William Pitt and national revival

by J. Holland Rose

FOOTNOTES

[1] Baines, “Hist. of Cotton Manufacture,” 226, 232–4. See Mr. G. P. Gooch’s “Politics and Culture,” for other coincidences.

[2] The first trustworthy statistics of population were obtained in the census of 1801; but those given above are probably not very wide of the mark. The estimates are those of Rickman, quoted by Porter, “Progress of the Nation,” 13. The estimate of the “Statistical Journal” (xliii, 462), quoted by Dr. Cunningham, “Eng. Industry and Commerce,” 699, is 7,953,000 for the year 1780.

[3] See Walter’s “Origin of Commerce,” iv, 401, for a full statement of this juggling with the nation’s finance.

[4] “Diary of a Journey to England (1761–62),” by Count F. von Kielmansegge, 237.

[5] “The Coltness Collections,” 116, quoted by J. H. Jesse; “Memoirs of the Reign of George III,” i, 29.

[6] “Mems. of Queen Charlotte,” by J. Watkins, 1819, pt. i, ch. x. The Duchess of Devonshire had flaunted a head-plume of an ell and three inches.

[7] See an excellent study, “Personal and Party Government (1760–1766),” by Mr. D. A. Winstanley, 1910.

[8] “Corresp. of George III with Lord North,” ii, 323; Wraxall, i, 347.

[9] “F. O.,” Prussia, 15, Carmarthen to Ewart, 6th January 1789.

[10] For the influence exerted by George III on elections see Porritt, “The Unreformed House of Commons,” i, 409–15.

[11] Pitt MSS., 195, pt. ii.

[12] B. M. Add. MSS., 28062. Pitt’s answer is not among these papers. But Dr. Jackson did not gain the bishopric.

[13] Lecky, v, 26.

[14] Montesquieu, “Esprit des Lois,” bk. viii, ch. v.

[15] See Sidney and Beatrice Webb, “The Parish and the County,” bk. i, ch. iv; bk. ii, ch. ii; Boutmy, “The Eng. Constitution” (Eng. edit.), pt. iii, sect. 3.

[16] Howell, State Trials, xxiii, 231.

[17] Delavoye, “Life of T. Graham,” 87.

[18] “Letters from Lady Jane Coke to her friend, Mrs. Eyre, at Derby (1747–58).”

[19] C. P. Moritz, “Travels in England in 1782”; W. Wales, “Inquiry into the ... Population of England” (1781), estimated the number of houses in London at 100,000, and the population at 650,000.

[20] See, too, Wroth’s “London Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century.”

[21] See [ch. xx] of this volume for details; also T. Clarkson’s “Hist. of the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” especially chs. xvii, xviii; and Prof. Ramsay Muir’s “Hist. of Liverpool,” ch. xii.

[22] “Hamlet,” i, sc. 4.

[23] “Wealth of Nations,” bk. iv, ch. iii, pt. 2.

[24] H. Twiss, “Life of Lord Eldon,” vol. i, ch. ii.

[25] H. Walpole, “Letters,” viii, 395.

[26] “Mems. of Queen Charlotte,” 203.

[27] See the new letter of Hugh Elliot to Pitt from Brighthelmstone, 17th Oct. 1785, quoted in [ch. xvii], as to the danger of the Prince losing his life if he did not amend his ways.

[28] “Mems. of Queen Charlotte,” 187.

[29] “Travels in England in 1782,” by C. P. Moritz (Eng. trans., 1895), 53.

[30] Rousseau, “Social Contract,” bk. iii, ch. xv.

[31] Dr. Cunningham, “Eng. Industry and Commerce,” pt. ii, 546, 698.

[32] Quoted by Baines, “History of the Cotton Manufacture,” 334.

[33] W. Wales, op. cit., 5.

[34] “Origin of Power-loom Weaving,” by W. Radcliffe, 59 et seq.

[35] In Pitt MSS., 221, is a petition signed by many persons connected with the navy in favour of granting a pension to Mr. Cort, who had made “malleable iron with raw pit-coal, and manufactured the same by means of grooved rollers, by a process of his own invention.” The petitioners state that though the invention had brought no benefit to Cort, but rather the reverse, yet it had proved to be of national importance.

[36] W. Wales, op. cit., 44 et seq., enumerates several cases where the rural population declined, but he attributed that fact not to the enclosures (for he states that the enclosures of wastes, which were more numerous than those of the open fields, increased employment), but rather to the refusal of landlords to build cottages, though they charged higher rents than before. For the question of enclosures, however, see Dr. Gilbert Slater’s recent work on the subject (Constable and Co., 1907).

[37] See Dr. von Ruville’s work, “William Pitt, Earl of Chatham” (Eng. ed., 3 vols. 1907), for a full account of these forbears.

[38] Ruville, i, 343–6.

[39] Ibid., 345. Pitt finally bought about 100 acres, and further strained his resources by extensive building at Hayes.

[40] “Pitt, some Chapters of his Life and Times,” by Lord Ashbourne, 161–6.

[41] “The Life of William Wilberforce,” by his Sons, i, 304.

[42] Pitt MSS., 11 and 13.

[43] Stanhope, ii, 125.

[44] “Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham,” iii, 27.

[45] Notes by Bishop Tomline in the Pretyman MSS., Orwell Park.

[46] Lord Fitzmaurice, “Life of Shelburne,” i, 72. See also two articles on the early life of the elder Pitt in the “Edinburgh Review” for 1910.

[47] “Chatham Corresp.,” iii, 65.

[48] “Chatham Corresp.,” iv, 538.

[49] Pitt MSS., 11.

[50] “Chatham Corresp.,” iv, 363.

[51] Pitt MSS., 101. The disuse of past participles was a characteristic of that age. To write “rode” for “ridden” after the auxiliary verb was no more noticeable a defect than to walk unsteadily after dinner. One other early letter of Pitt’s bears date 1772 at Lyme Regis, and refers to some fun which he and his brothers and sisters had had on a cutter yacht. Another letter undated, but in Pitt’s round schoolboy hand, to a gentleman of Somerset, refers to sporting matters such as the lack of hares and the inability of his brother to catch those which he does start (Pitt MSS., 102).

[52] From Mr. A. M. Broadley’s MSS.

[53] By the kindness of the Countess Stanhope I was allowed to peruse this most interesting MS., which is preserved, along with many other Pitt treasures, at Chevening.

[54] Pellew, “Sidmouth,” i, 28.

[55] Ashbourne, op. cit., 7–8.

[56] “Diary of Thomas Moore,” vol. v.

[57] Pitt MSS., 11.

[58] Ibid.

[59] One remembers here the terrifying remark of Lord Acton that the mass of documents which the modern historian must consult inevitably tells against style.

[60] See an interesting fragment, “Bishop Tomline’s Estimate of Pitt,” by the Earl of Rosebery (London, 1903), also in the “Monthly Review” for August 1903.

[61] Dr. Pretyman was chaplain to George III, and later on Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of St. Paul’s.

[62] Pitt MSS., 196. The notes and diagrams refer to the movement of bodies considered dynamically: there are also some problems in algebra. More numerous are the notes on English History, especially on the parliamentary crises of the years 1603–27, where, unfortunately, they break off. I have also found notes on Plutarch, and translations of the speech of Germanicus in Tacitus (“Annals,” Bk. I), and of parts of the Second Philippic.

[63] His books went in large measure to Bishop Pretyman (Tomline), and many of them are in the library of Orwell Park.

[64] “Chatham Corresp.,” iv, 289.

[65] Chevening MSS.

[66] Pretyman MSS., quoted by Lord Ashbourne, op. cit., 31, note.

[67] “Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 65.

[68] “Chatham Corresp.” iv, 376, 377.

[69] Macaulay, “Miscellaneous Writings” (Essay on William Pitt).

[70] Macaulay, “Miscellaneous Writings” (Essay on William Pitt), iv, 510.

[71] “Corresp. of George III with Lord North,” ii, 154 (17th March 1778).

[72] “Corresp. of George III with Lord North,” ii, 184.

[73] Pitt MSS., 12.

[74] Ashbourne, op. cit., 161, 162.

[75] See Porritt, “The Unreformed House of Commons,” i, ch. ix, on the exclusion of poor men from Parliament.

[76] Letter of 3rd July 1779. Stanhope, i, 31.

[77] Chevening MSS.

[78] Pitt MSS., 182.

[79] “The Black Book of Lincoln’s Inn,” iv, Preface.

[80] “Life of Burke,” by R. Bissett (1800), ii, 55–66.

[81] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 67–72.

[82] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 83.

[83] “Black Book of Lincoln’s Inn,” iv, Preface; “Bland Burges Papers,” 58.

[84] “Bland Burges Papers,” 60, 61.

[85] “Life of William Pitt,” by Henry Cleland (1807).

[86] As a rule, Lowther exacted strict obedience from his nominees. In 1788 he compelled them to vote against Pitt on the Regency Question.

[87] Hansard, cliii, 1056, 1057.

[88] Porritt, i, 315–7.

[89] Burke, “Thoughts on the present Discontents” (1770).

[90] For details of bribery see May, “Constitutional History,” i, 313–27; Porritt, i, 414–20.

[91] “Life of Romilly,” i, 141.

[92] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 37, 38.

[93] Selwyn, p. 140.

[94] “Reminiscences of Charles Butler,” i, 172.

[95] Wraxall, “Memoirs,” ii, 62; G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 28.

[96] Lecky, “Hist. of England in the XVIIIth Cent.,” iv, 228–34, does not absolve Shelburne of the charge of duplicity in the matter of the negotiations for peace; but Sir G. C. Lewis, “Administrations of Great Britain,” 31–48, minimizes the importance of the point at issue.

[97] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 118–21.

[98] “Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 79.

[99] Cartwright, “Take your Choice” (1776). In 1780 Cartwright founded “The Society for promoting Constitutional Information,” the first of the modern clubs that was purely political.

[100] “The Speeches of William Pitt” (4 vols., 1806), i, 1–7.

[101] “George Selwyn: his Letters and his Life,” p. 132 (Storer to Lord Carlisle, Feb. 28, 1781). He adds that Woodfall reported the debates “almost always faithfully.” I therefore see no reason for refraining, as Earl Stanhope did, from citing many passages of his speeches, on the ground that they were very imperfectly reported.

[102] Ibid., p. 143.

[103] These images are curiously like those used by Lord Shelburne on 25th January 1781. See Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 120.

[104] Both letters are among the Chevening MSS.

[105] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 17.

[106] Ibid., v, 292.

[107] Ashbourne, p. 159.

[108] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 68.

[109] Lord Waldegrave’s “Memoirs,” p. 63.

[110] Pitt MSS., 103.

[111] Nicholl, “Recollections of George III,” i, 389.

[112] Porritt, i, 409–15.

[113] See May’s “Const. History,” i, 315 et seq. for the increase of the Secret Service Fund under George III.

[114] Malmesbury Diaries, iii, 8.

[115] Wraxall, ii, 434–5 (3rd edit.).

[116] “Letters of George III to Lord North,” ii, 336.

[117] “Life of Romilly,” i, 135.

[118] Stanhope, i, 67.

[119] May, “Const. History,” i, 458.

[120] Rockingham, “Memoirs,” ii, 452–3.

[121] Speech of 7th February 1782 (“Parl. Hist.,” xxii, p. 987).

[122] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 136.

[123] “Dropmore P.,” i, 163; Lecky, iv ad fin.

[124] Hood, Rodney’s second in command, asserted that if Rodney had fought and pursued vigorously he would have taken not five but twenty French ships of the line. See “Rodney’s Letters and Despatches,” ed. by D. Hannay for the Navy Records Society, p. 103.

[125] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 1.

[126] “Life of Romilly,” i, 162. Romilly, who was present, quotes a sentence of the speech, which did not appear in the official report: “This House is not the representative of the people of Great Britain; it is the representative of nominal boroughs, of ruined and exterminated towns, of noble families, of wealthy individuals, of foreign potentates.”

[127] “Speeches of Lord Erskine” (edit. of 1880), p. 293; “The Papers of Christopher Wyvil,” i, 424–5; State Trials, xxii, 492–4.

[128] See Mahon, “Hist. of England,” vii, 17; Porritt, i, 217.

[129] “Buckingham Papers,” i, 50.

[130] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 163.

[131] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 175; “Life of Romilly,” i, 173. Fox had announced to the Cabinet his intention of resigning a few days before Rockingham’s death. See the “Memorials of Fox,” i, 435 et seq.

[132] Sir G. C. Lewis, “Administrations of Great Britain,” pp. 31–48.

[133] Lecky, iv, 239. The original Cabinet numbered five Rockingham Whigs and five Shelburne Whigs.

[134] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” vol. iii, chs. iv-vi.

[135] “Buckingham Papers,” i, 76.

[136] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 305; Stanhope, “Pitt,” i, 86.

[137] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 265.

[138] Keppel resigned on the question of the terms of peace; the Duke of Richmond disapproved them; Grafton was lukewarm. See their speeches, 17th February 1783 (“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 392–6). W. W. Grenville refused to move the resolution in the Commons in favour of the peace, as Pitt urged him to do (“Dropmore P.,” i, 194).

[139] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 33.

[140] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 37, 38; “Auckland Journals,” i, 40–5. Lord John Townshend, Adam, Eden, Lord Loughborough, and George North helped to bring about the Coalition. Burke favoured the plan, also Sheridan, though later on he vehemently declared the contrary (ibid., pp. 21–4).

[141] Mr. Le B. Hammond, “Life of Fox,” pp. 57, 58.

[142] “My friendships are eternal, my hatreds can be appeased.”

[143] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 541.

[144] Fox’s friends, Mr. Powys and Sir Cecil Wray, had reprobated his present action.

[145] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 543–50. I may here note that after the resignation of Shelburne, Pitt framed a Bill for regulating in friendly terms commerce with the United States. It was sharply criticized and much altered in committee; but his Bill as well as the words quoted above prove the depth of his conviction as to the need of winning back if possible the goodwill of those young communities.

