In answer to Tierney, who challenged the ministers to deny that the object of the war was the restoration of monarchy in France, Pitt retorted, in a speech full of passionate eloquence, that its object was security (ib. pp. 1438-47). His hopes of Austria were disappointed, for she was forced to an armistice. Though meeting with strong opposition in the cabinet, he again made overtures for peace during the blockade of Malta. They failed, and Malta surrendered to the British.
The government's financial embarrassments were rapidly growing. Early in 1798 Pitt arranged to receive voluntary contributions to supplement payments due under the triple assessment, and himself contributed 2,000l. in lieu of his legal assessment (Rose, i. 210). In April he rendered the land tax perpetual and subject to redemption, and stock being as low as fifty-six, about a quarter of the charge was redeemed by the end of 1799 (Dowell, iii. 88). His budget of 3 Dec. 1798 showed an excess in supply over the ordinary revenue of more than twenty-three millions. Premising that the amount to be raised by loan should be as small as possible, and that no loan should be greater than could be paid within a limited time, he pointed out the defects of the triple assessment, which, he said, had been shamefully evaded, and proposed that a general tax should be levied on income, beginning with a 120th on incomes of 60l., and rising by degrees until on incomes of 200l. and upwards it reached ten per cent. This, he calculated, would return ten millions, but in 1799 the yield was little more than six (ib. p. 92). His resolutions were carried. He also issued a loan of three millions, and in June 1799 another of fifteen millions (Newmarch). His budget on 24 Feb. 1800 showed estimates for supply amounting to thirty-nine and a half millions, and he announced the contract for a loan of eighteen and a half millions taken by the public at 157l. stock at three per cent, for 100l. money. Although his account of the revenue justified his belief in the growing commercial prosperity (ib. xxxiv. 1515-1519), the wet and cold summer of 1799 had created widespread distress. Wheat rose to 120s. a quarter. Pitt desired to adopt remedial measures, but Grenville argued that artificial contrivances would increase the evil (Stanhope, iii. 244-50). By Pitt's advice there was an early meeting of parliament in 1800 to consider measures for relief. He pointed out that war had no necessary connection with scarcity, and recommended regulation, though he deprecated the suggestion of 'a maximum price of corn' (ib. xxxv. 514-31, 789, 793).
Although Pitt had in 1792 looked on a legislative union with Ireland as the best means of solving the religious difficulty, he did not set himself to carry it out until June 1798, when the rebellion was in progress. His tentative policy towards the catholics, and his want of precision in the Fitzwilliam affair, had helped to increase the ferment in Ireland (Lecky, viii. 281, 285), and the question of the union had become urgent. At first he hoped to effect a union on a basis of emancipation, but he soon doubted whether that would be possible (Castlereagh Correspondence, i. 404, 431 ; Cornwallis Correspondence, ii. 414-18). The cabinet generally was against such a scheme, and Clare [see Fitzgibbon, John, Earl of Clare] persuaded Pitt in October to adopt an exclusively protestant basis for the union. Yet, while yielding to considerations of policy, he was determined that the union should be the means by which the catholics should attain political rights (Life of Wilberforce, ii. 318, 324). On 23 Jan. 1799 he brought proposals for the union before the British House of Commons, and was opposed by Sheridan, whose amendment received no support. He continued the debate on the 31st, when he made an eloquent speech, which he corrected for the press. He held out the prospect that the union would lead to the recognition of the catholic claims, which could not safely be admitted otherwise, and that, after it was effected, emancipation would depend only on the conduct of the catholics and the temper of the times. He ended by moving eight resolutions which were carried. Pitt has been blamed for the means taken by the Irish government to obtain a majority. He has been charged with cynically securing the assent of the Irish parliament to its own dissolution, by recklessly bribing its members. Extensive jobbery was practised by Cornwallis and Castlereagh in accordance with the evil traditions of Irish politics before the union, and Pitt, as prime minister, must be held largely responsible for their doings (Cornwallis Correspondence, iii. 8, 100). But the amount and character of the corruption sanctioned by Pitt have often been exaggerated. Little money was sent from England during the struggle (ib. pp. 34, 151, 156, 184 ; Castlereagh Corresp. iii. 260 ; Lecky, viii. 409 ; Ingram, Irish Union, p. 219), and little, if any, was spent in the purchase of votes. Cornwallis declared it would be bad and dishonourable policy to offer money-bribes. Some Irish members of the opposition vacated their seats during the struggle, induced by money payments, promises, or grants of pensions. The bill disfranchised eighty-four
