New Shun 1730

If William Pitt supported the principles he supported and opposed the war, then, from the perspective of progress, he could undoubtedly be considered a great man.

At least, a progressive who had a beginning and an end, integrated knowledge and action, and had self-consistent logic.

But what he said and what he did were so distorted.

Therefore, among Pitt's enemies, Liu Yu did not think very highly of Pitt, and felt that Pitt was average.

He was simply a Showa staff officer who accidentally planted willows and became a shade, or the kind of opposition in later generations who opposed for the sake of opposition.

On the one hand, as an opposition, Pitt strongly opposed the tax system, consumption tax searches, agricultural taxes, and liquor taxes.

On the other hand, after Pitt came to power, he radically expanded the war. In history, when France could not hold on, Pitt wanted to declare war on Spain, fight the war from Manila to Canada, and fight until France completely gave up the fishing rights in Newfoundland... He wanted to continue to expand the army, continue to fight, and continue to maintain a huge fleet and military expenditures.

Where did the money come from?

When Pitt stood up and said that the wind can come in and the rain can come in, he was righteous.

Didn't he know that the search for illegal liquor caused by the collection of liquor tax was to ease the debt of 450 million taels of silver owed by the treasury. This money was earned by fighting wars, expanding the army, expanding the fleet to the sum of Spain and France, and investing tens of thousands of troops in North America when he was in charge of the cabinet?

Pitt opposed the standing army.

But wasn't the standing army expanded because of the total war he supported?

Pitt opposed oppression of North America.

But wasn't "maintaining the authority of the British Parliament" what he pursued on the stage? Wasn't the North American Parliament that the North Americans wanted exactly what he absolutely opposed and believed would undermine the authority of the London Parliament he controlled? Didn't he know that if the North American Parliament and the British Parliament coexisted, the British Parliament would lose its real authority?

Pitt opposed Walpole's tax policy and satirized Walpole's defeat in the war against Spain.

But in fact, "Is this still Britain, is this the country with more great fleets than other countries? Why not go to war?" Isn't this the incitement and fanaticism of Pitt's speech during the Jenkins Ear incident? The subsequent tax increase, the dissatisfaction of the land nobles with the high land tax, and the East India Company's tail being too big to be removed because Parliament had to increase the monopoly period for the East India Company because it had to buy national debts, aren't these the financial problems after he incited the war?

Pitt opposed stationing troops in North America, believing that this would cause dissatisfaction in North America.

But wasn't the issue of stationing troops in North America caused by his increase in standing troops and large-scale transportation of troops to North America during the Seven Years' War, as well as the subsequent brutal massacre of Puritans that led to the Indian uprising, which led to the inability to resettle 1,500 officers after the war and the need to ask North America to provide military expenses?

Pitt believed that the resistance in North America was caused by the incompetence and mistakes of the cabinet, and had nothing to do with him.

But isn't North America's opposition to the issue of garrisons due to the fact that he ate Canada, which led to the reason that "garrisons to protect North America to prevent French and Catholic invasions" no longer needed by North Americans, because France had completely gone and the Indian uprising had been suppressed?

Pitt shouted that he was the representative of the will of the common people and portrayed himself as a great commoner.

But didn't he turn around and accept the noble titles of Earl of Chatham and Viscount Burton Pinsent?

It seems magical, but from the perspective of class, many things are very clear.

What Pitt represented was nothing more than the interests of British commercial capital.

This was the case with opposing the "Consumption Tax", supporting the war against Spain, supporting the global colonial strategy, opposing the reduction of land taxes, and supporting the extension of the East India Company's monopoly.

Even if he said something ridiculous.

Or perhaps, when he was young, he really had the ideal of "making everyone a noble and protecting their castles from being invaded by the royal power."

But who hasn't been young?

In the final analysis, it is still the old Ma's evaluation:

[They consider themselves to be the unique managers of the income of the British Empire. As long as they still regard the monopoly of power as their hereditary property, they can give up other monopolies created for them. ]

[The only characteristic of Whigism is to try to maintain its hereditary oligarchy. As for the interests and principles that the Whig Party sometimes defends, they are not its own, but imposed on it by the development of the industrial and commercial class, that is, the development of the bourgeoisie. ]

Grenville's defection at this time is like this; Pitt's previous fanatical support for the war is also the same.

It's just that the war he fanatically supports now has unexpected results.

The interests of national debt holders, ship owners of the West India Chamber of Commerce, smugglers, merchants, monopoly merchants... have all been damaged.

The participation of Dashun in the war made the national debt precarious and lost trust.

The fulcrum of Senegal made every transportation of slave traders face the threat of hijacking.

The Dashun armed merchant ships and cruisers in the Caribbean attacked from all directions with Havana as the center, causing heavy losses to merchants in the West Indies.

The huge amount of goods caused the smuggling groups in North America to split. The channels for goods that were originally monopolized by the smuggling groups were replaced by Dashun; while those who sold on the shore welcomed the Dashun smuggling ships.

In the miracle year of the war, all merchants believed that it would be better if they continued to fight.

War, all-out war, will lead to larger colonies, larger markets, and broader trade.

At that time, the call for war overwhelmed everything.

But now, the people who originally supported Pete have all come out to oppose him. It’s not because of anything else, but because of me, Pete’s policies did not bring them more wealth. They only brought bankruptcy, stock cuts, capital outflow, stock depreciation, and bank runs.