[146] Horace, “Odes,” bk. iii, 29. From modesty he omitted the words “et mea Virtute me involvo.” (“If she [Fortune] abides, I commend her. If her fleet wings quiver for flight, I resign her gifts—and hail honest, dowerless poverty as mine.”)

[147] Wraxall, iii, 15.

[148] Chevening MSS. Yet on 25th February, Dundas wrote of the plan as “my project” (Stanhope, i, 105).

[149] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 369–70; Stanhope, i, 104–9; “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 40–2. The King’s letter to Shelburne refutes Horace Walpole’s statement that the King made the offer very drily and ungraciously: also that Pitt’s vanity was at first “staggered” by the offer.

[150] “Buckingham P.,” i, 170.

[151] “Buckingham P.,” i, 194.

[152] Pitt MSS., 103.

[153] Stanhope, i, App. III.

[154] Wraxall, iii, 36.

[155] Sichel, “Sheridan,” i, 133.

[156] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 28.

[157] Wraxall, iii, 89, 143–5.

[158] “Dropmore P.,” i, 197–212. Mr. Sichel (“Sheridan,” ii, ch. ii), following the earlier biographer, Thomas Moore, proves that Sheridan sought to dissuade Fox from the coalition with North. This is doubtless true. But determined opposition should have led him to refuse office.

[159] “Buckingham P.,” i, 189, 219.

[160] Horace Walpole’s Letters (8th May 1783). He thought Pitt’s motion “most dangerous. We know pretty well what good or evil the present state of the House of Commons can do. What an enlargement might achieve no man can tell.” Later on he notes that Pitt was very little supported, but shone marvellously in debate.

[161] Mr. Sichel (“Sheridan,” ii, 36) admits the strong personal element in Sheridan’s opposition to Pitt.

[162] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 926, 945, 1, 114.

[163] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 113. Jesse, “Memoirs of George III,” iii, 435, states that the Shelburne Ministry had named £100,000 as the allowance for the Prince. I find no proof of this.

[164] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 113, 119.

[165] “Buckingham P.,” i, 303–5.

[166] “Dropmore P.,” i, 216; also Earl Stanhope’s “Miscellanies,” ii, 23–6, who rightly places the date as 20th July.

[167] “Buckingham P.,” i, 304; “Rutland P.,” iii, 70; Stanhope, “Misc.,” ii, 32–5.

[168] Ibid., i, 218; “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 131–9.

[169] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 1143.

[170] “Dropmore P.,” i, 219, 220; Stanhope, “Misc.,” ii, 35.

[171] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 38.

[172] Lady Blennerhassett, “Life of Talleyrand,” i, 46. It is strange that the “Talleyrand Memoirs” do not mention the meeting.

[173] G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 32.

[174] Wraxall, iii, 122.

[175] “Early Life of Samuel Rogers,” 134.

[176] D’Haussonville, “The Salon of Mme. Necker,” ii, 50 (Eng. ed.).

[177] “Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 58. Strange to say, Horace Walpole does not mention the affair in his letters.

[178] Horace Walpole (24th Feb. 1783).

[179] Milton, “A Free Commonwealth.”

[180] See, too, “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 98. Probably the second Bill contained more of the suggestions of Burke.

[181] Wraxall, iii, 146, 155.

[182] Paper dated 4th Dec. 1783, in Pitt MSS., 354.

[183] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 1187–1208.

[184] Ibid., 1209–11.

[185] I cannot agree with Lecky’s statement (iv, 293) that Pitt’s charges were extravagant. Seven partisan commissioners, jobbing away vast patronage, would have been a canker in the State, whether they acted for their party or the Crown.

[186] Pitt MSS., 102. Letter of 25th Nov. 1783.

[187] Wraxall, iii, 161.

[188] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 1312–86.

[189] Wraxall, iii, 150.

[190] “Buckingham P.,” i, 289.

[191] Ibid., 285.

[192] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 196–225.

[193] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 224.

[194] Tomline (i, 233) gives the date as 21st December. The date is doubtful, in view of the two perfectly friendly letters of Pitt to his uncle on 23rd December, quoted by Stanhope (“Miscellanies,” ii, 36, 37). Wilberforce places the Earl’s resignation on 22nd December. I incline to place it late on the 23rd.

[195] “Dropmore P.,” i, 163, 526–9. The Earl did not gain his desire, and deeply resented the refusal of George III to make him a duke.

[196] Quoted in full in “Buckingham P.,” i, 291–3.

[197] “Dropmore P.,” i, 239, 240.

[198] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 48.

[199] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 406–13. Pitt soothed the feelings of the Earl by persuading the King to create him Marquis of Lansdowne. (Ibid., 419–25).

[200] Grafton MSS. in the Chevening Library.

[201] Wraxall, iii, 252.

[202] The letter of George III to Pitt, quoted in “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies,” rebuts the statement of the editor of “The Cornwallis Correspondence” (i, 162, n.) that there is no trace of any offer of an office to Cornwallis. The letters of the Earl at that time show that he declined office because he believed Pitt’s administration must speedily fall, whereupon “the virtuous Coalition” would return in triumph.

[203] “Mems. of the Whig Party,” ii, 5–7.

[204] The Duke of Richmond did not join the Cabinet until 13th January. See Lord Carmarthen’s Mem. (“Leeds Mem.,” 94).

[205] “Life and Letters of Sir G. Elliot,” i, 91.

[206] “Rutland P.,” iii, 73.

[207] Lord Carmarthen stated that in the Cabinet meeting of 13th January Pitt talked of giving up the struggle, but this is against all other contemporary evidence (“Leeds Mems.,” 94). These notes on the Cabinet meetings show how long were the discussions there respecting a dissolution, and Pitt’s anxiety to defer it to a favourable moment.

[208] Pitt MSS., 353. I cannot accept Mr. Sichel’s statement (“Sheridan,” ii, 45), that Dundas prescribed Pitt’s India Bill, and Burke helped in it. Dundas doubtless helped in its compilation, but Pitt must have conferred directly with the Company and found out how far it was inclined to meet his views.

[209] Wraxall, iii, 85.

[210] Stanhope, i, App., p. viii.

[211] “Ann. Reg.” (1784–5), 271; “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 238–41.

[212] Hearn, “The Government of England,” 140–4, 147.

[213] “Corresp. between Pitt and the Duke of Rutland,” 9. Cornwallis (“Corresp.,” i, 171) also prophesied after that vote that if Ministers acted wisely, they might hold office for many years.

[214] “Leeds Mems.,” 99.

[215] “Fox’s Martyrs: a new Book of the Sufferings of the Faithful” (London, 3rd edit., 1784).

[216] Letter to Wilberforce, 6th April 1784.

[217] I have found in the Pitt MSS. (No. 315) only two references to Pitt’s election for Cambridge. One is a letter of that year from “F. B.” giving numerous hints how this or that M.A. should be “got at” so as to secure his vote, and ending: “Go on and prosper, thou godlike young man, worthy of your immortal father.” The other is a note, not dated, signed J. T[urner?]:

“Dear Pretyman,

“Our canvas goes on very successfully, but we are yet very desirous of your being here to-morrow night if possible, since Mr. Pitt cannot come himself. His appearance on Thursday did immense service.... We depend on seeing you to-morrow; next to Mr. Pitt’s appearance yours will certainly be of the utmost importance.”

[218] Wraxall, iii, 338.

[219] For the daily figures see “Ann. Reg.” (1784), 34.

[220] “Hist. of Westminster Election,” 483.

[221] From the letter of George III to Pitt of 1st May it seems that the High Bailiff had previously decided to grant a scrutiny, if asked for, owing to the many doubtful votes that had been polled.

[222] “Dropmore P.,” i, 177.

[223] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 244–6.

[224] “Malmesbury Diaries,” iv, 22.

[225] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1006.

[226] Necker, “De l’Administration des Finances de la France,” 3 vols. (1784).

[227] “Observations on Reversionary Payments,” by R. Price, i, 206. When all the expenses of the war were added, by the year 1786, the National Debt amounted to £245,466,855. See Parl. Paper, No. 443, Sept. 1858.

[228] R. Price, “State of the Public Debts and Finances in January 1783,” 5, 8, 19.

[229] Pitt reckoned a State lottery as yielding a profit of £140,000; but obviously he disliked this means of raising money (“Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1307).

[230] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1021.

[231] Ibid., 1022–4.

[232] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1015.

[233] A. Young, “Farmer’s Letters,” 197.

[234] “Wealth of Nations,” bk. i, ch. xi, pt. 3; “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1012.

[235] “Wealth of Nations,” bk. v, ch. ii, § 4.

[236] Dowell, “Hist. of Taxation,” ii, 183.

[237] I owe this interesting fact to the Rev. Dr. Cunningham.

[238] R. Price, op. cit., 18, 19 (note).

[239] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1009.

[240] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1354.

[241] “Wealth of Nations,” bk. v, ch. ii, § 1.

[242] Cunningham, 548.

[243] Dowell, ii, 187, 188.

[244] In Pitt MSS., 353, I have found a memoir of the East India Company containing this sentence: “Much will he deserve of his country who can devise a mode of anything like equal taxation by any single tax.”

[245] “Corresp. of W. Wilberforce,” i, 9.

[246] Chevening MSS.

[247] R. Price, “Treatise on Reversionary Annuities” (1772).

[248] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 419–30.

[249] Consols which touched 54¼ in January 1785 rose to 69¾-73½ in December of that year.

[250] “Memoir and Works of R. Price,” by W. Morgan (1816), i, 120–5; “A Review of Dr. Price’s Writings on Finance,” by W. Morgan (1792).

[251] Pitt MSS., 169.

[252] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 419–30, 1303.

[253] Lecky, v, 51.

[254] Pitt MSS., 169.

[255] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1294–1312, 1367, 1368, 1416–30.

[256] These formed the chief charges urged against the Sinking Fund by R. Hamilton, “An Inquiry concerning ... the Management of the National Debt” (1813).

[257] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1430–32.

[258] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 17–36. Earl Stanhope’s measure will be described by Miss Ghita Stanhope in her monograph on the Earl.

[259] J. R. McCulloch, “Taxation and the Funding System,” 3rd edit., 1883, 477–81.

[260] Hamilton, op. cit. McCulloch admits only half that amount. In the Pitt MSS. (No. 275) is an account of the stocks purchased for the Sinking Fund up to 5th January 1796. They amounted to £18,001,655 and Annuities equal to £89,675. See, too, Pitt’s Memoranda on the Sinking Fund in “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”

[261] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 998.

[262] Ibid., 1383.

[263] From Mr. Broadley’s MSS.

[264] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1396.

[265] “Corresp. of Wyvill with Pitt,” pt. i, 1796, 13.

[266] “Corresp. of Pitt with Wyvill,” pt. ii, 1797, 1–7.

[267] In the “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies,” I include a Memorandum—“Notes on Reform of Parliament”—from the Pretyman MSS. It is undated; but the notes form undoubtedly the rough draft of the speech outlined above, except that there is no mention of the buying out proposals at the end. May we infer that this was an afterthought, due to Dundas?

[268] “Rutland P.,” iii, 202.

[269] “Corresp. of Pitt with the Duke of Rutland,” 84.

[270] “Corresp. of Wilberforce,” i, 4; “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 77; “Corresp. of Wyvill with Pitt,” pt. i, 15 n.

[271] Stanhope, i, xv; Wraxall, iii, 116.

[272] Lecky, v, 62, 63; Jephson, “The Platform,” i, 166.

[273] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 191.

[274] I agree with Dr. W. Hunt (“Political Hist. of England,” x, 287) in his interpretation of the King’s letter quoted by Stanhope, i, App., xv.

[275] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 113.

[276] B.M. Add. MSS., 27808.

[277] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 1–5, 178–86; “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 114.

[278] “Rutland P.,” iii, 202.

[279] “Rutland P.,” iii, 198, 203; Letters of 11th and 23rd April 1785.

[280] “Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 72.

[281] “Corresp. of Pitt with the Duke of Rutland,” 150, 151.

[282] Ibid., 174, 175.

[283] Pitt MSS., 111. Printed in the “Barham Papers” (ii, 219), edited by Sir John Laughton for the Navy Records Society.

[284] “Journals and Letters of Sir T. Byam Martin,” iii, 380–2 (Navy Records Society).

[285] Wraxall, iv, 268–70. For some details on the inquiries at Portsmouth and Plymouth see the “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 195–8.

[286] Porter, “Hist. of the Royal Engineers,” ii, 209–11. The Duke of Richmond was, however, able to fortify some points at Portsmouth before the war of 1793 with France. See “Professional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers,” xii (1886), 83, 86. Fort Monckton and smaller forts on Stokes Bay were built.

[287] H. Twiss, “Life of Lord Eldon,” i, ch. iv.

[288] Wraxall, iv, 436.

[289] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 780–832. On 8th May 1789, a similar motion by Beaufoy was defeated by 122 votes to 102 (Ibid., xxviii, 1–41).

[290] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiv, 1086–99.

[291] Pitt MSS., 353.

[292] Mill, “Hist. of British India,” iv, 559 (4th edit.).

[293] Lord Acton, “Letters to Mary Gladstone,” 45.

[294] “Cornwallis Correspondence,” i, 180, 191.

[295] Ibid., 220, 221.

[296] Wraxall, iv, 142–4.

[297] Malleson, “Life of Warren Hastings” (1894), 456.

[298] Malleson, “Life of Warren Hastings” (1894), 455.

[299] Wraxall, iv, 250; “Diary of Mme. d’Arblay,” iv, 60 (edit. 1854).

[300] Malleson, op. cit., 449.

[301] Wraxall, iv, 260.

[302] Ibid., 261; “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1094–5.

[303] E.g., Malleson, op. cit., 450.

[304] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1256.

