Dalton's Life of Thomas Pitt, Chapter 5

Dalton has relatively little to go on for his un-imaginatively titled chapter, Ten years in England. As a result, he yields to the temptation to spin out what speculations he can.

Unreliable dates

In 1688 he bought from James Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, the manor of Stratford under the Castle, and was returned as member for Old Sarum in the election of the Convention Parliament, and for New Sarum (Salisbury) in the Parliament of 1690. In 1691 he became the owner of the site of Old Sarum, and the votes attached to it, thereby securing the representation of the borough for himself and his heirs. p. 69

In fact his election in 1690 at Old Sarum was overturned. He did not gain control of that borough until a later date, and the last contested election there was not until 1705.

Question of motivation

Dalton gives examples of Thomas Pitt's interest in maintaining estates, planting trees and the country life, concluding:

.. his chief ambition seems to have been to found a branch of the Pitt family not inferior in position to that occupied by the head of the Dorset Pitts, Sir George Pitt of Strathfieldsaye. There is good reason to believe that at this period of his life, he would have been contented with the realisation of this desire, had not circumstances arisen that rendered it necessary for him, if he was to maintain the position that he had won, to embark once more on an adventurous career, from which he derived so great an accession of wealth, that the scope of his ambition became thereafter greatly extended. p. 74

(FP note) Dalton's argument here seems to be that Pitt would not have wanted more money if he had not lost money, which spurred him on to gain so much money, that he surpassed the level of wealth he had had, when he didn't want more, up to the heights of the really rich where money has the opposite effect and makes him want even more. An alternative would be to suppose that he steadily wanted to become richer. In 1693 an opportunity presented itself and he took it, with the result that he stepped up to being chosen as Governor of Madras. When he set out to become even richer.

Was Thomas Pitt taken prisoner by the French?

Having postulated a loss as necessary for motivation, Dalton is led to claim a basis in fact for an old story about Pitt being brought to ruin after being captured off the French coast. This story derives from a rather vague statement in the memoirs of the first Baron Camelford, also called Thomas Pitt but the great-grandson of Diamond Pitt. This obscure work is a hand-written notebook held in the British Library, which Camelford wrote in 1781 or so as a private account of some Family characters and anecdotes. Dalton quotes the relevant passage:

I have heard, but at what period of his life I know not, that having accomplished such a sum as he thought would enable him to pass the remainder of his days in peace, he was taken prisoner together with the greatest part of his effects on his return to England, and released at the intercession of the Duchess of Portsmouth, who was then in France. He went back to India, and made in a shorter time a much larger fortune from the credit he had established and the experience he had acquired. p. 74

The duchess of Portsmouth was Louise de Kéroualle, who had been the mistress of Charles II of England and simultaneously a paid agent of the king of France. After Charles died, she returned to France, where she was made duchess of Aubigny in Brittany and led a life mostly of retirement. The connection, if any, between her and Thomas Pitt is unknown.

(FP note) In fact, Camelford does not explicitly say that the capture made Pitt's last voyage to India necessary, but he does seem to link them. Although he would have had personal effects, perhaps of some value, Pitt's wealth was mainly in real estate and shares in trading ventures, so being physically captured would not directly result in his becoming impoverished. It is possible to believe he was captured, and did need rescue, perhaps a ransom, but it is hard to believe this reduced his wealth level significantly.

(FP note) Where did Camelford get his information? He was born in 1737, by which time his great-grandfather Diamond Pitt was dead, and so were almost all his children. As far as I can trace, the only living son was John Pitt, the good-for-nothing colonel, as his father is supposed to have called him. Camelford knew him, and wrote of him that he contrived to sacrifice his health, his honour, and his fortune, to a flow of libertinism, which dashed the fairest prospects.. John was also notably angry with his father, having been cut out of the will. Apart from him, two other potential sources are the grandsons, Robert Pitt's two sons, Thomas (of Boconnoc) and William (the Elder). As children they might have heard their grandfather telling tales about his past. But how reliable these are is uncertain, especially when passed on and repeated by Camelford some decades later.

Dalton continues:

Letters of marque are still extant, which show that he was associated with other merchants in the equipping of at least one privateer, which was to prey on French ships.

(FP note) Dalton refers here to the Arcana Galley, a story I have covered elsewhere. He gives a reference to a work by von Ruville, which when followed up contains a reference (to English official records) which is unfortunately incorrect. Unlike some authors, I do not believe that Pitt sailed on the Arcana. The extant evidence shows he had shares in it as a business venture, which is more plausible.

He had been brought up as a sailor.

(FP note) As I've argued elsewhere, this is a widespread mis-apprehension, and can largely be traced to a single aside by Henry Yule based on an incomplete picture.

