CHAPTER XX.

ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.

During the earlier part of the war of the second coalition in 1799 the

allies gained a series of victories. In Germany Jourdan was defeated by

the Archduke Charles in the country between the Lake of Constance and

the Danube, and the French withdrew across the Rhine. In Italy they were

repulsed by the Austrians, retreated across the Mincio and, on April 12,

fell back behind the Adda. Then a Russian army joined the Austrians, and

Suvorov, the captor of Ismail, took command of the allied forces. He

conquered Lombardy at the battle of Cassano on the 27th-29th. Moreau

retreated behind the Ticino, and called on Macdonald to bring his army

from Naples to help him. Suvorov's blows fell in quick succession; he

advanced into Piedmont, cut Moreau off from communication with Massena,

who was operating in Switzerland, and invited Charles Emanuel, who had

been forced to abdicate his continental possessions, to return to Turin.

Everywhere the Italian people rose against the French. Suvorov designed

to crush Moreau and Macdonald separately, to cross the Alps, and restore

the French monarchy. He was thwarted by the Austrian court. Thugut

disapproved of the proposed restoration of the King of Sardinia, for he

was set on the aggrandisement of Austria at the expense of Piedmont. The

tsar aimed at the re-establishment of the old order in Europe, the

emperor at the increase of his own dominions. Suvorov, though indignant

at Austrian opposition, turned to the work immediately before him, and

inflicted a crushing defeat on Macdonald at the Trebbia on June 19.

Macdonald made a rapid retreat, and finally led his shattered army to

Genoa. A new French army was defeated by Suvorov at Novi on August 15,

its commander, Joubert, falling early in the battle.

The English government approved of the emperor's designs on Piedmont,

for under a strong power the country would be a barrier to French

aggression,[301] and as the difference of policy between Austria and

Russia hindered the progress of the war, devised a plan for bringing

them into accord as regards operations. Suvorov, after completing the

conquest of Italy, was to enter Switzerland and prosecute his intended

invasion of France; the Austrians were to remain in occupation of

Piedmont and enter France by Savoy, while the archduke was to act on the

Rhine where his presence would forward a scheme for an invasion of

Holland by England and Russia. During the spring and summer the archduke

had been struggling with Massena in Switzerland without making much

progress, though in August the French evacuated the Grisons country.

Shortly before he left for the upper Rhine he was joined by a new

Russian army under Korsakov. After his departure Massena utterly

defeated Korsakov and his Austrian allies near Zurich on September 26.

When, then, Suvorov had, in spite of great hardships, led his army over

the St. Gothard, he found his whole plan of campaign overset and his

position seriously endangered by Korsakov's defeat. He abandoned the

campaign, and at the head of only 25,000 men of the 70,000 sent by the

tsar to the war, retired into Germany. In the Mediterranean, Corfu, the

other Venetian islands, and several important posts were captured by the

combined Russian and Turkish squadrons. Valetta was closely besieged

under Nelson's direction; Italy was virtually lost to the French, though

they still held Genoa.

[Sidenote: _NELSON AT NAPLES._]

England bore a part in the war both by sea and land. On April 25 a

powerful French fleet slipped out from Brest. All the southern coast of

England was disturbed by the fear of invasion. The French, however,

sailed into the Mediterranean. The fleet under St. Vincent was scattered

on different services and each division was far weaker than the French,

who were expected at Naples, at Malta, and at Alexandria. A crisis was

impending at Naples. The upper and middle classes were largely

republican, the poor throughout the kingdom were attached to the

monarchy. In February, Cardinal Ruffo, as the king's vicar-general, set

on foot a counter-revolution. At the head of a horde of peasants he

quickly regained Calabria for the king, while a Neapolitan diplomatist,

Micheroux, with the help of some Russian and Turkish ships, won back

Apulia. On April 3 Troubridge captured Procida and Ischia from the

republicans, but on the arrival of the French fleet in the

Mediterranean, was summoned by Nelson to join him at Maritimo, and left

only one British ship off Naples under Captain Foote. On June 13, after

Macdonald had withdrawn his army, the bands of Ruffo and Micheroux

entered Naples and took cruel vengeance on the republicans. The castle

of St. Elmo, held by a French garrison, and the castles Dell' Uovo and

Nuovo by Neapolitan republicans, were besieged by the royalists, by

Foote, and by the Russian and Turkish allies. Both sides expected the

arrival of the French fleet, and Ruffo was anxious to gain speedy

possession of the forts. An armistice was arranged, and on the 19th a

capitulation of the forts Dell' Uovo and Nuovo was agreed upon, was

signed by Ruffo, Foote, and the Russian and Turkish commanders, and was

ratified by the French commandant of St. Elmo.