[305] The debate of 26th April seems to show that Burke was acquainted with the substance of those papers.

[306] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1384–94.

[307] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 37–90.

[308] “Zamindar” means no more than landowner. Hastings had confirmed Cheyt Singh in his powers. Sir Alfred Lyall and Mr. G. W. Hastings in their works on Warren Hastings lay stress on the fact that Cheyt Singh was a parvenu, not one of the old hereditary princes of India. I fail to see that this has any bearing on the justice or injustice of Hastings’ treatment of him.

[309] “Auckland Journals,” i, 127.

[310] “Auckland Correspondence,” i, 127; Wraxall, iv, 336.

[311] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 115.

[312] “Lives of the Lord Chancellors,” ix, 175 (4th edit.). The words quoted above furnish no ground for the assertion of Sir H. Lyall in his “Warren Hastings” that Pitt heard news of Thurlow’s boast just before the debate of 13th June. Campbell’s words are quite vague, and are entitled to little credence.

[313] Stanhope, i, App., xix.

[314] For new letters of George III see “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”

[315] Wraxall, iv, 342.

[316] “Bland Burges P.,” 89, 90.

[317] “Life of Wilberforce,” v, 340, 341.

[318] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 69, 70. A similar remark may be applied to Mr. Gladstone’s replies, which often disgusted simple men.

[319] Pitt MSS., 169.

[320] This opinion is repeated by Mr. G. W. Hastings, “A Vindication of Warren Hastings,” ch. vi.

[321] For a hostile account of Pitt’s conduct here, see the “Bland Burges P.,” 81–9.

[322] “Hist. of the Trial of Warren Hastings,” pt. v, 308, 309. His net fortune on 31st January 1786 was given as £65,313, exclusive of £12,000 made over to Mrs. Hastings.

[323] It may belong to the spring of 1787, when, as we learn from the “Corresp. of Wilberforce,” i, 40, Dundas introduced Adam Smith to Pitt and Wilberforce; but the latter does not record the anecdote.

[324] Of the 118 Parliamentary boroughs as many as 87 (including Belfast!) were “close,” that is, were controlled by Government or by a local magnate or the Corporation. See a list in “Castlereagh P.,” iv, 428–30; also Porritt, “Unreformed House of Commons,” ii, pt. vi.

[325] Lecky, iv, 429, 440, 450.

[326] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 74, 96, 107, 119; “Rutland P.,” iii, 193.

[327] Pitt MSS., 324.

[328] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 17, 19.

[329] Ashbourne, 84, 85.

[330] Ashbourne, 85–91.

[331] Grenville, writing in November 1798, said that he considered the faulty procedure adopted in 1785 largely contributed to the failure. (“Buckingham P.,” ii, 412.)

[332] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 43.

[333] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 55–75.

[334] Ibid., 73.

[335] Ashbourne, 104 (Letter of Pitt to Orde, 1st February 1785). Irish exports to Great Britain for 1779 were £2,256,659, her imports thence only £1,644,770 (Pitt MSS., 322).

[336] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 311–14. Lecky, vi, 390, 395, and his “Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland,” 114.

[337] “Rutland P.” (Hist. MSS. Comm.), iii, 162–68.

[338] Pitt MSS., 320.

[339] “Rutland P.,” iii, 191; “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 314; Ashbourne, 105, 108.

[340] Chevening MSS.

[341] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 311–28.

[342] “Dropmore P.,” i, 247, 248

[343] Pitt MSS., 321.

[344] This is refuted by the official wording of that Resolution as passed at Dublin, in “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 312.

[345] Pitt MSS., 321.

[346] Fifty-six petitions had been sent in against Lord North’s proposals in 1778. Daniel Pulteney wrote on 22nd March: “The selfishness, ignorance, and credulity of many more commercial towns has been too successfully practised on by Opposition.” He says Nottingham was worked on by “Portland’s emissaries.” The day before he expressed regret at Pitt’s obstinacy over the “cursed” Westminster scrutiny (“Rutland P.,” iii, 192, 193).

[347] Ashbourne, 121.

[348] “Report of the Lords of the Committee of Council” (1st March 1785). (J. Stockdale,) 4. Pitt stated in his letter of 6th January 1785 to Rutland, that Ireland bought far less from Great Britain than she sold to her.

[349] Ibid., 8–30.

[350] Ibid., 31–42.

[351] Ibid., 43–49.

[352] “Report of the Lords of the Committee of Council,” 50–55.

[353] Ibid., 68.

[354] Ibid., 78, 79.

[355] “The Proposed System of Trade with Ireland explained” (1785).

[356] Letter of 6th April to Duke of Rutland in “Rutland P.,” iii, 197.

[357] T. Moore, “Life of Sheridan,” i, 424.

[358] Wraxall, iv, 127–38.

[359] Lord Morley (“Burke,” 125) allows that Burke was wrong in following Fox’s factious opposition, and that he “allowed his political integrity to be bewildered.”

[360] The actual authors of these amusing poems were Tickell, General Fitzpatrick, Lord John Townsend, Richardson, George Ellis, and Burke’s friend and literary executor, Dr. Lawrence, who contributed the prose parts. (T. Moore, “Sheridan,” i, 421.)

[361] “The Rolliad,” 90, 370.

[362] “Dropmore P.,” i, 255. See [ch. xii] of this work for a new letter of Wilberforce to Pitt on the crisis.

[363] “Auckland Journals,” i, 79.

[364] Chevening MSS. Pitt continued to reside at the house on the north side of Putney Heath, next to Lord Ashburton’s, until October or November 1785, when he removed to Holwood Hill, Kent.

[365] “Dropmore P.,” i, 254; “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 125–33.

[366] Ashbourne, 146.

[367] Wraxall, iii, 217.

[368] Wilberforce gave up Lauriston House in 1786. A little later Dundas and Grenville came to reside at Wimbledon, on the east and west sides of the Green. Grenville’s is now called Eagle House. Dundas’s stood on the site of “Canizzaro.”

[369] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 111.

[370] “Rutland P.,” iii, 177.

[371] Ibid., 178; Wraxall, iv, 72–9, 98.

[372] Wraxall, iv, 98.

[373] Bruce, “Life of Sir W. Napier,” i, 28; quoted by Lecky, v, 16.

[374] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 69.

[375] Wraxall, ii, 234, 235.

[376] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 65; “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 78.

[377] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 66, 67.

[378] “Life and Letters of the Earl of Minto,” ii, 5.

[379] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061. This postscript to Harris’s letter of 18th July 1786 to Carmarthen is omitted from “The Malmesbury Diaries”; so, too are most personal touches, often of great interest.

[380] “Auckland Journals,” i, 117.

[381] Omond, G. W. T., “The Lord Advocates of Scotland,” ch. xiv.

[382] Porritt, “Unreformed House of Commons,” ii, 8.

[383] Wraxall, ii, 123.

[384] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 179, 233, 350, 351; also iii, 212, for the decline of Dundas’s influence on Pitt. Omond, “Lord Advocates of Scotland,” vol. ii, ch. xiv.

[385] Lord Macaulay told this to Earl Stanhope (author of the “Life of Pitt”) at the British Museum in December 1846 (Note of Earl Stanhope in the Chevening MSS.).

[386] “Malmesbury Diaries,” iii, 292, 516, 590–2; “Dropmore P.,” iii, 167.

[387] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 78.

[388] Pitt MSS., 189.

[389] Wraxall, iv, 151.

[390] Pellew, “Life of Lord Sidmouth,” i, 4.

[391] Pellew, “Life of Lord Sidmouth,” i, 38.

[392] Wraxall, iii, ad fin.

[393] I distrust the charges of corrupt dealing brought against Rose respecting the next election at Westminster.

[394] “Diaries of George Rose,” i, 32–37.

[395] “Corresp. of Wilberforce,” i, 9.

[396] “Corresp. of Wilberforce,” i, 21–4.

[397] The gross income was £4,100: see Mr. E. W. Hamilton’s estimate of Pitt’s income (the total being £10,532) in App. C of Lord Rosebery’s “Pitt.”

[398] Pretyman MSS.

[399] G. Croly, “Mems. of George IV,” i, 105, 106.

[400] Ibid., 107.

[401] Chevening MSS.

[402] B.M. Add. MSS., 35684. In May 1790, Pitt drafted a letter to the members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge, asking for the support to his intended candidature for the office of High Steward, then vacant owing to the death of Lord Hardwicke. He expressed the hope that the crisis in public affairs would be deemed a sufficient excuse for not making the application in person. He was elected. The draft of the letter is in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge.

[403] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 13, 14.

[404] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 113.

[405] Ibid., ii, 10–13.

[406] “Antony and Cleopatra,” v, sc. 2.

[407] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 24–26, 49, 55. The character and career of Sir James Harris (the future Earl of Malmesbury) will concern us later. Herr F. K. Wittichen, “Preussen und England in der Europäischen Politik—1785–1788,” ad init., condemns the resentment of Frederick the Great as a mistake, fatal to the interests both of Prussia and England.

[408] “Malmesbury Diaries,” i, 374, 402, 532. He thought her hasty, and swayed by passion or caprice; but events proved that she did not lack foresight or firmness.

[409] Mahan, “Influence of Sea Power,” i, 11.

[410] Martens, iii, 327.

[411] “Leeds Memoranda” (edited by Mr. Oscar Browning), 101.

[412] B.M. Add. MSS., 27914. This letter and other documents of interest will appear in my volume “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”

[413] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060. “Lord C.” may be Lord Clarendon, who had previously given advice to Lord Carmarthen.

[414] Ibid.

[415] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060. It is endorsed, in Pitt’s hand: “Oct. 12, 1784, Mem^m for Instructions to Mr. Fitzherbert.” Carmarthen’s draft is almost certainly that which is printed by Mr. Oscar Browning in the “Leeds Memoranda,” p. 103 n.; but the evidence here given shows that that draft cannot be Pitt’s, as Mr. Browning at that time (1884) naturally inferred.

[416] This is well set forth in the despatches of Lord Dalrymple, British Ambassador at Berlin, to Carmarthen. The latter wrote to Harris on 24th February 1786, that Vorontzoff would try to persuade Catharine II to restore the “good system,” and to induce Joseph II to help in the work; but nothing came of it (B.M. Add. MSS., 28061).

[417] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 104. Memorandum of 2nd February 1785.

[418] Even after the disasters of 1813 Napoleon wrote: “Holland is a French country and will remain so for ever” (“Lettres inédites,” 6th November 1813).

[419] See Colenbrander, “De Patriottentijd,” i, 415, for the Prince’s difficulty in forming (February 1784) a permanent force of 8,000 sailors subject to the Council of War and not to the provincial Estates; also “A View of the Policy ... of the United Provinces” (Dublin, 1787). As Grenville wrote to Pitt from The Hague on 31st July 1787, that the Dutch understood their Constitution very imperfectly (“Dropmore P.,” iii, 410), I may be pardoned for not seeking to unravel it here.

[420] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 92–4, 222–4.

[421] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060, Letter of 23rd August 1785. These “private” letters are often more interesting and important than those printed in the “Malmesbury Diaries,” which form but a small portion of the whole.

[422] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060.

[423] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060.

[424] Ibid.

[425] See the conversation of Joseph II with Sir R. M. Keith at Vienna in December 1785, on French designs on Egypt, as given in [chap. xxi], ad init.

[426] Salomon, “Pitt,” 309, 310; also Martens, iv, 133–9, for the treaty closing this dispute.

[427] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060.

[428] “Malmesbury Mems.,” ii, 113–21.

[429] “Leeds Mem.” 111–13.

[430] Wittichen, op. cit., 8, 25 et seq., and 173, 174; “Malmesbury Mems.,” 131.

[431] Ibid., 118.

[432] Tomline, ii, 108; “Leeds Mem.,” 116.

[433] Colenbrander, iii, 16, quoted by Wittichen, 173.

[434] Joseph Ewart had been secretary to Sir John Stepney, then was Secretary of the Berlin Embassy in 1785–7. In 1788–91 he was ambassador. For Anglo-Prussian relations and Ewart’s work, see Dr. Luckwaldt’s excellent monograph, “Die englisch-preussische Allianz von 1788,” 51 et seq. (Leipzig, 1902). By the kindness of General Sir Spencer Ewart, I was able to transcribe several of the letters of his forefather, Joseph Ewart. Some of them are published in an article in the “Edinburgh Review” for July 1909.

[435] Luckwaldt, 52, 53.

[436] “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 202–11.

[437] “Malmesbury Diaries,” i, 157.

[438] I disagree with Herr Salomon (“Pitt”) on this point. It seems to me that Pitt’s policy was essentially tentative, and remained so up to the year 1788.

[439] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060. George III showed more sagacity than his Ministers, witness the phrase in his letter of 7th August to Pitt: “An experience of twenty years has taught me not to expect any return for the great assistance she [Catharine] has received from this country.”

[440] As late as 5th February 1786 he wrote to Harris: “We are on more friendly terms with Russia than for a long time” (B.M. Add. MSS., 28061).

[441] I have published this Memorandum along with other documents bearing on the years 1785–7 in the “Eng. Hist. Rev.” for 1909.

[442] Garden, “Traités,” v, 60–72.

[443] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 175.

[444] On 7th March 1786 Harris reported to Carmarthen joint actions of the Dutch and French in the East, and that eight Dutch warships were to sail thither with troops on board. (B.M. Add. MSS., 28061.) The possession of the Cape of Good Hope by the Dutch rendered our communications with India precarious.

[445] “Dropmore P.,” i, 258.

[446] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 111.

[447] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 172.

[448] The Grand-Duke of Tuscany was a Hapsburg prince.

[449] Pitt MSS., 332.

[450] Dr. Cunningham, “Eng. Industry and Commerce” (pt. ii, 546).

[451] B.M. Add. MSS., 28063. Eden to Carmarthen, 10th January 1788.

[452] “F. O.,” France, 18.

[453] Ibid.

