New Shun 1730

In this oligarchy of the big family alliance, distinguishing between "us" and "you" is a clear attitude.

The most famous figure in the Patriot Party who was pushed to the front was William Pitt.

But William Pitt was not the entire Patriot Party.

This Patriot Party, with the three branches of the Temple family and the Pitt family as the core, and with a large number of core members, represented the interests of a group of people in British politics who "had power but could not make a voice" at this time.

This included some famous writers such as Alexander Pope who translated "Iliad" and "Odyssey" into English.

Even in a broad sense, when they formed an anti-Walpole alliance, John Gay, who wrote "The Beggar's Opera"; Swift, who wrote "Gulliver's Travels", were considered peripheral members of the Patriot Party for a period of time.

His initiator was the Field Marshal, and from the creation of the Field Marshal title in Britain to this time, counting George Wade's wave, a total of seven officially awarded marshals.

In addition to the pen holders, the core circle of the Patriot Party also occupied a large number of positions in the court.

Including:

Field Marshal, Richard Temple.

Lord Chancellor, Richard Grenville.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Lyttelton.

Rising star of the Navy, Thomas Grenville.

Treasurer General of the Navy Accounting Department and Pay Office, George Grenville.

And Pitt and Pitt's brother.

We are all relatives, and the relationship is truly one loss and one gain, your sister is my wife, my sister is your wife.

In the early days, they deserved the title of "Patriots" and had clear political ideas.

The political idea is "Britain is the United Kingdom of the English".

In the negotiations with Russia, they played an important role and promoted the Russo-French alliance. Because they firmly opposed giving Russia subsidies to form an Anglo-Russian alliance, because this would make Britain fall too much into the European quagmire.

They opposed the standing army because the standing army meant strengthening the power of the government. They supported the formation of their own legions by various big families and nobles, and believed that the system of buying officials and the ownership of the private army by the head of the regiment were the cornerstones of maintaining British freedom.

They opposed Britain's spending money to hire Hessian mercenaries, believing that Britain's national defense and security should be maintained by family militias, and that Hessian mercenaries always stood on the side of the king. They were hired to be loyal to Hanover, the "treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire", rather than fighting for Britain in legal terms.

Of course, during this period, when they had some basic and clear political demands, they were united.

But with Pitt's coming to power, many things changed.

For example, they strongly opposed subsidies to Russia and strongly opposed intervening in disputes on the European continent, but Pitt could turn around as soon as he came to power, facilitating millions of taels of subsidies to Prussia every year.

And greatly increased the use of Hessian mercenaries and began to train standing armies...

Although, from a realistic point of view, from the perspective of the actual needs of an imperialist, Pitt's actions were understandable.

However, this is completely different from the idea they insisted on at the beginning.

In other words, at the beginning, the Patriot Party was a party with "four families as core members, which could attract peripheral members of the radical Whig Party and the anti-European war faction, and had certain clear political demands."

But with Pitt's coming to power, those Whig members who had united around these four families because of their political ideas saw that Pitt's policies were not much different from what he opposed at the beginning, and naturally withdrew.

So this group of people degenerated into the "snakes hiding underground" in the mouth of George III, a political oligarch family with a family as the core, completely lost its political beliefs and program.

Now, as a core figure, Pitt is facing a huge crisis.

The participation of Dashun in the war led to the complete bankruptcy of Pitt's strategy of "both war and trade", and the systematic collapse of the national economy, which forced the oligarchs of this family to cut off from Pitt.

The court politics is not a chaotic mess without traces, but has a certain logic.

In fact, most of the time, this logic is very vulgar.

From George III's perspective, he couldn't discredit all the Patriots or kick them out completely.

Because kicking them all out would mean that they would form a group outside.

And this group of people originally started out by opposing the government and the prime minister.

Kick them all out, which means that this group of people who were already at odds with each other would form a force again.

So, obviously, the new king must disintegrate the Patriot Party, win over some of them, and cause a split within the Patriot Party.

In this way, after Pitt is gone, he will be a lone man, without the assistance of other families, so the opposition voices in the opposition state will not be so loud.

So, the new king chose George Grenville.

He hoped to use Grenville to complete the division of the Patriot Party.

In turn, the Patriot Party, especially the Temple-Grenville family, now urgently needs to make a certain cut with Pitt.

This cut cannot be a cut without bottom line and backstab.

Because of Pitt's influence, the new king was forced to pinch his nose and use the people around Pitt.

And if Pitt is completely disgraced, has backstabbed too harshly, and has cut too many people, and has completely lost his influence, then the new king will not have to hold his nose and insist on using Grenville.

