Chapter XXVII: The Triumph of Catharine II (2)

Nevertheless, though Pitt showed a lack of nerve at the crisis, yet, in view of the duplicity of Prussia, the doubtful attitude of Leopold and Gustavus, the marvellous resourcefulness of Catharine, and the factious opposition of the Whigs, he cannot be blamed. At times, new and subtle influences warp the efforts of statesmen. This was so in the year 1791. Pitt was striving to build on the basis of the Balance of Power. But that well-trodden ground now began to heave under the impact of forces mightier than those wielded by monarchs and chancellors. Democracy sent out its thrills from Paris as a centre, and the gaze of statesmen was turned from the East to the West. Thenceforth the instinct of self-preservation or of greed marshalled the continental chanceries against the two reforming States. The “Zeitgeist” breathed against the plans of Pitt, and they were not. In their place there came others of a far different kind, inspired by hopes of territorial gains in Poland and the overthrow of liberty in France.

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.