[454] “Wealth of Nations,” bk. iv, ch. iii.

[455] “Politique de tous les Cabinets de l’Europe ...,” ii, 402–3. It contains some “Mémoires” of Vergennes.

[456] Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 260.

[457] “Précis du Traité de Commerce de 1786,” by Count His de Butenval (Paris, 1869), 25.

[458] “Wealth of Nations,” bk iv, ch. iii.

[459] Butenval, 23.

[460] B.M. Add. MSS., 28060.

[461] “F. O.,” France, 14, Dorset to Carmarthen, 31st March 1785. See, too, L. Pingaud Choiseul-Gouffier, “La France en Orient sous Louis XVI” (Paris, 1887).

[462] Pitt MSS., 337.

[463] Ibid., 333. Hailes to Fraser, 26th January 1786.

[464] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 112.

[465] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 157.

[466] “F. O.,” France, 16.

[467] Ibid. The British Parliament in 1716 abrogated these clauses in favour of earlier and less liberal arrangements. Louis XIV consented to this.

[468] “F. O.,” France, 16. Hailes to Carmarthen, 4th August 1785.

[469] Ibid., Hailes to Carmarthen, 1st December 1785. The Chambers of Commerce at Paris, Versailles, and Montpellier protested against the arrêts. See Butenval, op. cit., 36.

[470] Pitt MSS., 110. Eden to Pitt, 12th October 1785. See, too, “Carlisle Papers,” 644.

[471] B.M. Add. MSS., 34420.

[472] Butenval, 39

[473] Carmarthen to Eden, 9th December 1785 (B.M. Add. MSS., 34420).

[474] Pitt MSS., 333.

[475] Pitt to Eden, 4th December 1785, in “Auckland Journals,” i, 87.

[476] Vergennes to Carmarthen, 14th December 1785, in Pitt MSS., 333.

[477] B.M. Add. MSS., 34420. Letter of John Lees, 1st April 1785.

[478] “Auckland Journals,” i, 89; Wraxall, iv, 229.

[479] J. Flammermont, “Correspondances des Agents diplomatiques étrangers avant la Révolution,” 508.

[480] “Auckland Journals,” i, 106.

[481] Pitt MSS., 110. I quote fully only from those letters which have not been published.

[482] “Auckland Journals,” i, 112.

[483] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061. Letter of 19th May 1786.

[484] Ibid. Letter of 12th December 1786.

[485] Ibid.

[486] Pitt MSS., 333.

[487] This letter of 6th June has no date of the year, and it has been bound up in vol. 28064 of the Add. MSS. in the British Museum for the year 1789 of the Auckland MSS. Internal evidence shows that the year should be 1786.

[488] Their memorial, dated 22nd February 1786, is from the London silk trade (B.M. Add. MSS., 34420). It states that “no alteration or modification whatsoever, short of the present prohibition of all foreign wrought silks, can ensure the silk trade to this country.”

[489] Pitt MSS., 110.

[490] “Pitt-Rutland Corresp.,” 158; “Beaufort Papers” (Hist. MSS. Commission), 353.

[491] Pitt MSS., 110. Eden to Pitt, 23rd August.

[492] Ibid. Pitt to Eden, 12th September.

[493] “F. O.,” France, 20. For further details see my article in the “Eng. Hist. Rev.” for October 1908.

[494] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 233–54; “Auckland Corresp.,” i, 495–515; Martens, “Traités,” iv, 155–80.

[495] Pitt MSS., 169.

[496] “F. O.,” France, 18.

[497] “Auckland Journals,” i, 392, 6th October 1786.

[498] “Dropmore P.,” i, 274.

[499] “Auckland Journals,” i, 404.

[500] “Auckland Journals,” i, 404; “Parl. Hist.,” xxvi, 342–78.

[501] Ibid., 392, 394.

[502] Ibid., 397, 398, 402, 424, 595. Mr. J. L. le B. Hammond in his able work, “Charles James Fox” (1903), defends his hero on the ground that monarchical France was the enemy of England.

[503] Pitt MSS., 110. Eden to Pitt, 13th April 1786.

[504] “F. O.,” France, 18.

[505] “F. O.,” France, 18. Hailes to Carmarthen, 25th October 1786. The Duke of Dorset thought very little of Hailes, but Hailes’s despatches show far more knowledge of France than the Duke’s.

[506] Flammermont, op. cit., 125.

[507] See summaries of both in Butenval, op. cit., chs. xv, xvi.

[508] Arthur Young’s “Travels in France” (Bohn edit., 1889), 8, 9, 69, 107, 284.

[509] Levasseur, “Hist. des Classes ouvrières,” ii, 776.

[510] This is the judgement of R. Stourm, “Les Finances de l’Ancien Régime et de la Révolution,” 59.

[511] “Cambridge Mod. Hist.,” viii, 74.

[512] “Auckland Journals,” i, 127. Pitt to Eden, 10th June 1786.

[513] Martens, “Traites,” iv, 196–223. For these negotiations with Spain and Russia, see Salomon’s “Pitt,” 237–44. A little later Pitt started commercial negotiations with Prussia and Holland, but nothing came of them. It is clear, however, that he sought to revise the whole of our commercial relations.

[514] The contributions of the Provinces to the needs of the Union show their respective resources. Out of every 100 florins of federal revenue, Holland contributed 57¾, Friesland 11½, Zealand 9, Groningen 5¾, Utrecht 5¾, Guelderland 5½, Overyssel 3½, Drent 1.

[515] For details see Luckwaldt, op. cit. On a similar plan, Harris had written to Carmarthen on 3rd January 1786 that the idea of France keeping the Stadholder in his position and England then aiding him is so monstrous that Frederick “must think us mere novices in politicks” (B.M. Add. MSS., 28061).

[516] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061 and 28062. Dalrymple to Carmarthen, 20th October 1786, 23rd January 1787.

[517] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. So Luckwaldt, op. cit., 52–7.

[518] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061. See, too, “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 212, for Carmarthen’s view. “I never desire a connexion with Prussia unless Russia, and of course, Denmark, are included.”

[519] All the despatches of this time serve to refute the statement of Lecky (v, 80) that the accession of Frederick William “greatly changed the situation” for the Princess of Orange.

[520] Wittichen, op. cit., 63–5.

[521] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Dalrymple to Carmarthen, 21st April 1787.

[522] B.M. Add. MSS, 28060.

[523] “F. O.,” France, 18.

[524] Pitt MSS., 110.

[525] Bouillé, “Mems.,” ch. i.

[526] Grenville during his mission to The Hague in August 1787 got an inkling of the wider scheme described above, as appears in his phrase “One’s mind at once runs to Trincomale.” So late as August 1788 Pitt was nervous about the fate of that port. See his letter to Grenville as to the rumour of 800 French troops sailing thither (“Dropmore P.,” ii, 280, 353).

[527] “Dropmore P.,” ii, 251–5.

[528] Ibid., 267, 268; “Leeds Memoranda,” 117.

[529] Pitt MSS., 151.

[530] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 299. “I am certain if we begin to roar, France will shrink before us” (Harris to Carmarthen, 5th May). See, too, Wittichen, 67.

[531] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 303–6.

[532] “F. O.,” Holland, 14.

[533] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Ewart to Carmarthen, 19th and 22nd May 1787.

[534] “F. O.,” Holland, 14. Harris to Carmarthen, 1st June.

[535] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 322.

[536] “Auckland Journals,” i, 521; Oscar Browning, “The Flight to Varennes and other Essays,” 163.

[537] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 329.

[538] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Ewart to Carmarthen, 6th June 1787. Ewart was now chargé d’affaires at Berlin, Dalrymple having gone home on furlough. He did not return, and Ewart became ambassador in August 1788.

[539] Ibid. Ewart’s note of 30th June.

[540] “F. O.,” Holland, 15.

[541] “F. O.,” Holland, 15; “F. O.,” Prussia, 11.

[542] Luckwaldt, op. cit., 66, 67.

[543] Wittichen (78, 79) holds that Frederick William’s hesitation came from concern about the Fürstenbund or the hope that France would join in a peaceful mediation in Holland.

[544] Lusi’s report of 17th July 1787. Luckwaldt, op. cit., 68.

[545] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Carmarthen to Ewart, 17th July. There is nothing in this despatch which warrants the statement of the editor of the “Malmesbury Diaries” (ii, 339 n.) that we then offered Prussia armed support if France attacked her, and promised to make a demonstration with forty ships of the line. That was not proposed until the middle of September, in reply to French threats.

[546] “F. O.,” Austria, 14. Keith on 3rd August stated that the Emperor was friendly to us, but he was the ally of France, though he would not act with her in the Dutch Question.

[547] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Carmarthen to Ewart, 27th July.

[548] Wittichen, 81, shows that Wilhelmina herself worked hard to dissuade her brother from a mediation conjointly with France.

[549] “F. O.,” France, 25. Eden to Carmarthen, 4th August 1787.

[550] Ibid., 8th August.

[551] “F. O.,” France, 25.

[552] “Auckland Journals,” i, 520. Lord Loughborough, in a letter of 13th October 1787 to Lord Carlisle stated that Grenville’s mission was not due to distrust of Harris (“Carlisle P.,” 652). But this seems to me very doubtful in view of the letters between Pitt and Grenville.

[553] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 408–15. For the missions of Grenville to The Hague and Paris, see my article in the “Eng. Hist. Rev.” for April 1909.

[554] Pitt MSS., 102.

[555] “F. O.,” France, 25. Eden to Carmarthen, 16th August 1787.

[556] Ibid. Carmarthen to Eden, 24th August.

[557] Pitt MSS., 102; and “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 333–7.

[558] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 371.

[559] “Méms. du Comte de Portes,” (1904), 92.

[560] “Auckland Journals,” i, 234, 259.

[561] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061.

[562] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 418.

[563] “F. O.,” France, 25, 26. Eden to Carmarthen, 29th August and 11th September.

[564] The feuds in his Ministry, and his consistently peaceful attitude, seem to absolve him from the charge of duplicity. French troops, disguised as Free Corps, were afterwards captured in Holland and had on them orders and instructions written by de Ségur, the French War Minister, who resigned in August 1787 (“Auckland Journals,” i, 259). It seems probable therefore that some Ministers egged on the French agents and the Patriots, while Montmorin strove to hold them in check. Louis XVI also used his influence to prevent a war with Prussia, which he disliked (see Garden, “Traités,” v, 85 n.). The appointment of Loménie de Brienne to a kind of dictatorship seems also to have made for peace; it coincides with the resolve, formed about 20th August (see Barral de Montferrat, op. cit., 214), to recall Vérac from The Hague; and on 31st August Montmorin signed with Eden a convention for ending irritating disputes in East Indian affairs. I have no space to go into that question; but it had been reported (e.g., by Eden on 9th November 1786, Pitt MSS., 110) that the French were about to gain control over Dutch East India ports. Rumours to that effect had embittered the contest in Holland, and they were laid to rest by that convention.

[565] See the MSS. of P. V. Smith in the “Beaufort P.” (Hist. MSS. Commission) 357, for the parts of Pitt’s letter of 8th September, omitted, very strangely, by the editor of the “Auckland Journals” (i, 191–2), also ibid., i, 198.

[566] Luckwaldt, 71.

[567] “F. O.,” Holland, 17.

[568] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Carmarthen to Ewart, 24th August.

[569] Luckwaldt, 80 n., here corrects one of many mis-statements in P. de Witt’s “Une Invasion prussienne en Hollande,” 285, that the Prussians were ready to march by 20th July.

[570] Hertzberg, “Recueil des Traités,” ii, 428–30; “F. O.,” Prussia, 12. Ewart to Carmarthen, 4th and 8th September.

[571] Ibid. 8th September.

[572] “The prevailing opinion of this Court is the Emperor will ... sacrifice his alliance with Russia to that of 1756 [with France]” (Ewart to Keith, 11th September 1787. B.M. Add. MSS., 35539).

[573] Wittichen, 92–4; also ibid., 97, for the Anglo-Prussian Convention of 2nd October.

[574] “Auckland Journals,” i, 192.

[575] Ibid., 195.

[576] “F. O.,” France, 26. Eden to Carmarthen, 11th and 13th September.

[577] The original, in Pitt’s handwriting, is in “F. O.,” Russia, 15, dated 21st September, and inscribed “To all the King’s Ministers abroad except Paris and The Hague.”

[578] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 426–36; E. D. Adams, op. cit., 6, 7; “Buckingham P.,” i, 326–31.

[579] Ibid. Eden to Carmarthen, 20th September.

[580] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 435; “Méms. de Dedem de Gelder,” 7.

[581] Ibid., iii, 435.

[582] “F. O.,” Holland, 19. Carmarthen to Harris, 12th October; “Auckland Journals,” i, 234.

[583] B.M. Add. MSS., 29475.

[584] “F. O.,” Austria, 14. Keith to Carmarthen, 24th October 1787. On 14th November Joseph II informed Keith that he thoroughly approved of the Dutch settlement.

[585] “Auckland Journals,” i, 217, 221.

[586] Ibid., 227, 228.

[587] Ibid., 255–8; “Ann. Reg.” (1787), 283.

[588] “Auckland Journals,” i, 264.

[589] Ibid., 263.

[590] B.M. Add. MSS., 28063. Harris to Pitt, 22nd February 1788.

[591] Martens, iv, 372–7; Garden, v, 89–92.

[592] “F. O.,” Prussia, 12. Ewart to Carmarthen, 27th September 1787.

[593] Pitt MSS., 119.

[594] Pitt MSS., 119. Carmarthen to Ewart, 2nd December 1787. Fraser, our envoy at St. Petersburg, reported on 1st November that Austria was proposing there a Triple Alliance, but it was coolly received (“F. O.,” Russia, 15).

[595] Ibid. Carmarthen to Ewart, 26th December.

[596] See Ewart’s masterly Memorandum in “Dropmore P.,” ii, 44–9.

