Spain and Russia, see Salomon’s “Pitt,” 237–44. A little later Pitt
started commercial negotiations with Prussia and Holland, but nothing
came of them. It is clear, however, that he sought to revise the whole
of our commercial relations.
[514] The contributions of the Provinces to the needs of the Union
show their respective resources. Out of every 100 florins of federal
revenue, Holland contributed 57¾, Friesland 11½, Zealand 9, Groningen
5¾, Utrecht 5¾, Guelderland 5½, Overyssel 3½, Drent 1.
[515] For details see Luckwaldt, _op. cit._ On a similar plan, Harris
had written to Carmarthen on 3rd January 1786 that the idea of France
keeping the Stadholder in his position and England then aiding him is
so monstrous that Frederick “must think us mere novices in politicks”
(B.M. Add. MSS., 28061).
[516] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061 and 28062. Dalrymple to Carmarthen, 20th
October 1786, 23rd January 1787.
[517] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. So Luckwaldt, _op. cit._, 52–7.
[518] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061. See, too, “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 212,
for Carmarthen’s view. “I never desire a connexion with Prussia unless
Russia, and of course, Denmark, are included.”
[519] All the despatches of this time serve to refute the statement of
Lecky (v, 80) that the accession of Frederick William “greatly changed
the situation” for the Princess of Orange.
[520] Wittichen, _op. cit._, 63–5.
[521] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Dalrymple to Carmarthen, 21st April 1787.
[522] B.M. Add. MSS, 28060.
[523] “F. O.,” France, 18.
[524] Pitt MSS., 110.
[525] Bouillé, “Mems.,” ch. i.
[526] Grenville during his mission to The Hague in August 1787 got an
inkling of the wider scheme described above, as appears in his phrase
“One’s mind at once runs to Trincomale.” So late as August 1788 Pitt
was nervous about the fate of that port. See his letter to Grenville as
to the rumour of 800 French troops sailing thither (“Dropmore P.,” ii,
280, 353).
[527] “Dropmore P.,” ii, 251–5.
[528] _Ibid._, 267, 268; “Leeds Memoranda,” 117.
[529] Pitt MSS., 151.
[530] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 299. “I am certain if we begin to roar,
France will shrink before us” (Harris to Carmarthen, 5th May). See,
too, Wittichen, 67.
[531] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 303–6.
[532] “F. O.,” Holland, 14.
[533] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Ewart to Carmarthen, 19th and 22nd May 1787.
[534] “F. O.,” Holland, 14. Harris to Carmarthen, 1st June.
[535] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 322.
[536] “Auckland Journals,” i, 521; Oscar Browning, “The Flight to
Varennes and other Essays,” 163.
[537] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 329.
[538] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Ewart to Carmarthen, 6th June 1787. Ewart
was now _chargé d’affaires_ at Berlin, Dalrymple having gone home on
furlough. He did not return, and Ewart became ambassador in August 1788.
[539] _Ibid._ Ewart’s note of 30th June.
[540] “F. O.,” Holland, 15.
[541] “F. O.,” Holland, 15; “F. O.,” Prussia, 11.
[542] Luckwaldt, _op. cit._, 66, 67.
[543] Wittichen (78, 79) holds that Frederick William’s hesitation came
from concern about the Fürstenbund or the hope that France would join
in a peaceful mediation in Holland.
[544] Lusi’s report of 17th July 1787. Luckwaldt, _op. cit._, 68.
[545] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Carmarthen to Ewart, 17th July. There is
nothing in this despatch which warrants the statement of the editor
of the “Malmesbury Diaries” (ii, 339 _n._) that we then offered
Prussia armed support if France attacked her, and promised to make a
demonstration with forty ships of the line. That was not proposed until
the middle of September, in reply to French threats.
[546] “F. O.,” Austria, 14. Keith on 3rd August stated that the Emperor
was friendly to us, but he was the ally of France, though he would not
act with her in the Dutch Question.
[547] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Carmarthen to Ewart, 27th July.
[548] Wittichen, 81, shows that Wilhelmina herself worked hard to
dissuade her brother from a mediation conjointly with France.
[549] “F. O.,” France, 25. Eden to Carmarthen, 4th August 1787.
[550] _Ibid._, 8th August.
[551] “F. O.,” France, 25.