The capitulation provided that the rebels should surrender the two forts

and evacuate them unharmed as soon as transports should be ready to

convey to Toulon such of them as desired to depart. On the 21st Nelson,

after an interview with the king, sailed from Palermo for Naples. As

soon as he arrived, on the 24th, he signalled to annul the armistice,

and sent word to Ruffo that he disallowed the capitulation. The next day

he sent Ruffo a declaration that he should not allow the rebels to

embark; they must surrender to the king's mercy, and he bade Ruffo

inform them of his decision. Ruffo refused, and remonstrated in person

with Nelson, who gave him a written "opinion" that the capitulation

could not be carried out without the king's approbation. The cardinal

then sent the rebels Nelson's declaration. On the 26th Nelson promised

him that he would not break the armistice and, further, sent him word

that he would not oppose the embarkation of the rebels. Did not Ruffo,

anxious for British help in case the French and the rebels should renew

hostilities, yield to Nelson's opinion that the question of the

capitulation should be reserved for the king? We have no absolute proof

that this was so, but Sir John Acton, Ferdinand's minister, in a letter

of August 1, says that the king pardoned Ruffo because he yielded to

Nelson's wise declarations.[302] After receiving a communication from

Ruffo, Micheroux informed the rebels, no doubt in good faith, that

Nelson had consented to the capitulation. The evacuation was arranged,

and the rebels embarked that evening in the belief that they would be

allowed to proceed to Toulon. Nelson prevented the transports from

leaving the harbour. The king disallowed the capitulation, and put to

death a large number of the rebels.

Such are the main outlines of this extremely complicated affair. It is

certain that Ruffo exceeded his authority in arranging the capitulation,

and that Nelson knew and carried out the king's wishes. He evidently

acted with full authority; he neither changed his opinion as regards the

capitulation nor did he deceive either Ruffo or the rebels. That the

rebels were deceived is certain, but for that Ruffo was responsible,

though he may only have been guilty of gross carelessness in not making

Micheroux understand the position of affairs. But Nelson's conduct was

not creditable. The capitulation was not less valid because Ruffo acted

disobediently in arranging it, and it was signed by a British captain.

Nelson was justified in suspending its execution until King Ferdinand's

will was declared; but, as the rebels could not then be restored to the

position they held before it was made, he was bound to use every effort

to induce the king not to break it, and to allow the rebels to proceed

to Toulon. Unfortunately he had imbibed the vengeful spirit of the

Neapolitan court. Blinded by the blandishments of his mistress and the

flattery of the court, he forgot the conduct which became a British

admiral and the representative of his own sovereign, and pandered to the

cruel desires of the Bourbon king and queen for vengeance on those who

had revolted against their detestable government.[303]

With the fate of one Neapolitan rebel Nelson was immediately concerned.

Francesco Caracciolo, formerly commander of the royal fleet, had joined

the republicans, taken command of their vessels, and fired on his king's

frigate, the _Minerva_. He escaped from Naples on June 17, and so was

not included in the capitulation; he was arrested, and on Nelson's

repeated request was handed over to him by Ruffo on the 29th. Nelson

immediately ordered the captain of the _Minerva_ and other royal

officers to try him by court-martial on board his own flagship, the

_Foudroyant_. Caracciolo was found guilty of treason, and sentenced to

death with ignominy. Nelson ordered that he should be hanged that same

evening from the yard-arm of the _Minerva_, which was accordingly done.

He was forty-seven at the time of his death. His treason was patent, and

its penalty inevitable. Although Nelson does not appear to have received

any written commission from Ferdinand, he evidently had a right to order

the court-martial and to enforce its sentence,[304] but the eagerness

with which he acted and the indecent haste of the execution are

lamentable illustrations of his animosity. The garrison of St. Elmo

surrendered on terms, and the royal power was re-established in Naples.

The French fleet was still in the Mediterranean. Large as it was, it did

nothing of importance, save effecting a junction with the fleet of

Spain. The combined fleets reached Brest in September, outstripping the

pursuit of the British under Lord Keith, who succeeded St. Vincent as

commander-in-chief. In April, 1800, St. Vincent took command of the

channel fleet and instituted a strict blockade of Brest.