[597] Luckwaldt, 100 et seq. Ewart found out the secret instructions issued to Dietz, and forwarded them to London on 8th April. They show that Prussia sought by all means to encourage the Turks, but laid her plans so as to get an indemnity in land in case Austria gained land in the south-east.

[598] “F. O.,” Prussia, 13. Ewart to Carmarthen, 15th March 1788.

[599] Ibid. Ewart to Carmarthen, 15th January 1788. Lecky (v, 232) assigns the first rumours of Prussian indemnities in land to January 1789; but Ewart reported the beginnings of Hertzberg’s plan in January 1788.

[600] Ibid. Carmarthen to Ewart, 2nd April.

[601] See his letter of 24th November 1787 to Dietz at Constantinople in Häusser, “Deutsche Geschichte,” i, 225–6.

[602] “F. O.,” Prussia, 13. Carmarthen to Ewart, 14th May 1788.

[603] Ibid. Ewart to Carmarthen, 27th and 31st May 1788; Wittichen, ch. xx.

[604] B.M. Add. MSS., 28063.

[605] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 421.

[606] The secret articles are in Ranke’s “Fürstenbund,” ii, 358; for the published treaties of 13th June and 13th August see Martens, iv, 382–5, 390–3; for the negotiations, Luckwaldt, 114–16, Salomon, “Pitt,” 344–51. The accounts of these important events given by Tomline, Stanhope, and Lecky are brief and unsatisfactory.

[607] So Wittichen, 148.

[608] “Records of Stirring Times,” 58, by the authoress of “Old Days in Diplomacy.”

[609] Certain letters of the Earl of Liverpool recently sold in London show that there was an open breach between King and Queen in 1804, and that Pitt helped to patch it up.

[610] Huish, “Mems. of George IV,” i, 60–2.

[611] H. Walpole’s “Last Journals,” ii, 480–1.

[612] Fox does not seem to have introduced the prince into bad company. See Jesse, ii, 367–9, and Huish, i, 122–4.

[613] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 125.

[614] Pitt MSS., 228.

[615] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 129–31.

[616] Pitt MSS., 105.

[617] W. H. Wilkins, “Mrs. Fitzherbert and George IV,” i, 81–105.

[618] Ibid., i, 135–7; Langdale, “Mems. of Mrs. Fitzherbert,” 127–8, 141, 142; Jesse, ii, 512, 513.

[619] Pitt MSS., 122. Sir Carnaby is Sir Carnaby Haggerston, who married Frances, the youngest sister of Mrs. Fitzherbert (née Smythe). Her mother was a daughter of John Errington of the Northumberland family of that name. His brother was the confidante of the Prince, as described above.

[620] W. H. Wilkins, op. cit., i, 97.

[621] Wraxall, iv, 306.

[622] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1348–56; Wraxall, iv, 304–6.

[623] Pitt MSS., 103. For other references see the King’s letters to Pitt in “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”

[624] The King altered this to “written message.”

[625] Pitt MSS., 105.

[626] W. H. Wilkins, op. cit., i, 161.

[627] This letter refutes the statement of Huish (op. cit., i, 169) that Pitt was as pertinacious as the King in refusing to help the Prince.

[628] “Dropmore P.,” i, 362.

[629] Major-General Smith, M.P., was twice unseated for bribery. His nickname was “Hyder Ali.”

[630] “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 374, 375. Payne was a confidential friend of the Prince, who made him Comptroller of his Household and Lord Warden of the Stanneries in Cornwall.

[631] “Buckingham P.” i, 363, 364.

In the Pitt MSS., 228, is a Memorandum, endorsed January 1794, entitled “Heads of a Plan for a new Arrangement of the Prince of Wales’s Affairs.” It states that his debts then amounted to £412,511 5s. 8d. he owed £60,000 to Mr. Coutts the banker (Pitt’s banker); and he might at any time be called on to pay as much as £170,000. It would be difficult to induce Parliament to pay any part of these debts. Moreover, such a demand “would afford a fresh topic of declamation to those who already use the expenses of Royalty as an engine to operate upon weak minds in order to effectuate their ultimate purpose, the overthrow of everything dignified, everything sacred, everything valuable and respectable in social life.” The anonymous compiler therefore suggests the raising of a loan at 3½ per cent., so as to cover the “urgent” debts amounting to £349,511. Creditors would probably consent to the “defalcation” of 20 per cent. from what was owed them and be content with 3½ per cent. interest on the remainder.

A Mr. W. Fitzwilliam, of 45, Sloane Street, in May 1795 suggested a lottery for raising £2,100,000, of which £650,000 should go to the discharge of the Prince’s debts, £1,000,000 to the archbishops for the forming of a fund for raising the stipend of every clergyman to £100 a year; £100,000 to be reserved as prizes in the lottery; and £50,000 to be set apart for expenses.

[632] “Buckingham P.,” i, 361; Wraxall, iv, 458; v, 77–9.

[633] “Dropmore P.,” i, 353. Grenville replied on 1st September that he thought the frequent changes in France would undermine her power and so check “that sort of intrigue and restlessness which keeps us in hot water even while we are most confident of the impossibility of any serious effect from their schemes.” He then suggests an agreement as to the forces to be kept by the two Powers in the East (Pitt MSS., 140).

[634] G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 86. The date of this interview is probably between 10th and 24th October 1788.

[635] “Fanny Burney’s Diary,” iv, 122. In a rare pamphlet, “A History of the Royal Malady,” by a Page of the Presence (1789), it is stated that the King, while driving in Windsor Park, alighted and shook hands with a branch of an oak tree, asserting it to be the King of Prussia, and was with difficulty persuaded to remount.

[636] “Court and Private Life in the Time of Queen Charlotte,” by Mrs. Papendiek. 2 vols. (1887); vol. ii, ad init.

[637] “Buckingham P.,” i, 342.

[638] G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 87.

[639] T. Moore, “Life of Sheridan,” ii, 27, where Payne also suggests that Sheridan should question Pitt about the public amusements, as it would embarrass him “either way.”

[640] W. Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 400.

[641] T. Moore, “Life of Sheridan,” ii, 31–5; Campbell, “Lives of the Lord Chancellors,” vii, 248, 239 (edit. of 1857).

[642] T. Moore, op. cit., p. 29.

[643] Campbell, op. cit., p. 251, who had the story from Thomas Grenville. See, too, Wilberforce, i, 386, 387.

[644] Dr. W. Hunt, “Political Hist. of England,” x, 64–5.

[645] This letter fixes the date of Pitt’s letter to Grenville, headed merely “Tuesday morning,” in “Dropmore P.” (i, 361). Pitt quotes the phrase “perfectly maniacal,” and adds “I begin to fear the physicians have been more in the right than we thought.”

[646] Pretyman MSS.

[647] Chevening MSS.

[648] “Buckingham P.,” ii, 9.

[649] G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 87.

[650] G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 90.

[651] Ibid., 94; “Buckingham P.,” i, 446; “Quarterly Rev.,” cv, 490.

[652] “Bland Burges Papers,” 118.

[653] See his private reports to Pitt in “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”

[654] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 697, gives the period as three months; “Buckingham P.,” ii, 47, gives it (erroneously, I think) as five months.

[655] Wraxall, v, 243.

[656] May, “Constitutional Hist.,” i, 148.

[657] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 709.

[658] “Buckingham P.,” ii, 71.

[659] Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 415.

[660] So thought the Duchess of Devonshire’s friends. Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 416.

[661] T. Moore, “Life of Sheridan,” ii, 42, 43; “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 730, 731.

[662] Lecky, v, 148.

[663] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 705–13.

[664] Tomline, “Life of Pitt,” ii, 388–92. There is a copy of this in the Pretyman archives at Orwell Park.

[665] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 732–47. The date is given wrongly as 1st December; it should be 16th December. So, too, on p. 778, are the numbers in the division, which should be: for Government, 268, Opposition, 204.

[666] Ibid., 678.

[667] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 680. That Thurlow or his friends expected his dismissal, even late in the year 1789, appears from a letter of Pitt to George Rose contradicting a rumour to that effect (G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 98, 99).

[668] W. Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 421–3. I cannot agree with Mr. Sichel (ibid., ii, 192) that the letter was Sheridan’s. The Duchess’s diary shows it to have been a joint production. For the so-called Prince’s letter see “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 909–912, or “Ann. Reg.” (1789), 298–302. For Pitt’s reply see Stanhope, ii, 18–20.

[669] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 946–7. Able speeches on the Government side were made by the Speaker (Grenville) and the Solicitor-General, Sir John Scott, the future Lord Eldon. See Twiss, “Life of Lord Eldon,” i, ch. ix.

[670] See May, “Constitutional Hist.,” i, 155, 156, for the arguments for and against this proposal.

[671] For the intrigues and corruption at Dublin see “Dropmore P.,” i, 385, 389, 395, et seq. The majority at Dublin dwindled away as soon as the King’s recovery was known (ibid., i, 417–25), a fact which damages Lecky’s case.

[672] “Bland Burges P.,” 116, 117; Wraxall, v, 242, 243.

[673] B.M. Add. MSS., 28064.

[674] “Reflections on the Formation of a Regency” (Debrett, 1788), 17.

[675] “Thoughts on the present Proceedings of the House of Commons” (Debrett, 1788), 18.

[676] “Answer to the Considerations on ... a Regency” (Debrett, 1788), 21.

[677] “A short View of the present Great Question” (Debrett, 1788), 11–15.

[678] Op. cit., p. 6. Huish, “Mems. of George IV,” i, 209, repeats some of these slanders against Pitt.

[679] “Dropmore P.,” i, 377.

[680] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 302.

[681] Pitt MSS., 228. This is the last of Willis’s reports to Pitt. It is undated, but must be of 23rd February. Willis ceased to attend the King on 11th March; but was at Windsor a short time in April and May.

[682] “Buckingham P.,” ii, 125.

[683] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 1293–5; “Buckingham P.,” ii, 122, 123.

[684] “Auckland Journals,” ii, 288, 289.

[685] “Paradise Lost,” x, 504–17.

[686] “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 419.

[687] “Life of Sir G. Elliot,” i, 272.

[688] “Dropmore P.,” i, 386.

[689] The Prince promised this post to Sandwich; but on the remonstrance of the Duke of Portland and Fox, waived the point (W. Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 415, 416).

[690] “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 419. Another and more probable version was that Earl Fitzwilliam would be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Burke had striven hard to obtain the India Board of Control, “for the services and adherence of thirty years.” So wrote James Macpherson to John Robinson. He adds: “If they agree, all the fat will be in the fire. A hint to the Prince would prevent it, for I plainly see his object is to carry on business as smoothly as he can” (“Abergavenny P.,” 70).

[691] “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 422.

[692] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 190, 191.

[693] “Dropmore P.,” i, 363.

[694] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 329.

[695] Wraxall, v, 336.

[696] For some good results of transportation see Lecky, vi, 253.

[697] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 430–2.

[698] “Dropmore P.,” i, 257.

[699] Evan Nepean in a Report to Pitt sketched the career of Matra. He was afterwards Consul for Morocco (Pitt MSS., 163).

[700] “New South Wales Despatches,” vol. i, pt. ii, 1–5.

[701] “New South Wales Despatches,” 6, 7; E. Jenks, “Hist. of the Australasian Colonies,” 25.

[702] “New South Wales Despatches,” 11–13. A copy of this “Plan” is in Pitt MSS., 342.

[703] Pitt MSS., 169.

[704] “New South Wales Despatches,” 14–23.

[705] Ibid., 32.

[706] Pitt MSS., 119.

[707] “New South Wales Despatches,” i, pt. ii, 30. See later (pp. 67–70) for the details of the Act of Parliament.

[708] J. Bonwick, “The First Twenty Years of Australia,” 6.

[709] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 1221–5. For an account of the new settlement see “The History of New Holland, 1616–1787.”

[710] Sabine, “The American Loyalists,” 51 et seq.

[711] Sir C. P. Lucas, “Hist. Geography of the Brit. Colonies,” v (Canada), 73.

[712] Kingsford, “Hist. of Canada,” vii, 216.

[713] I cannot agree with Professor E. Channing (“The United States, 1765–1865,” 118) that the action of the States towards the Loyalists “was not an infraction of the treaty.” The terms bound the United States to do their utmost to induce the component States to compensate the Loyalists. But they took only the slightest and most perfunctory steps in that direction. Pitt, as we saw in Chapter VI, distinctly enjoined it as a debt of honour on the United States, and cannot surely be held responsible for its evasion.

[714] Kingsford, “Hist. of Canada,” vii, 215; Sir C. P. Lucas, “Hist. of Canada, 1763–1812,” 214.

[715] Pitt MSS., 344.

[716] Ibid. The cases of Samuel Gale, Sir John Johnson, F. J. D. Smyth, and R. F. Pitt seem especially hard.

[717] See J. E. Wilmott, “Hist. View of the Commission ... of the American Loyalists” (London, 1815).

[718] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 610–19. The total expenses incurred on behalf of the American Loyalists as shown in the Budgets of the years 1784 to 1789 are as follows: £82,750; £190,019; £315,873; £132,856; £82,346; £362,922; or a total of £1,084,016. These sums are distinct from the special votes of £1,228,239 and £113,952 above referred to; which raise the total for those six years to, £2,426,207. I take these figures from the Budgets as given in the Annual Registers. It is impossible to harmonize them with Wilmott’s figures. He gives £3,112,455 as the total up to and including the year 1790.

[719] Pitt MSS., 102. Colonel Delancey named by Pitt was probably Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Delancey (1740–98), who helped to raise a loyal battalion at New York and finally became Governor of Tobago. His son, Sir William Delancey, was Wellington’s Quarter-Master-General at Waterloo, where he was killed.

[720] Greswell (“Hist, of the Dominion of Canada,” 144) states that,£4,000,000 was then allotted to the settlers in Upper Canada. I can nowhere find any confirmation of this. Kingsford, “Hist. of Canada,” mentions only grants of land and small sums of money; but states (vii, 217) that in all the sum of £3,886,087 was granted to the Loyalists in Great Britain.

