluctant acquiescence on the Cabinet being unanimous in proposing the substance of Mr. Pitt's proposition,” Later Correspondence, II: 560 n. 1.Google Scholar

40 It occurred only twice between 1793 and 1801.

41 Aspinall, , Cabinet Council, p. 175 n. 3.Google Scholar

42 Pares, , George III and the Politicians, p. 154.Google Scholar

43 Earl Camden, “Memorandum on Pill's Retirement.” (Kenl Record Office, n.d.), U8400127. printed in Willis, , “William Pitt's Resignation in 1801: Re-examination and Document,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLIV (1971): 255–256Google Scholar (hereafter cited as B.I.H.R.).

44 For the king's first complaint see George III to Dundas, 16 Feb. 1796; Later Correspondence, II: 460Google Scholar. For Pitt's letters see Pitt to George III, 31 Jan. 1798, Later Correspondence, III: 15Google Scholar; 25 July 1798, ibid., p. 99; 5 Dec. 1798, ibid., p. 162; 17 July 1800, ibid., p. 377; 26 July 1800; ibid., p. 384; 21 Oct. 1800, ibid. p. 433; 19 Nov. 1800, ibid., p. 440; 17 Dec. 1800, ibid., p. 452. Pitt's correspondence with the king throughout 1799 was very thin.

45 Pitt to Wilberforce, 30 May 1798, Robert, and Wilberforce, Samuel, The Life of William Wilberforce (London, 1838), II: 281–282.Google Scholar

46 Grenville to Pitt, Oct. 1794, quoted in Rose, John Holland, Pitt and Napoleon: Essays and Letters (London, 1912), p. 260Google Scholar; Grenville to George III, 21 Nov. 1796, Later Correspondence, II: 518Google Scholar; Dundas to George III, 23 Jan. 1797, ibid., p. 537; Same to Same, 12 Sept. 1799, Later Correspondence, III: 266–267Google Scholar; Pitt to Grenville, 20 March 1800, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue (H. M. Stationary Office 1892-1927), VI: 170.Google Scholar

47 Cabinet minutes, 14 and 26 Oct. 1799, Later Correspondence, III: 282, 290.Google Scholar

48 See Grenville to George III, 21 Nov. 1796, Later Correspondence, II: 518.Google Scholar

49 Dundas to George III, 12 Sept. 1799, Later Correspondence, III: 266Google Scholar. The government had decided to augment the regular army with battalions raised from militia volunteers: Dundas proceeded to authorize a Staffordshire battalion to be commanded by Canning's friend Lord Granville Leveson Cower, but the king scotched the project after he heard of it. See Sir William Fawcett to George III, 22 Oct. 1799, and Dundas to Fawcett, 22 Oct. 1799. ibid., pp. 286-288. “The King,” wrote Lady Stafford, “had certainly Reason to be offended that he had not been made acquainted with it before it was known to any but Ministers,” but she hoped that they would “make Allowances for the natural Irritation which might actuate His Majesty to say improper Things.” George III's reaction to finding a colonelcy created without his knowledge was evidently quite abrupt. Lady Stafford to Lord G. L. Gower, 5 Nov. 1799, quoted in Granville, Lady Castalia, ed., Lord Granville Leveson Gower, Private Correspondence 1781 to 1821 (London, 1917), I: 270–271.Google Scholar

50 George III to Grenville, 17 July 1800, Later Correspondence, III: 376.Google Scholar

51 Fortescue, John W., British Statesmen of the Great War I793-1814 (Oxford, 1911), pp. 151–152.Google Scholar

52 George III to Dundas, 25 July 1800, Add. MSS 40100, fo. 257.

53 Dundas to George III, 27 July 1800, and George III to Dundas, 28 July 1800, Later Correspondence, III: 386–387.Google Scholar

54 Pitt to Dundas, 25 July 1800, Clements Library, Pitt MSS.

55 Pitt to Grenville, 26 July 1800, H. M. C., , Fortescue, VI: 278–279.Google Scholar

56 Pitt to George III, 7 June 1800, Later Correspondence, III: 358Google Scholar. See also Bathurst to Wellesley, 28 May I 800, quoted in Benjamin, L. S., ed., The Wellesley Papers (London, 1914), I: 127–120.Google Scholar

57 Thomas, P. D. G., The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1971), pp. 282–330.Google Scholar

58 Ibid., p. 297. See however Watson, J. Steven, “Arthur Onslow and Party Politics,” in Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ed., Essays in British History Presented to Sir Keith Feiling (London, 1965), pp. 139–142.Google Scholar

59 Ziegler, Philip, Addington (London, 1965), p. 80Google Scholar. See also George III to Pitt, 18 June 1800, Later Correspondence, III: 362–363.Google Scholar

60 Rose's diary, 25 Feb. 1801, Rose Diaries, I: 318.Google Scholar

61 Bolton, G. C., The Passing of the Irish Act of Union (Oxford, 1966), p. 173.Google Scholar

62 Camden's, memorandum, B.I.H.R., XLIV: 249.Google Scholar

63 Ibid. Loughborough was taking the waters at Bath during some of these meetings, and it is highly unlikely that he was present when the final decision was made. See George III to Loughborough, II Oct. 1799, Later Correspondence, III: 280.Google Scholar

64 Campbell, Lord John, Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England (London, 1846-1847), VI: 322–326.Google Scholar

65 Glenbervie's diary, 2 Feb. 1801, Bickley, Francis L., ed., The Diaries of Sylvester Dougles, Lord Glenbervie (London, 1928), I: 151–152.Google Scholar

66 Portland to George III, 5 Aug. 1800, Later Correspondence, III: 390–391.Google Scholar

67 Same to Same, 2 Dec. 1800, ibid., pp. 444-445.

68 Camden's, memorandum, B.I.H.R., XLIV: 250.Google Scholar

69 Loughborough to George III, endorsed 13 Dec. 1800. Pellew, George, The Life and Correspondence of the Right Honble. Henry Addington, First Viscount Sidmouth (London, 1847), I: appendix 501-512.Google Scholar

70 Camden's, memorandum: B.I.H.R., XLIV: 251.Google Scholar

71 John Ley to Addington. 16 Jan. 1801, Devonshire Record Office, Sidmouth MSS.

72 Pares, , George III and the Politicians, p. 156 n. 1.Google Scholar

73 Camden's, memorandum, B.I.H.R., XLIV, 251–252.Google Scholar

74 Malmesbury's diary, 9 March 1801, Malmeshury Diaries, IV: 39Google Scholar; Glenbervie's diary, 9 Feb. 1801, Glenbervie Diaries, I: 156–157.Google Scholar

75 George III to Grenville, 6 Feb. 1801, Later Correspondence, III: 486–487Google Scholar; George III to Addington, 7 Feb. 1801, Sidmouth, I: 297.Google Scholar

76 See Fox to Fitzpatrick, 3 Feb. 1801, Add. MSS 47581, fo. 87.

77 Camden's, memorandum. B.I.H.R., XLIV: 253.Google Scholar

78 Pitt to George III, 31 Jan. 1801, Pitt, III: appendix, xxiii-xxviii.

79 Rose to Tomline, 18 Nov. 1801, Suffolk Record Office, Pretyman MSS.