[552] “Auckland Journals,” i, 520. Lord Loughborough, in a letter of
13th October 1787 to Lord Carlisle stated that Grenville’s mission was
not due to distrust of Harris (“Carlisle P.,” 652). But this seems to
me very doubtful in view of the letters between Pitt and Grenville.
[553] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 408–15. For the missions of Grenville to The
Hague and Paris, see my article in the “Eng. Hist. Rev.” for April 1909.
[554] Pitt MSS., 102.
[555] “F. O.,” France, 25. Eden to Carmarthen, 16th August 1787.
[556] _Ibid._ Carmarthen to Eden, 24th August.
[557] Pitt MSS., 102; and “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 333–7.
[558] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 371.
[559] “Méms. du Comte de Portes,” (1904), 92.
[560] “Auckland Journals,” i, 234, 259.
[561] B.M. Add. MSS., 28061.
[562] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 418.
[563] “F. O.,” France, 25, 26. Eden to Carmarthen, 29th August and 11th
September.
[564] The feuds in his Ministry, and his consistently peaceful
attitude, seem to absolve him from the charge of duplicity. French
troops, disguised as Free Corps, were afterwards captured in Holland
and had on them orders and instructions written by de Ségur, the French
War Minister, who resigned in August 1787 (“Auckland Journals,” i,
259). It seems probable therefore that some Ministers egged on the
French agents and the Patriots, while Montmorin strove to hold them in
check. Louis XVI also used his influence to prevent a war with Prussia,
which he disliked (see Garden, “Traités,” v, 85 _n._). The appointment
of Loménie de Brienne to a kind of dictatorship seems also to have made
for peace; it coincides with the resolve, formed about 20th August
(see Barral de Montferrat, _op. cit._, 214), to recall Vérac from The
Hague; and on 31st August Montmorin signed with Eden a convention for
ending irritating disputes in East Indian affairs. I have no space
to go into that question; but it had been reported (_e.g._, by Eden
on 9th November 1786, Pitt MSS., 110) that the French were about to
gain control over Dutch East India ports. Rumours to that effect had
embittered the contest in Holland, and they were laid to rest by that
convention.
[565] See the MSS. of P. V. Smith in the “Beaufort P.” (Hist. MSS.
Commission) 357, for the parts of Pitt’s letter of 8th September,
omitted, very strangely, by the editor of the “Auckland Journals” (i,
191–2), also _ibid._, i, 198.
[566] Luckwaldt, 71.
[567] “F. O.,” Holland, 17.
[568] “F. O.,” Prussia, 11. Carmarthen to Ewart, 24th August.
[569] Luckwaldt, 80 _n._, here corrects one of many mis-statements
in P. de Witt’s “Une Invasion prussienne en Hollande,” 285, that the
Prussians were ready to march by 20th July.
[570] Hertzberg, “Recueil des Traités,” ii, 428–30; “F. O.,” Prussia,
12. Ewart to Carmarthen, 4th and 8th September.
[571] _Ibid._ 8th September.
[572] “The prevailing opinion of this Court is the Emperor will ...
sacrifice his alliance with Russia to that of 1756 [with France]”
(Ewart to Keith, 11th September 1787. B.M. Add. MSS., 35539).
[573] Wittichen, 92–4; also _ibid._, 97, for the Anglo-Prussian
Convention of 2nd October.
[574] “Auckland Journals,” i, 192.
[575] _Ibid._, 195.
[576] “F. O.,” France, 26. Eden to Carmarthen, 11th and 13th September.
[577] The original, in Pitt’s handwriting, is in “F. O.,” Russia, 15,
dated 21st September, and inscribed “To all the King’s Ministers abroad
except Paris and The Hague.”
[578] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 426–36; E. D. Adams, _op. cit._, 6, 7;
“Buckingham P.,” i, 326–31.
[579] _Ibid._ Eden to Carmarthen, 20th September.
[580] “Dropmore P.,” iii, 435; “Méms. de Dedem de Gelder,” 7.
[581] _Ibid._, iii, 435.
[582] “F. O.,” Holland, 19. Carmarthen to Harris, 12th October;
“Auckland Journals,” i, 234.
[583] B.M. Add. MSS., 29475.
[584] “F. O.,” Austria, 14. Keith to Carmarthen, 24th October 1787. On
14th November Joseph II informed Keith that he thoroughly approved of
the Dutch settlement.
