Chapter XXVII: The Triumph of Catharine II (3)

[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 5_s._ 8_d._ 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.

INDEX

Abdul Hamid I, Sultan of Turkey, his death, 506.

Abingdon, Lord, 474.

Abolitionist Society, the, 456–8, 473.

Adair, Sir Robert, his mission to St. Petersburg, 622–4.

Adams, John, United States Ambassador in London, 444.

Addington, Dr. Anthony, 50, 283, 284;
called in to see the King, 411, 412.

Addington, Henry, 283;
his friendship with Pitt, 284;
enters Parliament, 284, 285;
made Speaker, 464, 469.

Africa, proposed convict settlements in, 435, 437;
the Slave Trade in, 456, 457, 470, 473, 474.

Agriculture, development of, in Midlands and South of England, 31, 32.

Ainslie, Sir Robert, British Ambassador at Constantinople, 326, 486,
487, 489, 494, 506 _n._, 524.

Alaska, 563.

Algoa Bay, 435.

Alopeus, Russian envoy at Berlin, 597.

Althorpe, Lord, 90.

Alvanley, Lord. _See_ Arden, Richard Pepper.

Alvensleben, Count von, special Prussian envoy at Paris, 345, 380,
388, 621 _n._

America, Spanish claims on the north-west coast, 565, 568, 573–5,
585–8;
discontent in Spanish America, 568.

American Colonies, Declaration of Independence, 2, 3.
_See_ United States.

American War of Independence, 2, 9, 21, 28, 78, 79, 100;
proposals for conciliation, 57, 61, 83, 101–4, 112;
conclusion of peace, 114.

Amiens, Peace of, 305.

Amsterdam, captured by the Prussians, 378, 379.

Anapa, capture of, 625.

Angra Pequeña, 435.

Ankerström, Jakob Johan, murders Gustavus III, 532.

Anne, Princess, 306.

Anstey, Mr., sent to the United States to settle the claims of the
Loyalists, 444.

Antwerp, 298, 306.

Apsley, Lord, 90.

Arbitration, international, suggested by Pulteney, 340;
not admitted by Pitt between Spain and England, 574, 575.

Arcot, Nabob of, disposes of several seats in Parliament, 108, 109.

Arden, Richard Pepper (Lord Alvanley), 58, 72, 91;
Solicitor-General, 157, 158;
Attorney-General, 234, 235, 267, 283, 437;
made Lord Alvanley, 283.

Arkwright, Sir Richard, his spinning-frame, 2, 29.

Armaments, limitation of, 341.

Armed Neutrality, the, group of politicians so-called, 429.

Armed Neutrality League, 299.

Armfelt, Baron, 532.

Armstead, Mrs., 80, 409.

Artois, Comte d’, 546, 550.

Ashburton, Lord (John Dunning), 70;
made Chancellor of the Duchy, 105.

Auckland, Lord. _See_ Eden, William.

Australia. _See_ New South Wales.