[721] Sir C. P. Lucas, “Hist. of Canada” (1763–1812), 230–2.

[722] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 505 (debate of 8th March 1790).

[723] Kingsford, op. cit., vii, 234–236.

[724] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 503, 627.

[725] “Dropmore P.,” i, 507 (Grenville to Thurlow, 12th September 1789).

[726] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 1377–79.

[727] “Report on Canadian Archives,” by D. Brymer (Ottawa, 1891).

[728] “Dropmore P.,” i, 496, 497.

[729] See some good remarks on this by Sir C. P. Lucas, op. cit., 268–70.

[730] Clarkson, “Hist. of the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” i, 110–113. See p. 259 for a chart showing the names of those who had protested against the Trade from the times of Charles V, Ximenes, and G. Fox.

[731] Ibid., 114, 115.

[732] B.M. Add. MSS., 18272 (on the Slave Trade).

[733] Macpherson, “Annals of Commerce,” iii, 484.

[734] “Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 1026.

[735] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 151; for a photograph of the tree see “Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 17.

[736] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 152. The Minute Books of the Committee are in the B.M. Add. MSS., 21254, 21255.

[737] “Auckland Journals,” i, 307.

[738] Pitt MSS., 310.

[739] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 166.

[740] Ibid.

[741] “Auckland Journals,” i, 240.

[742] Ibid., i, 267.

[743] Pitt MSS., 102. For Eden’s reply, see “Auckland Journals,” i, 285.

[744] “Auckland Journals,” i, 307.

[745] “Dropmore P.,” i, 353.

[746] “Auckland Journals,” i, 304; “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 170. See Pitt’s letter of consent of 8th April 1788, in “Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 17–19.

[747] B.M. Add. MSS., 21255.

[748] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 495–506, 598; “Dropmore P.,” i, 342; Wraxall, v, 146, 149.

[749] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 41–75.

[750] Prof. Ramsay Muir, “Hist. of Liverpool,” 193.

[751] Ibid., 56. Out of 3,170 men who sailed in the slavers from Liverpool in 1787, 642 died and 1,100 were got rid of or deserted in the West Indies.

[752] See a curious letter in “Woodfall’s Register” for 12th June 1789, in answer to authentic accounts of the horrors of the Slave Trade lately given in that paper by C. D. Wadstrom.

[753] “Dropmore P.,” i, 278.

[754] Ibid., i, 487.

[755] “Auckland Journals,” i, 221; Wraxall, v, 139.

[756] Stanhope, ii, App., ix, xi.

[757] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 711–14; “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 266, 267. The evidence ran to 1400 folio pages (ibid., i, 281).

[758] “F. O.,” France, 34. Fitzgerald to Leeds, 2nd April 1790.

[759] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 284.

[760] Pitt MSS., 12.

[761] “Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 250–359.

[762] “Hist. de la Rév. à Saint Domingue,” by A. M. Delmas. 2 vols. Paris, 1814; “Hist. Survey of ... San Domingo,” by Bryan Edwards. 1797.

[763] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 295–6, 340, 342.

[764] Ibid., i, 344.

[765] Virg. “Georg.,” i, 250: “On us the rising sun first breathed with panting steeds, there ruddy Vesper full late kindles his fires.”

[766] “Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 1133–58.

[767] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 346. Lord Auckland (who, as Mr. Eden, had been a philanthropist) referred sarcastically to Pitt’s speech: “Mr. Pitt has raised his imagination to the belief that the trade ought, at all events and risks, to be instantly discontinued.... Some people are urging this business upon a mischievous principle” (“Auckland Journals,” ii, 400).

[768] Chevening MSS.

[769] Clarkson, op. cit., ii, 460.

[770] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 464.

[771] Pitt MSS., 310. See “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 305, 307, 323.

[772] “Life of Wilberforce,” ii, 196; Clarkson, op. cit., ii, 475.

[773] See “Life of Wilberforce” (ii, 224) for an accusation against Pitt and the Government in this matter.

[774] Pitt MSS., 189.

[775] Lord Liverpool (as Mr. Jenkinson) had opposed on the ground that France, etc., would take up the trade if we let it fall.

[776] Clarkson, op. cit., ii, 485.

[777] Letter of James Stephen (June 1797) in “Life of Wilberforce,” ii, 225.

[778] As in June 1798. See “Life of Wilberforce,” ii, 286.

[779] For this letter see “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”

[780] Lecky, v, 64–6; J. L. le B. Hammond, “Fox,” 60.

[781] “Diary of Sir John Moore,” i, 234.

[782] It has been said that the journey was undertaken partly with the view of seeing whether Potemkin had honestly used the money given him for the warlike preparations in the South; and that he hastily did his utmost to impress the Czarina favourably. This last is of course highly probable; but, as we shall see presently, the journey had been projected in 1785. Moreover, Potemkin, while improvising crowds of peasants, could not improvise the warships launched at Kherson.

[783] “F. O.,” Russia, 15. Fitzherbert to Carmarthen, 3rd May 1787. Fitzherbert accompanied the Empress throughout this tour. His letters are of high interest.

[784] See Sorel, “La Question d’Orient,” 300 et seq.

[785] “F. O.,” Austria, 11. Keith to Carmarthen, 3rd and 7th December 1785.

[786] “Malmesbury Diaries,” i, 204, 534.

[787] Wazilewski, “Le Roman d’une Impératrice,” 418.

[788] Keith reported on 30th August 1787 (“F. O.,” Austria, 14) that the Emperor “saw this storm coming with deep regret,” and that the ferment in his Belgian lands would prevent his taking action against Turkey.

[789] “F. O.,” Turkey, 8.

[790] Ibid. Ainslie to Carmarthen, 9th August 1787.

[791] “F. O.,” Turkey, 8. Ainslie to Carmarthen, 17th August 1787.

[792] “F. O.,” Russia, 15. Despatch of 22nd September. Fitzherbert was then coming home ill. His place was filled by Fraser.

[793] In view of these facts I cannot agree with the statement of Prof. Lodge (“Camb. Mod. Hist.,” viii, 316) that the action of the Turks “was dictated by passion rather than by policy.” It seems to me a skilful move, especially as they already had reason to hope for help from Prussia and Sweden. Häusser (i, 225) wrongly terms it a “desperate resolve.”

[794] “F. O.,” Russia, 15. Fraser to Carmarthen, 5th October 1787.

[795] See Ewart’s Memorandum to Pitt in “Dropmore P.,” ii, 44–9 for an admirable survey of events; also Wittichen, 130–5, and Häusser, i, 223–5.

The surprise of Prussian statesmen at the outbreak of war seems quite sincere; and evidence is strongly against the statement of Sorel (“L’Europe et la Rév. franç.,” i, p. 524) that Hertzberg egged on the Turks, and later on Sweden, to war.

[796] “F. O.,” Russia, 15. Carmarthen to Fraser, 18th March 1788.

[797] Ibid. Fraser to Carmarthen, 9th May.

[798] “F. O.,” Austria, 14. On 23rd September Ewart reported that Spain had “positively declined the pressing overtures of France to enter into a Quadruple Alliance with her and the two Imperial Courts” (“F. O.,” Prussia, 14).

[799] “F. O.,” Austria, 14. Keith to Carmarthen, 6th October 1787. On 10th October he reported that France would acquiesce in Joseph’s eastern policy if he would help her against England and Prussia in the Dutch dispute. On 24th October he stated that Austria refused to do so. On 14th November Joseph II informed him privately that he must make war on Turkey.

[800] Nisbet Bain, “Gustavus III and his Contemporaries,” ch. ix.

[801] B.M. Add. MSS., 28063.

[802] Greig and the other Britons had long been in the Russian service. I cannot find that they were recalled.

[803] “F. O.,” Sweden, 7. Keene on 26th August 1788 reported to Carmarthen the facts so far as he knew them, and also in a later “Account.” His bias against the King is obvious, and leads me to discount his assertions, e.g., that of 9th September, that the war with Russia was at an end, owing to the offer of peace to Catharine by the Swedish officers, and had become merely “a domestic quarrel between the King and nation.” Doubtless it was for this and similar statements that Keene was recalled in December 1788, Liston taking his place.

[804] “F. O.,” Turkey, 9. So, too, Lecky, v, 231.

[805] See, too, Frederick William’s words on this topic in Dembinski, “Documents relatifs à l’histoire ... de la Pologne (1788–91),” i, 21.

[806] “F. O.,” Prussia, 13. See, too, “Dropmore P.,” ii, 47.

[807] “F. O.,” Prussia, 14.

[808] “Dropmore P.,” i, 353.

[809] “F. O.,” Prussia, 14.

[810] “Memoir of Hugh Elliot” by the Countess of Minto.

[811] “F. O.,” Denmark, 10. Elliot to Carmarthen, 2nd, 6th August 1788.

[812] “F. O.,” Denmark, 10. Carmarthen to Elliot, 15th August.

[813] Ibid. This draft, in Pitt’s handwriting, was copied and sent off without alteration.

[814] “F. O.,” Prussia, 14. Ewart to Carmarthen, 16th September 1788.

[815] “F. O.,” Prussia, 14. Elliot to Carmarthen, 17th September. He states that Ewart had strongly urged him to go and see the King of Sweden in person. So, once again, we note the daring and initiative of Ewart. For a sharp critique on Ewart’s excess of zeal see Luckwaldt, “Zur Vorgeschichte der Konvention von Reichenbach” (Berlin, G. Stilke, 1908), 237–9.

[816] The statements of Keene (“F. O.,” Sweden, 7) imply that the King was at the end of his resources at Stockholm, and had but a limited success among the dalesmen. They rebut the statements in the “Memoir of Hugh Elliot,” 304.

[817] Keene on 26th September wrote that the Allies’ offer of mediation had made a great impression at Stockholm. Count Düben, the Minister, thanked him for it, but said it would perplex the King, as he did not wish to disoblige France. A truce of eight months was necessary; but the King would not make peace with Russia unless Russian Finland were restored to him.

[818] “F. O.,” Sweden, 7.

[819] The rebuke may have been due to Elliot’s silence; for in a P.S. to a letter of 16th October to Ewart, Elliot said: “Write everything about me to London; I have never written myself, having acted hitherto without instructions” (“F. O.,” Prussia, 14). As we have seen, he had acted largely on the advice of Ewart; and Liston, on finding this out, suggested to Carmarthen the need of cautioning Ewart not to go too fast (Luckwaldt, op. cit., 238).

[820] “F. O.,” Denmark, 10. Despatches of 30th November, 5th and 27th December. On 10th April 1789 Carmarthen assured Elliot of the desire of H.M. for a Danish alliance. He also commended him less coldly than before (“F. O.,” Denmark, 11).

[821] “F. O.,” Sweden, 7. Keene to Carmarthen, 30th December, 1788.

[822] “F. O.,” Denmark, 11. Elliot to the Duke of Leeds, 30th May 1789.

[823] “F. O.,” Denmark, 11. Leeds to Elliot, 24th June.

[824] Ibid., Leeds to Elliot, 21st August 1789.

[825] “Vorontzoff Archives,” xvi, 258–67.

[826] “F. O.,” Prussia, 15. Ewart to Carmarthen, 17th January 1789.

[827] On 22nd May Ainslie reported the slothful preparations for war. He had stated earlier that Russian money was at work at Constantinople to bring about a mediation by the Bourbon Courts in favour of peace (“F. O.,” Turkey, 10).

[828] See Häusser, i, 225–37, for its earlier developments; also for the more warlike plans at Berlin of a general alliance with Poland, England, Sweden, and Denmark for the humbling of Russia and Austria.

[829] I quote from the instructions drawn up by Hertzberg on 26th May, for Dietz, which he imparted to Ewart, who sent them on to Whitehall on 28th May—a step which earned him the distrust of Hertzberg (“F. O.,” Prussia, 15). The Pitt Ministry knew of them earlier than other Courts.

[830] Dembinski, i, 240.

[831] “F. O.,” Prussia, 15. Leeds to Ewart, 24th June 1789.

[832] “F. O.,” Prussia, 15. Ewart to Leeds, 12th July. In it he pointed out that the alternative Prussian plan, that of forcing Turkey to give up Moldavia and Wallachia to Austria, she giving up Galicia to the Poles, and they Danzig and Thorn to Prussia, was most objectionable; but Hertzberg felt able to force even that through. Leeds commended Ewart for opposing those extreme proposals.

[833] Ibid. Ewart to Leeds, 10th and 11th August, 3rd September. It is not surprising to find from Ainslie’s letter of 22nd October to Ewart that the Porte distrusted all the Christian Powers (France and Spain were still offering their mediation) but England least (“F. O.,” Turkey, 10). Dietz held scornfully aloof from Ainslie, and played his own game.

[834] “Corresp. of W. A. Miles,” ii, 142.

[835] Letter of the Grand Pensionary of 1st August, in Ewart’s despatch of 10th August (“F. O.,” Prussia, 16).

[836] “F. O.,” Prussia, 15. Leeds to Ewart, 14th September 1789.

[837] “F. O.,” France, 33. Fitzgerald to Leeds, 22nd October 1789.

[838] Pitt MSS., 102. The Count renewed his proposal early in 1790, but received a similar rebuff on 1st February 1790.

[839] “F. O.,” Prussia, 16. Ewart to Leeds, 28th November and 8th December 1789.

[840] “Leeds Memoranda,” 147.

[841] “F. O.,” Prussia, 16. Leeds to Ewart, 13th December 1789.

[842] “F. O.,” Prussia, 17. Ewart to Leeds, 18th February 1790. I can find neither in our archives nor in the Pitt MSS. any confirmation of the statement of Father Delplace (“Joseph II et la Rév. Brabançonne,” 148) that Pitt suggested to the “ambassador” of the Belgian Estates their election of the Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and that the ambassador demurred, because he was a Protestant. Pitt never recognized any Belgian envoy as having official powers, and took no step that implied Belgian independence.