[585] “Auckland Journals,” i, 217, 221.
[586] _Ibid._, 227, 228.
[587] _Ibid._, 255–8; “Ann. Reg.” (1787), 283.
[588] “Auckland Journals,” i, 264.
[589] _Ibid._, 263.
[590] B.M. Add. MSS., 28063. Harris to Pitt, 22nd February 1788.
[591] Martens, iv, 372–7; Garden, v, 89–92.
[592] “F. O.,” Prussia, 12. Ewart to Carmarthen, 27th September 1787.
[593] Pitt MSS., 119.
[594] Pitt MSS., 119. Carmarthen to Ewart, 2nd December 1787. Fraser,
our envoy at St. Petersburg, reported on 1st November that Austria was
proposing there a Triple Alliance, but it was coolly received (“F. O.,”
Russia, 15).
[595] _Ibid._ Carmarthen to Ewart, 26th December.
[596] See Ewart’s masterly Memorandum in “Dropmore P.,” ii, 44–9.
[597] Luckwaldt, 100 _et seq._ Ewart found out the secret instructions
issued to Dietz, and forwarded them to London on 8th April. They show
that Prussia sought by all means to encourage the Turks, but laid her
plans so as to get an indemnity in land in case Austria gained land in
the south-east.
[598] “F. O.,” Prussia, 13. Ewart to Carmarthen, 15th March 1788.
[599] _Ibid._ Ewart to Carmarthen, 15th January 1788. Lecky (v, 232)
assigns the first rumours of Prussian indemnities in land to January
1789; but Ewart reported the beginnings of Hertzberg’s plan in January
1788.
[600] _Ibid._ Carmarthen to Ewart, 2nd April.
[601] See his letter of 24th November 1787 to Dietz at Constantinople
in Häusser, “Deutsche Geschichte,” i, 225–6.
[602] “F. O.,” Prussia, 13. Carmarthen to Ewart, 14th May 1788.
[603] _Ibid._ Ewart to Carmarthen, 27th and 31st May 1788; Wittichen,
ch. xx.
[604] B.M. Add. MSS., 28063.
[605] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 421.
[606] The secret articles are in Ranke’s “Fürstenbund,” ii, 358; for
the published treaties of 13th June and 13th August see Martens, iv,
382–5, 390–3; for the negotiations, Luckwaldt, 114–16, Salomon, “Pitt,”
344–51. The accounts of these important events given by Tomline,
Stanhope, and Lecky are brief and unsatisfactory.
[607] So Wittichen, 148.
[608] “Records of Stirring Times,” 58, by the authoress of “Old Days in
Diplomacy.”
[609] Certain letters of the Earl of Liverpool recently sold in London
show that there was an open breach between King and Queen in 1804, and
that Pitt helped to patch it up.
[610] Huish, “Mems. of George IV,” i, 60–2.
[611] H. Walpole’s “Last Journals,” ii, 480–1.
[612] Fox does not seem to have _introduced_ the prince into bad
company. See Jesse, ii, 367–9, and Huish, i, 122–4.
[613] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 125.
[614] Pitt MSS., 228.
[615] “Malmesbury Diaries,” ii, 129–31.
[616] Pitt MSS., 105.
[617] W. H. Wilkins, “Mrs. Fitzherbert and George IV,” i, 81–105.
[618] _Ibid._, i, 135–7; Langdale, “Mems. of Mrs. Fitzherbert,” 127–8,
141, 142; Jesse, ii, 512, 513.
[619] Pitt MSS., 122. Sir Carnaby is Sir Carnaby Haggerston, who
married Frances, the youngest sister of Mrs. Fitzherbert (_née_
Smythe). Her mother was a daughter of John Errington of the
Northumberland family of that name. His brother was the _confidante_ of
the Prince, as described above.
[620] W. H. Wilkins, _op. cit._, i, 97.
[621] Wraxall, iv, 306.
[622] “Parl. Hist.,” xxv, 1348–56; Wraxall, iv, 304–6.
[623] Pitt MSS., 103. For other references see the King’s letters to
Pitt in “Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies.”
[624] The King altered this to “written message.”
[625] Pitt MSS., 105.
[626] W. H. Wilkins, _op. cit._, i, 161.
[627] This letter refutes the statement of Huish (_op. cit._, i, 169)
that Pitt was as pertinacious as the King in refusing to help the
Prince.