The huge national debt needs to be repaid. These realistic situations are before us. What answer can Pete give?

As Grenville said: The good reputation belongs to you, you who are patriotic, you who oppose tax increases, and you who oppose raids and smuggling. But the issues of national debt, tax increases, and peace treaty negotiations were left to the successors.

You pat your butt and leave, who will pick up the mess?

It’s not that there aren’t people who are willing to come forward, but the question is who will come forward. When the time comes, Pitt will act as an opposition in the audience, and he will definitely be doing it again.

Peace talks and armistices will call out cowards and traitors.

Raising taxes and paying off debts will slander the people and violate tradition.

Raising taxes on North America would lead to the separation of Britain and the United States.

Dismantling the troops stationed in North America will abuse the heroes who serve the country.

Inspecting smuggling will violate tradition.

Failure to investigate smuggling will lead to corruption and incompetence.

If North America agrees to form its own parliament equal to London, it will be criticized for strengthening the royal power and betraying the parliament.

If you do not agree that North America should form its own parliament equal to London, you will be criticized for being responsible for the separation of North America.

As a core member of the "Little Patriots", Grenville is extremely familiar with this routine.

After all, they had gained their fame by criticizing Walpole's policies. Moreover, Grenville knew very well what Pitt meant when he said that "influence in the House of Commons comes from opposition to the government."

Facing Peter, after expressing his dissatisfaction, Grenville said something more practical.

"The Fall of Gibraltar, the officers who were sent back first had John Mordaunt's suicide note in their hands."

"The content in the letter is very detrimental to you."

"The mood in the country is also very bad now."

"The Tories hate you for disrupting land tax cuts."

"The Whigs thought that you had too much power in Parliament, that you were already tending to centralize power, and that you were shaping a government that would do the bidding of the Pitts and Temples."

"Our new king, you should know, he has been instilled with the idea that 'Pitt had the blackest of hearts.' You have a black heart, a heart that tries to use legal and popular methods to make the Pitt family and the Temple family do legal Cromwell’s Black Heart.”

"What is even more heartbreaking is the public opinion and sentiment in the country."

"Some people believe that your fanatical and radical ocean strategy has touched the bottom line of security of the Chinese Empire, so they sent troops to defend their bottom line of security."

"Other people, influenced by the foreign ministers behind the scenes of the Eastern Empire, believe that tariffs are the root cause of all problems."

"The whole of Britain is now in a precarious and dangerous situation."

"The threat of landing has not been eliminated, and the Jacobites have still not given up their last hope to land in Scotland with the help of the Chinese and French."

"The national debt is also in danger, and those who have purchased a large amount of national debt urgently need the government to provide a credible method of repayment."

"The capital chain of the East India Company has been broken, and all their trade in the East has been cut off. The trading posts in Persia, India, and Turkey have been occupied; the slave trade in West Africa cannot be carried out."

"At times like this, of course we need to fight to the end, but the people need to know how far we are going to fight."

"At least, the people need to know whether our new king will still take Hanover so seriously. At least, if we give up Hanover, people will believe that we can defend Britain's core interests."

"They were willing to fight, in every village and on every coast of England, and to give their lives in defense of the established religion."

"But they no longer want to bleed for Hanover or pay taxes for the thirteen states."

"They are willing to fight, but they need to know where the glimmer of peace is."

Peter was keenly aware of the meaning of Grenville's words and asked: "What do you mean?"

Grenville didn't answer, just remained silent.

What he means is actually very simple.

Since you have not resigned yet and since you are still in charge of the military and government, you need to come up with a clear plan.

Especially at this time of the new king's accession to the throne.

If you don't give up Hanover and the king's deluded Tory ideas of monarchy, then you resign.

Make it clear that you will continue to fight and fight to the last man.

But the purpose of the battle is to defend the state religion and the freedom of England, not to defend the interests of the smugglers, to defend the monopoly interests of the East India Company, or to pay to fight the French in distant North America, let alone to fight for Hanover. Fight to the end.

Fighting to the end means "there is a certain bottom line, and we will fight to the end for the core interests of this bottom line, instead of continuing to fall into this endless world war for things other than this core interest."

This is the most appropriate thing for Peter to say.

Grenville hoped that he could inherit Pitt's mantle and political legacy but divest himself of Pitt's bad legacy.

Because, in his opinion, Pitt was already politically dead.

Rather than leaving silently like this, it is better to complete some things that are difficult to complete before leaving.

Completely cut off the relationship between the king and Germany, completely block the tendency of the king's power to expand again, and take the opportunity to destroy the people around the king, such as John Stuart, a friend of the king's mother and his teacher of monarchical thought.

He was a Tory, a royalist, and... a Scotsman.

The most important thing now is not the invasion and war of France and China, because the navy has enough confidence to defend the Channel, but to destroy the possibility of the Scots becoming prime minister.

If Pitt proposed a "bottom line" of "fighting to the end" and a "bottom line" of "repaying the national debt" at this time.

In this way, the ball is kicked to the king's side.

Either accept it.

Or refuse it.

Accept it, either go to Hanover, or give up a lot of royal power, continue the rule of the Whig oligarchs, and avoid the most dangerous restoration of the monarchy.

If he refused, it would mean that he could only rely on John Stuart to form a cabinet, and he would have to come up with his own solution after rejecting Pitt's proposal. By then, the whole of England would oppose it, and no one would take over this mess. All the problems would have to be borne by the king and John Stuart.