[843] “F. O.,” Prussia, 17.

[844] “F. O.,” Prussia, 17. Ewart to Leeds, 22nd February 1790.

[845] Lord Acton, “Lects. on Mod. Hist.,” 304.

[846] Keith’s “Mems.,” ii, 257.

[847] On 19th March Fitzgerald reported to Leeds (“F. O.,” France, 34): “M. Van der Noote has made a second application to His Most Christian Majesty and the National Assembly, which has met with a similar reception with [sic] the former, the letters having been returned unopened.” Lafayette moved an amendment, but it was shelved.

[848] “F. O.,” Prussia, 17. Leeds to Ewart, 26th February. Several sentences of the draft of this despatch are in Pitt’s writing.

[849] Dembinski, i, 62–73, 274–8.

[850] Hertzberg, “Recueil,” iii, 1–8. Ewart reported on 4th January 1790 that Hertzberg was holding over the Polish treaty, and that it would be wholly “vague and ostensible.” Clearly Ewart thought that Hertzberg would leave the door open to coerce Poland into giving up Danzig and Thorn (“F. O.,” Prussia, 17). Article 2 of the treaty made this still possible. See, too, Frederick William’s letter of 11th April 1790 to the King of Poland, and the projected treaty of commerce, in Martens, iv, 126–35.

The statement of the “Ann. Reg.” of 1791 (p. 12), that the Triple Alliance became “a species of Sextuple Alliance,” by the inclusion of Poland, the Porte, and Sweden, is incorrect.

[851] Dembinski, i, 281, 283, 285.

[852] “F. O.,” Poland, 4. Hailes to Leeds, 6th and 7th January, 27th February, 29th March 1790.

[853] Ibid. On 14th August Hailes reported a remark of Lucchesini, that Prussia could easily seize Danzig and Thorn at the next war. Lucchesini was replaced by the young and inexperienced von Goltz in October. For a sketch of Lucchesini see Keith’s “Mems.,” ii, 360.

[854] “F. O.,” Austria, 20. Keith to Leeds, 3rd, 7th, and 14th April.

[855] “F. O.,” Prussia, 17. Ewart to Leeds, 18th March.

[856] B.M. Add. MSS., 35542. Auckland to Keith, 19th March and 6th April 1790.

[857] B.M. Add. MSS., 35542. Leeds to Ewart, 19th and 30th March.

[858] “F. O.,” Austria, 19. Leeds to Keith, 30th March; Ranke, “Fürstenbund,” ii, 375; Kaunitz to Leopold, 16th March.

[859] Ibid. Keith to Leeds, 24th April, 1st and 15th May; Keith’s “Mems.,” ii, 261.

[860] Dembinski, i, 279.

[861] “F. O.,” Austria, 19. Keith to Leeds, 10th May.

[862] Hertzberg, “Recueil,” iii, 58.

[863] “F. O.,” Prussia, 17. Leeds to Ewart, 21st May. Gustavus had pressed Prussia to advance to him 8,000,000 Swedish crowns, and 7,000,000 more next year if the war continued. He urged her to attack Russia at once. Sweden must obtain the wider boundaries of the Peace of Nystadt (Ewart to Leeds, 10th May). Early in June Prussia advanced 100,000 as a subsidy to Sweden, and as many more on behalf of England, on condition that Gustavus would not make a separate peace with Russia (Ewart to Leeds, 4th June).

[864] “F. O.,” Austria, 20. Leeds to Keith, 23rd May (“Secret and Confidential”). Frederick William’s plan of exchanges drawn up on 12th May was curiously similar (see Dembinski, i, 303, 305).

[865] “F. O.,” Austria, 20. Leeds to Keith, 8th June.

[866] Ibid. Keith to Leeds, 16th, 19th, 20th, and 30th June.

In face of these facts I reject the account given by Kaunitz on 24th July 1790 (in Vivenot, “Kaiserpolitik Oesterreich’s”) that Austria had consistently sought to treat at Reichenbach on the English basis of the status quo.

[867] Pitt and Leeds thought it a device to evade England’s offer of mediation (Leeds to Ewart, 25th June).

[868] “F. O.,” Prussia, 18. Ewart to Leeds, 11th June. He encloses a copy of the Prussian despatch of 5th May from Constantinople, sent by Knobelsdorff. (See also Hertzberg’s “Recueil,” iii, 76–8.)

[869] “F. O.,” Prussia, 18. Ewart to Leeds, 27th June.

[870] Ranke, “Fürstenbund,” ii, 376–85; Dembinski, 82–4, 314; “Bland Burges P.” 142–4.

[871] “F. O.,” Prussia, 18. Ewart to Leeds, 16th July. See too Vivenot, 5.

[872] For the protest of the Belgian Congress against the Reichenbach compromise, which dashed their hopes of independence, see Van der Spiegel, “Négociations ... des Pays Bas autrichiens,” 303–6.

[873] Ranke, “Fürstenbund,” ii, 387.

[874] On 7th September Bland Burges wrote to Lord Auckland that Russia had paid heavily for the Swedish peace (B.M. Add. MSS., 34433).

[875] “F. O.,” Sweden, 11. Liston to Leeds, 17th and 24th August, 3rd, 7th, and 10th September.

[876] Ibid. Liston to Leeds, 23rd November; Dembinski, i, 84.

[877] “F. O.,” Sweden, 11. Liston to Leeds, 23rd November 1790.

[878] Vivenot, 9, 10, 39–52; Hertzberg, “Recueil,” iii, 175–83; also 111–74 for correspondence on the Bishopric of Liége.

[879] B.M. Add. MSS., 34435.

[880] On 26th July 1791 Grenville, then Foreign Minister, wrote to Ewart that he hoped the sad straits of the Royal Family at Paris would induce Leopold to ratify the Hague Convention, and that the Allies must settle the Belgian constitution in such a way as to satisfy the rights of the sovereign and the just demands of that people (B.M. Add. MSS., 34438). See, too, Sybel, bk. ii, ch. vi.

[881] It is too large a topic to discuss here why the Revolution did not break out in those lands; but I may hazard these suggestions: (1) Feudalism was there still a reality. The lords mostly lived on their estates, spent their money there, and performed the duties which the French nobles delegated to bailiffs, while they themselves squandered the proceeds at Paris or Versailles. Hence (2) a perilous concentration of wealth at those centres, which attracted thither the miserable, especially in times of distress like the severe winter of 1787–8. (3) In the other lands named above, the barriers of princely and feudal rule kept the people isolated in small States or domains and prevented common action. (4) Political and social speculations were brought home to the French as to no other people by the return of the French troops serving in the United States. (5) The mistakes of Louis XVI and Necker in May–June 1789, and the precipitation of the reformers at Versailles caused a rupture which was by no means inevitable, and which few if any had expected.

[882] Rousseau, “Confessions,” bk. iv.

[883] Prof. Aulard (“La Rév. Franç.,” chs. iv-vi) has proved that there was no republican party in France until December 1790, and that it had no importance until the flight of the King to Varennes at Midsummer 1791.

[884] A. Young, “Travels in France,” 213 [Bohn edit.].

[885] “Mems. of Fox,” ii, 361.

[886] “Dropmore P.,” i, 353–5.

[887] Stanhope, ii, 38.

[888] Pitt MSS., 163.

[889] Ibid. 102.

[890] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 226–31. For the tricks used in order to get corn exported to France, see “Auckland Journals,” ii, 367.

[891] “Dropmore P.,” i, 549, 550; “Corresp. of W. A. Miles,” i, 739.

[892] “F. O.,” France, 32. Mem. by Hippisley, 31st July 1789. Calonne for some time resided at Wimbledon House. He was received, though very coolly, at Court.

[893] They were set forth in much detail in Paris newspapers of 25th July.

[894] “F. O.,” France, 33. Leeds to Fitzgerald, 31st July. In B.M. Add. MSS., 28063, is a letter of the Duke of Richmond to the Marquis of Carmarthen of 21st September 1788, thanking him for sending to the Paris embassy his nephew, Lord R. Fitzgerald, in place of Daniel Hailes.

[895] See the threats of Lafayette to the Duke of Orleans in Huber’s letter of 15th October 1789 to Lord Auckland (“Auckland Journals,” ii, 365).

[896] Burke, “Corresp.,” iii, 211.

[897] B.M. Add. MSS., 27914.

[898] Pitt MSS., 102. No reason is assigned for this expatriation, which was probably due to the return of the prince from Geneva without permission. That the commander at Gibraltar, General O’Hara, received a hint to be strict with the young prince seems likely from his rebuke on a trifling occasion: “If you do not do your duty, I will make you do it” (“Napoleon and Sir Hudson Lowe,” by R. C. Seaton, 32).

[899] Pitt MSS., 102. I have not found Pitt’s letter to Calonne, though there are two others of 1795 to him.

[900] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 351.

[901] Dumont, “Souvenirs sur Mirabeau,” ch. x.

[902] He calls it “a parent of settlement, not a nursery of future Revolutions.”

[903] Burke’s “Works,” iii, 345 (Bohn edit.).

[904] Burke, “Corresp.,” iii, 285–8.

[905] “Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 364–88.

[906] Burke’s “Works,” iii, 347–93 (Bohn edit.).

[907] “Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 71.

[908] Burke, “Corresp.” iii, 344.

[909] “Life of Wilberforce,” i, 284.

[910] Burke, “Corresp.,” iii, 238, 239, 255, 267, 274, 275, 278, 291, 302, 308, 336, 342.

[911] The following narrative is founded mainly on documents in “F. O.,” Spain, 17, 18, 19; but I have found a monograph by Dr. W. R. Manning, “The Nootka Sound Controversy” (Washington, 1905), most serviceable.

[912] I cannot agree with Dr. Manning (p. 360) that there were no signs of a British occupation of Nootka when Martinez arrived. The reverse is antecedently probable, and is asserted in Meares’ “Memorial.”

[913] The “Memorial” is among the British archives in “F. O.,” Spain, 17. For a critique of it see Manning.

[914] Liston to Auckland, 14th September 1790 (B.M. Add. MSS., 34433).

[915] “F. O.,” Spain, 16.

[916] Ibid. That this resolve was that of the whole Cabinet appears in the following letter in the Pitt MSS. It is from Pitt to Leeds:

“Downing Street, Tuesday morning, Feb. 23, 1790.

“I cannot help begging to remind your Grace of the wish expressed that the answer to the Spanish ambassador should if possible be circulated before our meeting to-day. I am the more anxious about this, as no one would like to give a final opinion on the terms of a paper of so much delicacy and importance without having had an opportunity of considering them beforehand.”

[917] See del Campo’s note of 20th April, in Manning, 374, 375.

[918] “Dropmore P.,” i, 579, 580; “F. O.,” Spain, 17.

[919] “Journals of Sir T. Byam Martin” (Navy Records Soc.), iii, 381, 382.

[920] “The Barham P.” (Navy Records Soc.), ii, 337–47.

[921] Manning, 408.

[922] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 785.

[923] “Wealth of Nations,” bk. iv, ch. vii, pt. 2.

[924] B.M. Add. MSS., 35542. Miranda’s relations with Pitt were renewed in 1804. On 13th June 1805 he sought to dispel some suspicions which Pitt had formed of him, and added: “Je n’ai jamais départi un instant des principes politiques et moraux qui formèrent notre première liaison politique en 1790.” See, too, an interesting article on Miranda in the “Amer. Hist. Rev.,” vol. vi, for proofs of the dealings of Pitt with Miranda at that time. On 12th September 1791 Pitt wrote to him stating that he could not grant him the pension he asked for, or the sum of £1,000: £500 must suffice for the expenses incurred during his stay in London (Pitt MSS., 102).

[925] “F. O.,” Spain, 17.

[926] “Travaux de Mirabeau” (1792), iii, 319.

[927] W. Legg, “Select Documents on the Fr. Rev.,” i, 226 and F. Masson, “Département des Affaires étrangères,” 79, 80.

[928] B.M. Add. MSS., 29475.

[929] Pretyman MSS.

[930] “F. O.,” Spain, 17.

[931] “Dropmore P.,” i, 585, 588. Auckland to Grenville, 15th May and 8th June 1790. On 22nd May Kaunitz, the Austrian Chancellor, assured Keith, our ambassador, that he heartily wished for the settlement of the Nootka Sound dispute. He blamed Floridablanca as rash (“F. O.,” Austria, 20).

[932] “F. O.,” Spain, 17. Fitzherbert to Leeds, 16th June 1790. Earl Camden, a valued member of the Cabinet, wrote on 29th June to Pitt expressing grave concern at this answer from the Spanish Court. He added these words: “War, as I always thought, was inevitable, and to temporize impossible. The jealousy of that Court gave the first provocation, and their pride refuses satisfaction. The consequence is evident. We have no choice, for the outrage at Nouska [sic] cannot be a subject of discussion. I trust in the spirit of the Kingdom and your own wisdom and good fortune, and have no doubt this will terminate to your honour” (Pitt MSS., 119).

[933] “F. O.,” Spain, 18. Leeds to Fitzherbert, 5th July.

[934] “F. O.,” Spain, 18. Despatch of 5th July to Fitzherbert. Of course, this does not imply that Pitt would never admit arbitration, but only that he judged it inadmissible in the present case.

[935] Ibid. Fitzherbert to Leeds, 12th July.

[936] Ibid. Leeds to Fitzherbert, 17th August.

[937] Manning, 405, 406; “Dropmore P.,” i, 603, 606.

[938] “Despatches of Earl Gower (1790–1792),” 23, edited by Mr. Oscar Browning. Gower succeeded Dorset as ambassador at Paris on 20th June 1790.

