ptibility. But other grievances were discovered, and on 12th
July Canning dashed off to Frere a furious missive full of dashes and
underlinings, charging Pitt with showing to him "confidence just enough
to mislead and not enough to guide"; on which promising theme he fired
off clause upon clause of an incoherent sentence which fills thirty-five
lines of print and then expires in a dash. What it was all about is far
from clear, except that Canning believed Pitt to have done "scrupulously
and magnanimously _right_ by everybody but _me_."[624] Before long the
sensitive youth was moving heaven and earth to bring back Pitt to power.
But, even in December 1803, when his whole soul was bound up in him, he
reproached him with lover-like vehemence for having inspired a
derogatory article in the "Accurate Observer." Apparently the wounded
friend had no proof whatever that Pitt had sped or barbed the shaft.

Among those who won Pitt's confidence in his closing years was Spencer
Perceval, an able young barrister, who entered Parliament in 1796 as
member for Northampton, and showed considerable skill in finance and
debating powers of no mean order. "He spoke (says Sinclair) without the
disagreeable cant of the Bar, was never tedious, was peculiarly distinct
in matters of business, and explained his financial measures with
clearness and ability. His style was singularly acute, bold, sarcastic,
and personal." The same authority avers that Pitt, on being asked--"If
we lose you, where could we find a successor?"--answered at once,
"Perceval." The reply is remarkable; for Perceval, besides opposing
Catholic Emancipation, displayed little tact in dealing with men and a
strangely narrow outlook. Probably it was his power of hard work, his
grasp of finance, and his resolute disposition which led Pitt to prefer
him to Canning, who in other respects was far better qualified to act as
leader.

I must here notice charges which have been brought against Pitt, that
his creations of peers, or promotions in the peerage, which by the year
1801 exceeded 140, were fraught with evil to the Upper House, lowering
the intellectual level of its debates, and impairing the balance of
parties, with results damaging to the constitution.[625] It has even
been suggested that the friction between the two Houses in the years
1830-1911 resulted in no small degree from the reckless conduct of Pitt
in this respect. Vague and sweeping assertions like these can neither