[628] “Dropmore P.,” i, 362.
[629] Major-General Smith, M.P., was twice unseated for bribery. His
nickname was “Hyder Ali.”
[630] “Cornwallis Corresp.,” i, 374, 375. Payne was a confidential
friend of the Prince, who made him Comptroller of his Household and
Lord Warden of the Stanneries in Cornwall.
[631] “Buckingham P.” i, 363, 364.
In the Pitt MSS., 228, is a Memorandum, endorsed January 1794, entitled
“Heads of a Plan for a new Arrangement of the Prince of Wales’s
Affairs.” It states that his debts then amounted to £412,511 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.
Austria, alliance with France, 297, 300, 314, 375;
alliance with Russia, 299, 375;
British overtures repulsed, 300;
joins Russia in the war with Turkey, 384, 385, 481, 482, 490, 491,
527;
British policy towards, 489;
_entente_ with Prussia, 523;
British proposals, 523–6;
weakness of her position, 527;
agrees to the Convention of Reichenbach, 528–30;
favours Russian claims, 600, 606;
peace with Turkey, 625.
_See_ Joseph II and Leopold II.
Austrian Netherlands. _See_ Belgic Provinces.
Babington, Thomas, 473.
Bahamas, the, 116.
Baker, Sir George, chief physician to George III, 407, 410.
Bankes, Henry, his friendship with Pitt, 58, 91, 137;
opposes Pitt’s Reform Bill (1785), 202, 203;
his independence, 293, 294.
Banks, Sir Joseph, 436.
Barbary States, 329.
Barnave, Antoine, 560, 624.
Barré, Colonel, proposes reform of public accounts, 87;
debate on his pension, 111;
accepts the Clerkship of the Pells, 159.
Barrier Treaty (1715), 298.
Bathurst, Earl, 79.
Bavaria, the Electorate of, proposal for exchange, 298, 304, 311,
353, 482.
Beauchamp, Lord, 434, 438.
Beauchamp, Lady, works on behalf of Fox, 172.
Beaufoy, Henry, 191;
supports the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, 214, 215 _n._
Belgic Provinces (of Austria), proposal for exchange, 298, 304, 311,
353, 482;
revolution in, 511, 513–15, 547;
French intrigues in, 513, 516;
Joseph II deposed, 515;
ancient constitution guaranteed by the Congress of Reichenbach, 530.
Bentinck, Count, 372.
Beresford, John, Irish Chief Commissioner of the Revenue, 248, 251,
255, 266, 337.
Berlin, Treaty of (1788), 389.
Bernstorff, Count, Danish Minister, 496, 497, 500, 615, 618.
Bible Society, founded, 473, 474.
Bischoffswerder, Baron von, Prussian diplomatist, 600;
his first mission to Vienna, 601, 609;
at Milan, 620 _n._;
his second mission to Vienna, 628 _n._, 629.
Bolton, Lord. _See_ Orde.
Boswell, James, his description of Wilberforce’s speech at York, 170.
Botany Bay, convict settlement at, 437–43.
Bouillé, General de, 356.
Brabant. _See_ Belgic Provinces.
Bradford, Lord (Sir Henry Bridgeman), 90.
Bridgeman, Sir Henry. _See_ Bradford, Lord.
Brissot, Jean Pierre, supports abolition of the Slave Trade, 458.
Bristol, opposes abolition of the Slave Trade, 463.
British Columbia, 570, 588, 589.
Brooks’s Club, 85, 90, 167, 168, 393, 408, 413, 421.
Browne, Governor, his report on slavery in Bermuda, 459.
Brunswick, Charles, Duke of, commands the Prussian troops against
Holland, 374, 376;
at the Conference of Reichenbach, 529.
Brunswick, Lewis, Duke of, guardian of the Stadholder, William V, 306.
Brussels, revolt of, 515.
Buckingham, Marquis of. _See_ Temple, George Grenville, Earl.
Bulgakoff, his mission to Constantinople, 486–8.