[939] “Travaux de Mirabeau,” iv, 24–49, which shows that this was not the work of the Assembly, but the proposal of Mirabeau. W. A. Miles reported (“Corresp.,” i, 255), that Mirabeau received from the Spanish ambassador one thousand louis d’or for carrying this proposal.

[940] “F. O.,” Spain, 18. Fitzherbert to Leeds, 17th August.

[941] “Gower’s Despatches,” 29; “Corresp. of W.A. Miles,” i, 162, 163.

[942] Ibid., i, 41–8, 150.

[943] In the Pitt MSS. there is a packet (No. 159) of Miles’s letters to Pitt, beginning with 1785. On 13th May 1790 Miles wrote to Pitt that George Rose had informed him he could not see how Pitt could employ him. Miles begged Pitt for a pension as a literary man. There is no other letter to Pitt until 10th December 1790, dated Paris:—“My attachment to your interest and a sincere desire to give every possible support to your Administration induced me to engage without difficulty in the enterprise proposed by Mr. Rose, and to accept of a salary inadequate to the expenses of the most frugal establishment,” viz., £400 a year. He adds that he has trenched on his private property, and concludes by asking for the consulate at Ostend.

[944] “Corresp. of W. A. Miles,” i, 171, 172, 199.

[945] “Beaufort P.,” etc. (Hist. MSS. Comm.), 368.

[946] Pitt MSS., 335.

[947] Ibid., 139. See, too, “Gower’s Despatches,” 38, 39, with note.

[948] Pitt MSS., 139.

[949] Stanhope, ii, 60, 61.

[950] Pitt MSS., 139.

[951] F. Masson, “Département des Affaires étrangères,” 86 et seq.

In the Pretyman MSS. is an undated letter of Elliot to Pitt (probably of November 1790) referring to his interview with Pitt that morning, and explaining that his phrase to the Diplomatic Committee, “the glorious Revolution,” was meant only for Frenchmen!

[952] “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 907.

[953] “F. O.,” Spain, 19.

[954] Machiavelli, “The Prince,” ch. iii.

[955] McDonald’s affidavit of 25th September 1790. On this case Bland Burges wrote to Auckland on 30th September (B.M. Add. MSS., 34433) that he was convinced of its authenticity, and that Spain was clearly seeking a quarrel with us. He referred to the signature of the Reichenbach Convention as strengthening our position. On 21st September he wrote to Auckland of the “intolerable suspense” of the Spanish affair, and hinted that Spanish gold had probably bought the recent peace between Sweden and Russia. The position of Bland Burges as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office gives weight to these remarks.

[956] “F. O.,” Spain, 19. Despatch of 8th October. For details see Manning, op. cit., chs. xi-xiii. I cannot, however, agree with Dr. Manning’s assertion (p. 440) that it looks as if Pitt and Leeds desired war. The terms of Fitzherbert’s despatch of 16th September, which Dr. Manning does not notice, surely convinced Pitt that Spain would on no account use the French alliance on Mirabeau’s conditions.

[957] Pretyman MSS.

[958] “F. O.,” Spain, 49 (Drafts of Lord Grenville), shows that the sum of £50,000 was finally demanded from Spain as compensation. For the Convention of 28th October 1790 see “Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 916–18, and Martens, iv, 492–9.

[959] “Auckland Journals,” ii, 374.

[960] For this see Hertz, “British Imperialism in the XVIIIth Century.”

[961] Stanhope, ii, 63; Lecky, v, 209; Lord Rosebery, “Pitt,” 102; Mr. C. Whibley, “Pitt,” 129.

[962] “F. O.,” Russia, 20. Trade Report of the Baltic ports for 1790.

[963] “Mems. of Sir R. M. Keith,” ii, 355–74; Sybel, bk. ii, ch. vi. The Congress of Sistova was adjourned on 10th February for some weeks.

[964] Vivenot, 5.

[965] Ibid., 9, 10; Beer, “Die orientalische Politik Oesterreichs,” App. I.

[966] “F. O.,” Russia, 20. “The Emperor still continues, notwithstanding his professions, to flatter the Empress that he may yet enter the lists in her favour” (Whitworth to Leeds, 18th January 1791). See Keith’s letters from Sistova, showing the resolve of Austria to evade the Reichenbach terms, and wring Orsova from the Turks (“Mems. of Sir R. M. Keith,” ii, 365 et seq.).

[967] B.M. Add. MSS., 34435.

[968] “F. O.,” Sweden, 11.

[969] R. Nisbet Bain, “Gustavus III,” ii, 120–3. See, too, Geffroy, “Gustave III et la Cour de France.”

[970] Pitt MSS., 332.

[971] “F. O.,” Poland, 4. Hailes to Leeds, 12th June 1790.

[972] The Prussians forced the Danzig trade to Elbing. Dembinski, i, 101.

[973] “Mems. de Michel Oginski,” i, 92–9.

[974] “F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes’s despatches of January 1791.

[975] “F. O.,” Poland, 4. Hailes to Leeds, 1st and 11th December 1790.

[976] Dembinski, i, 103, 104. Alopeus to Ostermann, 6th December 1790 (N.S.). The British archives show that Hertzberg continued to smile on our efforts to coerce Russia, and encouraged the Turks to do their utmost against her. Jackson to Leeds, 4th January 1791 (“F. O.,” Prussia, 20).

[977] Dembinski, i, 108–10. Ostermann to Alopeus, 1st January 1791 (N.S.).

[978] “F. O.,” Russia, 20. Whitworth to Leeds, 8th January 1790.

[979] Pitt MSS., 332. Ewart to Pitt, 16th November 1790.

[980] “F. O.,” Poland, 5. Leeds to Hailes, 8th January 1791. This evidence and the facts stated later on, in my judgement refute the statement of Lecky (v, 287) that the political security of Poland did not enter into the motives of Pitt’s policy.

[981] “F. O.,” Prussia, 20. Leeds to Jackson, 8th January 1791.

[982] Ibid. Jackson’s despatches of 23rd January, 12th, 17th, 26th February, 1st March; “F. O.,” Russia, 20. Whitworth’s despatches of 14th, 18th, 25th January (on the “defection” of Spain from Russia); “F. O.,” Sweden, 20, Liston to Leeds, 17th February. For the fears of Marie Antoinette and the French Court that British armaments were aimed at France, see Sorel, ii, 181, 182.

[983] Vivenot, op. cit., 78, 79.

[984] Ibid., 98 et seq. Cobenzl to Kaunitz, 4th March 1791; Beer, “Leopold II, Franz I, und Catharina,” 39 et seq.

[985] I differ from Dr. Salomon (“Pitt,” 514) as to the motives which impelled the Prussian King at this time.

[986] On 29th July 1791 Auckland wrote to Grenville about Ewart’s “misconceived energy and violence” (B.M. Add. MSS., 34438). See, too, “Auckland Journals,” ii, 392–3.

[987] B.M. Add. MSS., 34436. Ewart must somehow have seen this letter, for he quoted some of its phrases in his letter of 11th February to Pitt (Pitt MSS., 332). See, too, his letters of 8th February and 5th March to Lord Grenville in “Dropmore P.,” ii, 31, 38.

[988] B.M. Add. MSS., 34436.

[989] Ibid.

[990] “Auckland Journals,” ii, 382.

[991] B.M. Add. MSS., 34436. Auckland to Leeds, 15th March 1791; also in “F. O.,” Holland, 34 (received on 19th March).

[992] Pitt MSS., 337.

[993] B.M. Add. MSS., 34436.

[994] “Mems. of Sir R. M. Keith,” ii, 367–70, 379.

[995] “F. O.,” Prussia, 20. Jackson to Leeds, 9th March. See Heidrich, “Preussen im Kampfe gegen die Franz. Revolution” (1908), ch. i, for the causes of the double face worn by Prussian policy at this time.

[996] “F. O.,” Prussia, 20. Jackson to Leeds, 11th March 1791 (received 19th March).

[997] “Leeds Mem.,” 150–2.

[998] Leeds to Jackson, 27th March 1791. Russia then was seeking to form an alliance with Sweden and Denmark with a view to declaring the Baltic a mare clausum (“F. O.,” Russia, 20. Whitworth to Leeds, 25th March 1791).

[999] “F. O.,” Russia, 20. Leeds to Whitworth, 27th March 1791.

[1000] “F. O.,” Holland, 34. Pitt to Auckland, 27th March.

[1001] Contrast with this the admission of Storer: “Our taxes have proved this year beyond example productive” (“Auckland Journals,” ii, 389).

[1002] See Burke’s “Correspondence,” iii, 268, where he calls Ewart “a little, busy, meddling man, little heard of till lately.”

[1003] “Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 33–79.

[1004] Earl Stanhope (ii, 115) does not give the last figures, which show that the Ministry regained ground on 15th April.

[1005] “Auckland Journals,” ii, 388.

[1006] Pitt to Ewart, 24th May 1791; Stanhope, ii, 116; Tomline, iii, 260.

[1007] “F. O.,” Holland, 34.

[1008] “F. O.,” Denmark, 13. Drake to Leeds, 12th March.

In B.M. Add. MSS., 34436, I have found proofs that Auckland on 19th March forwarded by special packet duplicates of the proposals described above, adding his own comments to them, of course in a favourable sense. They probably reached Whitehall about 24th March, but by that time the Cabinet’s bellicose decision had gone to Windsor and received the King’s assent.

[1009] “Leeds Mem.,” 157, 158; also despatch of 31st March to Jackson, in “F. O.,” Prussia, 20.

[1010] From Major-General Sir Spencer Ewart’s MSS.

[1011] From Major-General Sir Spencer Ewart’s MSS.

[1012] “Keith Mems.,” ii, 219, 228.

[1013] “Dropmore P.,” ii, 54–6; Dr. Hunt, “Pol. Hist. of England,” x, 328.

[1014] “F. O.,” Prussia, 21. Grenville to Ewart, 20th April 1791. The details given above refute Sorel’s statement (ii, 208) that Pitt changed front brusquement, and charged Fawkener to say that he would give way about Oczakoff.

[1015] Dembinski, i, 449.

[1016] Vivenot, i, 126–37, 172–6; Clapham “Causes of the War of 1792,” ch. iv; “Keith’s Mems.,” ii, 436–41, 448. So, too, Whitworth to Leeds, 22nd April 1791: “Count Cobenzl continues buoying them [the Russians] up with the hopes of his Court taking a part in the war” (“F. O.,” Russia, 20).

[1017] B.M. Add. MSS., 34438. The despatches printed in Vivenot (i, 172–81) show that the arrival of Bischoffswerder at Milan on 11th June helped to thwart the efforts of Lord Elgin. Elgin suggested to Pitt on 15th June that, if war broke out, he could convict the Emperor of hindering the pacification (Pitt MSS., 132).

[1018] “F. O.,” Prussia, 21. Ewart to Grenville, 13th May.

[1019] “F. O.,” Russia, 21. Grenville to Fawkener, 6th May; “F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes to Grenville, 19th May. Yet as late as 6th July Grenville informed Ewart that in the last resort England would fight on behalf of Prussia, though Ewart was to work hard to avert war (“Dropmore P.,” ii, 124).

[1020] “Dropmore P.,” ii, 93, 94. Ewart to Grenville, 8th June. Hertzberg’s influence was lessened by the addition of Schulenberg and Alvensleben to the Foreign Department at Berlin early in May.

[1021] B.M. Add. MSS., 34437. Liston to Grenville, 27th May 1791.

[1022] “F. O.,” Russia, 21. Fawkener and Whitworth to Grenville, 19th, 27th, 31st May, 18th and 21st June. So, too, Ewart wrote to Grenville, on 18th June (after receiving news from St. Petersburg): “No answer will be given (by the Russian Ministers) to the Allies till after the return of the last messenger to London, for the purpose of knowing if they might rely with certainty on the English Government being unable to take active measures in any case” (“F. O.,” Prussia, 21).

[1023] “Memorials of Fox,” ii, 383–7.

[1024] Pitt MSS., 337; Tomline, iii, 308–12.

[1025] “Auckland Journals,” ii, 388.

[1026] “F. O.,” Russia, 20. 2nd May. “I have long thought Woronzow decidedly and personally hostile to the present Government in England, and am persuaded that he suggested the idea of employing Mr. Adair as an envoy from Mr. Fox to the Empress.” Grenville to Auckland, 1st August 1791. (B.M. Add. MSS., 34439.)

[1027] B.M. Add. MSS., 34438.

[1028] “F. O.,” Russia, 22. Whitworth to Grenville, 5th August.

[1029] B.M. Add. MSS., 34438. Wraxall (i, 202; ii, 34) thought Fox deserved impeachment for sending Adair.

[1030] “Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 849–1000. Whitbread’s motion was finally negatived by 244 to 116 (1st March 1792).

[1031] Vivenot, i, 547; Martens, v, 244–9.

[1032] B.M. Add. MSS., 34438.

[1033] “F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes to Grenville, 5th May, along with a letter by a Polish deputy.

[1034] Burke, “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.” Burke did not see that by fighting Russia’s battle in Parliament, he was helping to undermine the liberties of Poland.

[1035] “F. O.,” Poland, 5. Grenville to Hailes, 25th May.

[1036] “Keith Mems.,” ii, 448, 449.

[1037] Dembinski, i, 451. Hertzberg to Lucchesini, 7th May 1791.

[1038] “F. O.,” Prussia, 21. Ewart to Grenville, 25th June. For Bischofffswerder’s second mission to Vienna see Sybel, bk. ii, ch. vi.

[1039] Martens, v, 262–71.

[1040] I am indebted to Major-General Sir Spencer Ewart for these particulars and for permission to copy and publish these letters of Pitt. The poison story first became current in one of Fox’s letters published in the “Mems. of Fox.” For letters of Dr. Ewart at Bath on his brother’s affairs see “Dropmore P.,” ii, 181, 253, 256.

[1041] Pitt MSS., 102.

[1042] “F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes to Grenville, 21st August 1791.

[1043] Herrmann, “Geschichte Russlands,” vi, 445.