[Sidenote: _EXPEDITION TO THE HELDER._]

On June 22, 1799, Pitt made a convention with Russia for a joint

invasion of Holland. On the part of England the principal object was the

capture of the Dutch fleet in the Texel and the destruction of the naval

depot, which would deprive France of maritime aid from Holland, while

both the allied powers hoped to follow up the Austrian successes by

threatening the French frontier. It was expected that the Orange party

would be strong enough to give the invaders effectual help and that the

Dutch would rise against the French. The tsar promised 17,500 men, and

England agreed to send 13,000, to pay the tsar L88,000 for first

expenses, and a subsidy of L44,000 a month, and to provide transports

and horses. On August 27 a British force of 10,000 men under Sir Ralph

Abercromby landed at the Helder, a point by no means suited for an

invasion, which was chosen on account of its proximity to the Dutch

fleet. Abercromby repulsed an attack of the Dutch and threw open the

Texel to the British ships, under Admiral Mitchell. The Dutch seamen,

who were attached to the house of Orange, forced their officers to hoist

the prince's flag, and the fleet, consisting of thirteen ships carrying

from sixty-four to forty-four guns and other smaller vessels,

surrendered, and was carried to Yarmouth. The arrival of the Russians

was delayed, and the republicans had time to make preparations for

defence. Brune, a French general, took command of the combined French

and Dutch forces, and failing in an attempt on the British position,

established his quarters before Alkmaar.

On September 12 the first division of the Russians arrived, and

reinforcements from England brought up the number of the combined army

to about 30,000 men. The Duke of York was ostensibly in command, but the

cabinet ordered that all operations should be directed by a standing

council of war. A general advance was attempted on the 18th-19th. It was

not well planned, and failed owing chiefly to the undisciplined

impetuosity of the Russians on the right wing. The British lost over

1,000 killed and wounded, the Russians about 2,500, but the allies took

some 3,000 prisoners, mostly Dutch. Heavy rains set in; the republicans

broke up the roads and laid the country in front of the allies under

water. The invaders, cooped up in a sandy corner of land, were in a

sorry plight. A fresh advance was attempted on October 2; there was some

heavy fighting in which General, afterwards Sir John, Moore and his

brigade highly distinguished themselves, and Moore was twice wounded. It

was a drawn battle; and Brune fell back on the formidable line of

Beverwyk. The duke attacked him on the 6th, and failed to drive him from

his position. It became evident that the allies would not succeed in

forcing their way out of the small district they occupied, and that the

hopes entertained in England of assistance from the Dutch were

fallacious, for the people showed no sign of deserting the French

alliance. Accordingly, on the 18th, the duke capitulated; it was agreed

that the allies should re-embark unmolested and that England should

restore 8,000 French and Dutch prisoners. The British troops returned

home and the Russians were assigned winter-quarters in the Channel

islands. Dearly as this ill-planned expedition cost England, both in men

and money, the country was consoled for its failure by the acquisition

of the Dutch fleet, which passed into the king's service in virtue of a

convention with the Prince of Orange. About the same time came news of

the surrender of the rich Dutch colony of Surinam to Admiral Lord Hugh

Seymour.

[Sidenote: _PAUL DESERTS THE COALITION._]

During the winter the coalition was broken up by the defection of

Russia. Paul was angered by the policy of Austria which, under Thugut's

direction, was dictated by anxiety for the acquisition of Piedmont; he

was irritated by the support Thugut received from the English government

which, so far as the continental war was concerned, based its hopes on

Austrian success, and he was disgusted by the failure of his arms. He

considered that his troops were sacrificed in Switzerland to Austrian

selfishness, that they were not well treated in the expedition to the

Helder, and, which seems to some extent true, that they were shabbily

provided for in the Channel islands.[305] He recalled his troops and

withdrew from the coalition. His political attitude exhibited "daily

tergiversation," the result of palace intrigues.[306] The hope of

gaining Malta for himself and the knights still allured him, and on

December 31, he assumed the grandmastership of the order. He kept his

fleet in the Mediterranean to assist in the blockade of Valetta, in the

hope of making other acquisitions, and to support the King of Naples.