Burges, Bland, permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, 72;
his anecdote of Pitt and Gibbon, 72, 73;
quoted, 236, 531 _n._, 583 _n._
Burke, Edmund, his proposals for Economic Reform, 68, 69, 84;
his failure in Parliament, 81;
on Lord Shelburne, 82;
praises Pitt’s maiden speech, 85;
opposes Reform, 109, 201, 203;
resigns, 111;
draws a retort from Pitt, 115;
made Paymaster of the Forces, 129;
opposes Pitt’s proposals for retrenchment, 132;
speech in support of the India Bill, 146;
his diatribe against Pitt’s India Amending Act, 221, 222;
reasons for his hostility to Hastings, 226;
his motions against Hastings, 227–32, 239;
opposes Pitt’s Irish Resolutions, 262;
opposes the French Commercial Treaty, 342;
epigram on Pitt, 404;
in the Regency crisis, 414, 416, 421, 423;
protests against transportation, 434, 435, 438;
rupture with Fox, 451, 558;
on the Slave Trade, 457, 462;
on the revolt in Belgium, 547;
his “Reflections on the French Revolution,” 467, 553–7;
influence of the book in England, 557;
his “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,” 558, 560, 627 _n._;
his “Thoughts on French Affairs,” 559, 560;
contrasted with Pitt, 552–61;
opposes the Russian War, 613;
his opinion of Ewart, 613 _n._;
on the Polish Revolution, 627.
Burke, Richard, at Coblentz, 557, 613.
Burney, Fanny, quoted, 228, 402, 408, 409, 557.
Burton Pynsent, Chatham’s home, 39, 41, 43, 47.
Butler’s “Analogy,” Pitt on, 292.
Buxton, Sir T. F., 455.
Caffraria, suggested settlement on coast of, 435, 438.
Calonne, Charles Alexandre de, French Minister of Finance, and the
treaty with England, 334, 338, 343–5;
his prodigality, 346–8, 358, 540;
his visits to England, 545, 550.
Cambridge Debt Bill, 290.
Camden, Earl (Charles Pratt), Lord Chief Justice, declines office
under Pitt, 155;
President of the Council, 156, 384, 439, 560, 574 _n._, 616.
Camden, Marquis. _See_ Pratt, John Jeffreys.
Camelford, Lord. _See_ Pitt, Thomas.
Campbell, Lord, his “Lives of the Lord Chancellors” quoted, 235.
Canada, settlement of American Loyalists in, 440, 441, 443, 446, 447;
request of settlers for representative institutions and English
laws, 447, 448;
preponderance of the French, 447, 448;
Canada Bill (1791), 449–53;
success of Pitt’s policy, 453;
the future of, 588.
Canning, George, 281, 283;
on the Slave Trade, 477.
Canterbury, Archbishop of. _See_ Moore, John.
Cape of Good Hope, 317 _n._, 356, 370;
question of convict settlement near, 435.
Carlisle, Earl of, Lord Privy Seal, 79, 129;
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 245, 333, 611.
Carlisle, Countess of, works on behalf of Fox, 172.
Carmarthen, Marquis of (afterwards Duke of Leeds), Foreign Secretary,
9, 10, 13, 156, 160 _n._;
correspondence with Harris, 275, 301, 302, 309, 314, 327, 335, 355,
360, 362, 493;
his plays, 309, 311;
negotiations with Russia, 315–17, 489;
his suspicions of France in the matter of the Commercial Treaty,
306, 328–30, 332, 334, 335, 343, 344, 347;
letter to the King on Dutch policy, 357;
strained relations with Pitt, 357, 358;
negotiations leading to the Triple Alliance, 365, 368, 370, 373,
374, 377, 381, 383, 384, 386, 387, 490;
a witty retort by, 424;
situation in the Baltic, 495–7;
commends Elliot, 500, 501;
becomes Duke of Leeds, 501, 502, 510;
the revolution in Belgium, 513, 516, 520;
the French Revolution, 546;
interviews with the Duke of Orleans, 547, 548;
the Nootka Sound dispute, 566, 569, 572, 576, 582;
the Eastern Question, 582, 590, 599, 605, 606, 608;
disagreement with Pitt, 616;
resigns, 618.
Carrington, Lord (Robert Smith), 91, 201, 285;
overhauls Pitt’s affairs, 287, 288.
Carteret, Lord (Henry Thynne), 159.
Cartwright, Rev. Edmund, his power loom, 3, 30.
Cartwright, Major John, 83, 204, 429;
his “Society for Promoting Constitutional Information,” 109, 206.
