The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-07

BY which alone such triumphs oan DO won
Il c6nnot be laid 10 bis charge that he pre-
ferred bad commanders whom no might
have had good: he simply had no good
commanders 10 employ. He really never
saw a man OF military talent until a few
months before bis death. and then he recoE-
nlzed him at once. Then, again, Pitt had
70 contend with people maddened 70 e1-
traordinary efforts by revolutionary frenzy,
and In the latter part Of his administration,
with the ovsrmastering genius Of Napoleon,
while for allies he had rotten, antiquated
Governments too much eaten up by mutual
Jealousy TO work well together, and too
much fettered by routine 10 work efficiently
at all. He could furnish money freely
and contribute naval victories In abundance,
but he could not subsldizs the Aulio Council
with energy, or the Prussian Court with
courage, or the Russian Emperor with COM
mon sense.
Lord Salisbury maintains that In common
justice, II Pitt s to bear the full blame
, Of England's military failures during his
administration, he should have all the glory
Of England's naval triumphs. He thinks
that Lord Macaulay's Il a Lesbian rue.
When the army and It's success are In ques-
ton, the Prime Minister Il all IN all, and the
War Once is ignored. When the victories
Of the navy are disposed Of, the Prime Mn
lister suddenly becomes q cipher, and every
thing depends upon the Admiralty. When
| operations succeed, the subordinate Min
ister is praised when they fall, the Prime
Minister IL blamed Why was Maoaulay
guilty Of such inconsistency Lord Sails
bury answers: the Prime Minister was
Pitt, FoK's great opponent; the First LORD
Of the Admiralty was Lord Spencer, Tor
long time Fox's stanohest friend. II u not
thus be adds, that posterity will judge
They will not accommodate their verdict TO
the interests Of the great Wing connection.
II must be granted that where Pitt had
none but worthless instruments 70 work
with be achieved little and that where he
was forced to hght with the arms OF foreign
ers he lamentably failed Lord Sails
bury points out, however, that in spite Of
these drawbacks II was under Pitts ad-
mInistration that England achieved some
| Of her most splendid victories, and tded
over the crisis Of the deadliest struggle
| in which she has ever been engaged. His
tory will never shgmatize as inglorious
q rule under which the First Of June, st.
Vincent the Nile, Camperdown. Copen-
hagen and Trafalgar were won IL Is true
that Copenhagen and Alexandria were
actually won in the commencement OF
Addington's administration. but, as Lord
Salisbury reminds us, the expeditions were
planned, prepared and despatched by Pitt.
It is obvious enough that, had 1t not been
| for Pitts untimely death, the world would
have heard less Of the failures Of his war
administration. II he had been allowed
TO gather the natural fruit OF his own policy
he would have enjoyed the glory Of 1t as
a whole. He would have earned his due
share Of the renown with which England
emerged from the long, exhausting trial
through whose earlier and darker stages
be had guided her. He was only suffered,
however, to lay the foundations on which
others built He sowed that others might
reap. By strange injustice his memory
has been reproached with the luxuriancC
Of the harvest which he himself prepared.