Dalton does plausibly date the supposed incident to the period of the war with France:

On the 30th of June 1689, the English and Dutch fleets had been defeated at Beachy Head, and the command of the Channel was not regained until the victory of La Hogue in 1691. Throughout this war French and English privateers swarmed in the narrow seas preying on the commerce of the two nations. If ever Thomas Pitt was taken prisoner by the French, it must have been during this war. p. 75

(FP note) In fact, although the French fleet was heavily defeated at La Hogue, their response was to intensify commerce raiding, the guerre à course. Such activity was a notable feature of this war. As the fleet was wound down (defunded we would say nowadays!), sailors were discharged and found employment on privateer vessels operating out of ports all along the channel coast, two of the most notorious being St. Malo and Dunkirk. Therefore, the potential window for an incident should be widened to include the period after 1691, up to 1693 when Pitt is known to have sailed for India.

Even if (as I maintain) Tom Pitt was not out on the high seas as a raider, except by proxy, Dalton does cite some interesting correspondence with the EIC suggesting they had employed him as a go-between in negotiations for captured ships on more than one occasion at the relevant period. Thus the possibility of his having got into some scrape in or around Brittany that required Kéroualle's intercession (however they were connected) cannot be entirely discounted. If there had been such an incident, it may have been the origin of the idea that he actually suffered such a loss that it motivated his next voyage:

Had no such serious financial reverse befallen him towards the end of his ten years' residence in England as seems probable not only from that tradition [of his capture] but also from the reference in the inscription on his father's monument to the utriusque fortunae vices which he is there recorded to have undegone, what were the motives which induced him, a wealthy member of Parliament, whose political party was in the ascendant, to throw up his pleasant life in England and to face again the sordid and hazardous hardships and indignities of the interloping trade? p. 76

(FP note) Pitt's journey had its hazards, true, but he faced few hardships and certainly little if any indignity, given that in Bengal he could live in luxury and be carried about in a palankeen with an armed retinue. If he felt like making a show, he would be preceded by trumpeters, and was generally treated like nobility. Furthermore, throughout his life, he was known to complain about the vast losses he had suffered at every turn. Yet generally turned out to have done very well for himself.

Thomas Pitt's monument to his father

Yule has the full inscription from the monument, starting at page xxvi of Diary of William Hedges Vol. 3:

Haec inscriptionem post quam hanc sacrum aedem instauraverat, ornavit honoratus Thomas Pitt armiger, defuncti filius natu secundus, qui post varias utriusque fortunae vices, et multis terra marique exantlatos labores, demum opibus et honoribus auctus, et in hanc sedem natalum redux, erga Patrem Caelestem et terrestrem, Pietatis suas duplex erexit monumentum. Anno domini 1712.

My translation (with some help from machines):

This inscription was set up, after this sacred house was established, by the honourable Thomas Pitt esquire, second son of the deceased, who, after various reversals of fortune in both directions, having endured labours by land and sea, in the end having grown in riches and honours, has returned to this seat of his birth and erected a double monument of Piety to his Fathers, Heavenly and earthly. Year 1712.

(FP note) The part which Dalton is interpreting, utriusque fortunae vices means something like reversals of fortune in both directions. It is used here very generally to sum up the course of Pitt's life, along with some labours overseas and returning home rich. As a general statement without context, it doesn't provide any evidence for the French capture story.

Conclusion: The case for there being a life-changing event which financially compelled him to hazard a return to India is unconvincing. Possibly he himself would have enjoyed spreading such a rumour, or it may be a mis-remembered tale heard by a young grandson repeated in garbled form a generation later.

Dowgate Association

Dalton analyses the position of the existing EIC in the 1690s, calling attention to the decades-long struggle with influential London merchants, and saying it was now moving from the law courts into Parliament. In 1689 a committee was formed to look into the India trade, and its report proposed forming a new company, but Parliament was dissolved before this could be put into action.

An association of merchants had however at once been established for concerted action against the Old Company, and what was practically a New Company had been organised, with a subscribed capital of £180,000, Skinners' Hall in Dowgate having been secured as their headquarters. p. 78

The Commons petition the King to dissolve the old Company and establish a new one. William suggests the compromise of enlarging the stock, i.e. allowing a fresh subscription to newly-created stock in the existing Company. The Company rejects this.

The Commons again petition for dissolution, according to Dalton in Feb 1693, but:

The King had come to no decision on this question before he left London in the following month on his Dutch campaign for that year. p. 78

This suggests William departing in March, but we know (from Luttrell) that he was in Kensington on 1 April 1693, when Thomas Pitt was petitioning for leave to take ship on his interloping voyage. Dalton wonders why the company was not forced to come to terms with its rivals, and puts it down to Sir Josiah Child's bribery campaign and the king's distraction by war.

For it [the EIC] was extremely unpopular, and the New Association had the whip hand of it in the House of Commons. p. 79