This is such a mercenary and vulgar truth.

Grenville hoped that Pitt would give the new king a big job after his exit, so as to enhance the value of the rest of the Patriot Party.

Because if a huge job is done, the king and the parliament will be even less likely to throw out Pitt's party - if they throw them all out, they are afraid that they can't stick together and expand their influence outside the government.

Sacrifice you, and the big family will be happy.

After all, they are all relatives. If you go down, don't you still have sons, daughters, and sons-in-law?

As long as the alliance of the whole big family does not fall, can't you make a comeback at any time?

As long as the Channel Fleet can keep the Channel, then everyone can continue to fight internally, with internal fighting as the main and foreign war as the auxiliary; foreign war is the means of internal fighting, and internal fighting is the purpose of foreign war.

As for the destruction of the British economy after Pitt's defeat, firstly, this matter does not seem obvious now. On the contrary, a large number of articles are still arguing the benefits of completely liberalizing tariffs. Secondly, originally, war and trade were both successful, and merchants made money. Now it is the blockade of Dashun and the hijacking of ships plus smuggling. It is unknown whether the future economy will be destroyed. If the war continues, many merchants will be destroyed.

Thirdly, to what extent can we ensure that the future economic destruction that Pitt is worried about will not happen?

The newspapers in the Netherlands have labeled Pitt as "conservative". According to the conservative strategy, that is, to maintain the strategy of the mother country using the Navigation Act to force the colonies to be the market, Britain can no longer go back.

Therefore, everyone believes in Pitt's terrifying predictions about the future and insists on a war that has no hope at all - this hope is not that Britain will be invaded and restored, but that this hope means "under the premise of maintaining the Navigation Act and administrative trade, control over North America, the Caribbean, West Africa, and India, and continue to grab wealth in the old way."

Or, people are more willing to believe some speeches advocating free trade, believing that Britain's navigation regulations and administrative trade have damaged Britain's foundation. Is it time to endure the pain, complete free trade, comparative advantage, silver outflow to increase silver value, and reduce labor costs to be reborn from the ashes?

The key to Britain now is not a tactical victory.

Instead, someone needs to stand up and give a clear strategy and future direction.

Even if this direction cannot stand up to scrutiny, what is important now is not whether the conclusion is right or not, but that people in confusion and despair need a conclusion.

This conclusion, or a clear strategy and future, can be conservative, radical, or humiliating, but what is important is that there is one.

Even if Pitt stood up at this time and said that for the future of Britain, economic control should be implemented, national debts should not be redeemed, paper money should be issued, asset tax should be levied, land tax should be increased from the 10% that was finally suppressed to 20% in the Walpole era, property tax should be levied according to the number of windows, and able-bodied men should be forced to serve in the army... Raise funds, build ships as much as possible, fight back at sea, fight all the way to the Cape of Good Hope, and force the Dashun to retreat east of the Cape of Good Hope...

Even if he said that he would learn from the Liao Dynasty to collect taxes, increase taxes, or impose financial control.

That's fine.

Regardless of whether this thing will be buried tomorrow, it is at least a strategy that sounds promising and has some details.

The problem is that there is no such thing.

There is nothing practical.

Since the siege of Gibraltar, the parliament has been bullshitting all day long, without any detailed, operational methods that take money and national debt into consideration.

Every day, they are either bullshitting, spraying each other, or quarreling.

Pitt shouted at the top of his voice all day long: fight, fight, fight, and keep going.

But he didn't mention a word about the details of taxation, tax increase, financial control, May 1 tax on land, inspection of smuggling warehouses, clearing warehouses of hoarders, etc.

He was a bright feather, a true patriot and guardian of freedom, and he might be until his death.

What about the money? Where does the money come from? How to fight without money? To what extent? How much money would it cost to restore the old trade system and beat Dashun back to Ceylon and Malacca?

In other words, don't mention money. Just talk about the dead. Britain, with a population of 6 million men, women and children, had to fight against the military reform of Dashun, pull out the fortress of Cape Town, the naval base of Mauritius, counterattack India, conquer Temasek, and force Dashun to trade with the British East India Company... How many people would die? Can they afford to die?

He didn't mention a word.

It means "to hold on to the end", "to fight to the end", "to defend our trade, which is the foundation of our strength".

All of them are empty cannons.

They are empty cannons under the path dependence of the conservatives.

The clause that Grenville asked Pitt to present to the cabinet at this time was not an empty cannon, but a direction that at least sounded feasible.