Catharine II, Czarina, 136, 140, 298;
alliance with Joseph II, 299, 353, 483;
repartee to Diderot, 299, 300;
repels British overtures, 300–4, 348, 488;
her schemes against Turkey, 304, 314, 315, 348, 353, 390, 481–3,
582;
makes a commercial treaty with France, 348, 485, 488;
war with Turkey, 375, 385, 487, 488, 502, 590, 591;
state progress to the Crimea, 480, 481, 483;
meeting with Joseph II, 480–3;
her career and character, 483, 484;
agreement with the King of Poland, 485, 486;
her anger against England, 488, 489, 494;
war with Sweden, 491, 493, 494, 502, 520, 521;
makes overtures to Fox, 504;
refuses British offer of mediation, 526;
makes peace with Gustavus III, 531, 532, 582, 592, 593;
her promises to him, 532, 533;
approached by Leopold II, 592;
Hertzberg’s treacherous proposals to, 597;
rejects Pitt’s demands for the _status quo_, 592, 598;
anxious for a peaceful settlement, 615, 618;
Pitt’s new proposals, 620, 621;
makes peace with Turkey, 626;
alliance with Sweden, 628, 629.
Cavendish, Lord G., 90.
Cavendish, Lord John, Chancellor of the Exchequer, resigns, 111;
moves a vote of censure against the Government, 120;
again Chancellor of the Exchequer, 129;
Pitt exposes the weak points of his Budget, 132;
forms a revenue committee, 185.
Cazalès, Jacques Antoine Marie de, 572.
Chambers, Sir Robert, anecdote of, 213.
Channing, Professor E., on the action of the United States to the
Loyalists, 444 _n._
Charles III of Spain, 568.
Charles IV of Spain, 568, 575, 577, 583, 584.
Charlotte, Queen, her virtue and unpopularity, 8;
her simple tastes, 24;
receives the wife of Warren Hastings, 226, 228;
her parsimony, 392, 393;
relations with the Prince of Wales, 393, 397, 402;
the King’s illness, 407, 408, 411, 414, 415, 420, 422, 426, 430.
Chariot, Comte de, appeals to England to protect Belgium against
France, 513.
Chartres, Duc de. _See_ Orleans, Duke of.
Chatham, Hester, Lady, 36, 37, 39, 40, 288.
Chatham, John Pitt, 2nd Earl of, 40, 41, 57, 167, 269, 397, 398;
First Lord of the Admiralty, 567, 616.
Chatham, William Pitt, first Earl of, his death, 2;
his character and influence, 34, 35;
his defects, 35;
fallacious comparisons between him and his son, 39, 40;
his opinion of public schools, 42;
his careful choice of language, 43;
letters from his son, 44, 51;
his last speeches and death, 61;
hostility of the King to, 62;
state of his affairs, 64;
his Coalition with Newcastle compared with that of Fox and North,
119.
Chauvelin, Marquis de, French ambassador to England, 281.
Cherbourg, fortification of, 211, 327, 341.
Cheyt Singh, Zamindar of Benares, 225, 232, 233, 238, 239.
China, trade between America and, 563.
Cholmondeley, Lord, Walpole on his death, 25.
Chotzim, surrender of, 491.
Church Missionary Society founded, 473.
Civil List, proposals for reform of, 68, 84.
“Clapham Sect,” the, 473.
Clarence, Duke of (afterwards William IV), opposes abolition of the
Slave Trade, 471, 472, 474.
Clarkson, Thomas, 322, 455, 457, 468, 473, 478.
Clavering, Sir John, his intrigues against Hastings, 224.
Clavière, Etienne, supports abolition of the Slave Trade, 458.
Clerk, Sir Philip, 69.
Clerkship of the Pells, the, 159.
Clinton, Sir Henry, 445.
Coal, duty on, 186.
Coalition Ministry (1783) formed, 118;
names of Ministers, 128, 129;
dismissed, 148.
Cobenzl, Count, Austrian Vice-Chancellor, 524, 527, 614, 620 _n._
Coke of Norfolk, 163, 611.
Colnett, Captain, his ships seized by the Spaniards at Nootka, 563–5.
Commerce, Committee of Council for, appointed by Pitt, 257.
Commons, House of. _See_ Parliament.
Commutation Bill (1784), 185.
Consols, lowness of (1783, 1784), 178, 180;
rise in (1785), 318,
(1786), 341.
Constantine, Prince, grandson of Catharine II, 482.
Constitutional Information, Society for Promoting, 109, 206.
Contractors Bill (1782), 110, 113.
Convict Settlements, Parliamentary Report on (1785), 434, 435;
scheme for new, 435–40.
Conway, General, 102, 112, 116, 159, 163.
Cook, Captain, 436, 438, 440, 562, 564.
Coote, Sir Eyre, death of, 147.
Corn, Bill to regulate export of (1789), 544;
export of from Ireland to England forbidden, 545.
Cornwall, Charles Wolfran, Speaker, his death, 422.
Cornwallis, Earl, declines office under Pitt, 156;
Governor-General of India, 224, 370, 371, 402;
mission to Berlin, 314;
suggested as Home Secretary, 619.
Corporation Act, its repeal proposed and rejected, 212, 214, 215.
Cort of Gosport, his invention for the production of malleable iron,
31.
Cotton industry, its enormous expansion, 30.
County Reform Associations, 21, 27, 68, 71, 169.
Court, the English, strictness of the etiquette at, 16, 392.
Courtenay, John, M.P., 211.
Crabbe, Thomas, on smuggling, quoted, 182, 183.
Cracow, Bishop of, 627.
Craufurd, George, English commissioner at Versailles, 328–30.
Crewe, Mrs., on Pitt’s administration, 154;
on behalf of Fox, 172.
Crompton, Samuel, his “mule-jenny,” 3, 29.
Crown, the debates on the influence of, 70, 130;
theory of royal veto, 148;
abuse of power of, 148, 149.
Cumberland, Henry Frederick, Duke of, his influence on the Prince of
Wales, 393.
Cumberland, William Augustus, Duke of, his death, 24.
Curtis, Alderman, 586.
Czartoryski family, the, in Poland, 486.
Dalrymple, Lord, British Ambassador at Berlin, 304 _n._, 313, 352,
353, 363 _n._
Daly, Denis, M.P., 251.
Danzig, question of its cession to Prussia, 387, 507, 508, 511 _n._,
521 _n._, 522, 526, 529, 594, 596, 597, 599, 601, 606, 607,
613, 614.
Delancey, Colonel Stephen, 445, 446 _n._
Delancey, Sir William, 446 _n._
Del Campo, Marquis, Spanish Ambassador in London, 562, 565, 566.
Democracy, growth of, 2, 197, 203–6;
_see_ Chap. XXIV.
Dempster, George, 190, 191, 544.
Denmark, desires alliance with Great Britain, 385;
treaty with Russia, 496;
eager for war with Sweden, 496;
lays siege to Gothenburg, 496–9;
agrees to an armistice, 499, 500;
renders help to Russia, 501, 502, 600, 603.
Derby, Countess of, works on behalf of Fox, 172.
Desmoulins, Camille, 512, 571, 572.
Devonshire, Georgiana, Duchess of, supports Fox, 172, 173, 421, 623;
recognizes Mrs. Fitzherbert, 398;
her Diary, 409, 421 _n._
Diamond Necklace Scandal, 140, 343, 382.
Diderot, Denis, 299, 300.
Dietz, Prussian envoy at Constantinople, 494, 506, 507 _n._, 509,
511, 521, 528.
Disbrowe, Colonel, epigram on Queen Charlotte, 392.
Dissenters. _See_ Nonconformists.
Dnieper, River, 603, 604.
Dniester, River, 597, 602, 604, 605, 615, 619, 620.
Dolben, Sir William, his bill for regulating transport of slaves, 461.
Dominica ceded to Great Britain, 116, 121.
Dönhoff, Countess, 609.
Dorchester, Lord, Governor-General of Canada, 448–50.
Dorset, Duke of, British Ambassador in Paris, 329, 333, 334, 341, 344
_n._, 369, 545;
recalled, 546.
Douglas, Captain, his ship seized by the Spaniards at Nootka, 564.
Dover House Club, 403.
Drake, Francis, British envoy at Copenhagen, 615.
Drinking in the eighteenth century, 23–5.
Düben, Count, Swedish Minister, 499.
Dublin Parliament, legislative independence conceded, 105.
Dumouriez, General, 547.
Duncannon, Lord, 90.
Duncannon, Viscountess, 172.
Duncombe, Charles Slingsby, elected member for York, 170, 201, 293,
586.