Yet his unsettled mind sometimes veered towards France; the "virtues of

Bonaparte" would suddenly become his chief topic of conversation and

"everything would be in suspense" as regards his policy.[307] Bonaparte

had returned to France, and his return was to decide the issue of the

war on the continent, though that result could not be foreseen

immediately. From the newspapers sent him by Sidney Smith he learnt in

Egypt the news of the early successes of the Austrians and the

distracted state of France. The government was unpopular, the taxes

were heavy, the revenues fell short of the expenditure, commerce was

destroyed, the royalists were in arms in the north-west, and brigandage

was rife. He left his army in the charge of Kleber, embarked on August

23, evaded the British cruisers, and landed at Frejus on October 9. He

joined a party which was plotting against the directory. On November 9

and 10 (18th and 19th Brumaire) he overthrew not only the directory,

which was ready to fall, but the legislature also. A provisional

government was set up, and on December 13 a new constitution was

published. Bonaparte was declared first consul for ten years with powers

which, under a thin disguise, made him virtually master of France.

Kleber found his resources failing, no help came to him, for England was

supreme in the Mediterranean, and the Turks threatened to attack him.

With the assistance of Sidney Smith, who acted on his own

responsibility, he arranged a capitulation with the grand-vizier. The

convention of El Arish, signed on January 24, 1800, provided that the

French should evacuate Egypt and return home unmolested, and it

contained no stipulation that they should not serve again during the

war. The English ministers, aware that Kleber was in straits, had

already ordered Keith not to agree to any terms short of the surrender

of the French troops as prisoners of war. Keith informed Smith of this

order, but his letter did not reach him until after the convention was

signed. On receiving it, Smith sent word to Kleber that his government

refused to sanction the convention. When the ministers heard that Smith

had assented to it, they generously resolved not to disavow the act of a

British officer, and ordered that the convention should be recognised.

By that time, however, the French had defeated the Turks at Heliopolis

and were determined to make further efforts to hold the country.

[Sidenote: _BONAPARTE'S LETTER._]

Bonaparte lost no time in setting about the pacification of civil strife

in France. In December, 1799, Pitt, untaught by experience, was planning

an expedition to co-operate with the royalists in La Vendee and

Brittany, with the object of reducing Brest, compelling the surrender of

the French fleet, which was to be held in the name of Louis XVIII. (the

Count of Provence), and taking the Spanish fleet as prize. Bonaparte's

skilful policy pacified the disturbed districts, and foiled the hopes of

the royalist conspirators. Pitt was forced to postpone his scheme and

after a time abandoned it. While he was engaged on it, Bonaparte sent a

letter addressed to the king personally, in which he declared his desire

for peace. In later days he said that his object was merely to increase

his popularity; for the French were weary of war. In this case he

probably spoke the truth. Be this as it may, he certainly would not have

agreed to such terms as would have given to England and to Europe the

security for which England was fighting. His letter was answered by

Grenville, who said that the king could not enter into negotiations

unless he had a satisfactory assurance that France would abandon the

system of aggression, that while he did not prescribe the form of

government she should adopt, no assurance would be so satisfactory as

the restoration of the monarchy, and that her present government

afforded no evidence either of a change of system or of stability.

George thought this letter "much too strong," but suggested no

alteration. Talleyrand, then French minister of foreign affairs, wrote

in favour of a negotiation between the two powers, and was told by

Grenville that if the king could see the security of his own dominions

and of Europe assured, he would gladly negotiate "in concert with his

allies". The position taken by the ministers was sound and honourable,

but the tone of their answer to Bonaparte was unwise, for it played his

game by uniting the French in a determination to resist foreign

dictation with respect to their domestic affairs.

An address to the crown on the French overtures was moved in the lords

by Grenville, and was carried by 92 votes to 6. In the commons it was

supported by George Canning, already one of the ablest speakers on the

government side, and by Pitt who, in one of his finest speeches,

reviewed the relations of France with other states from 1792 onwards, as

proving that the proposed negotiations would have been illusory; he

urged that the exhausted state of France held out hope of a permanent

peace, and declared that as a lover of peace he would not sacrifice it

by grasping at a shadow. The address was opposed by Fox, who returned to

parliament for the occasion. He effectively ridiculed Pitt's

oft-repeated assurances that France was exhausted; but his main

contention, that if France as a republic had been aggressive, so she had

been when under Louis XIV., that she had not acted worse than the allies

of Great Britain, and that there was therefore no reason to refuse to

negotiate with her, seems academic and feeble. The opposition mustered

in full strength, but was defeated by 265 to 64. The divisions prove

that the position of the government was unimpaired in parliament.

In the country generally the patriotic spirit aroused by the military

aggressions of France and the achievements of the British navy was

strong, and revolutionary principles were seldom publicly professed.

Some abortive projects of Irish conspirators in 1798 for co-operating

with the corresponding society led to the appointment of a committee of

the commons, which reported on the revolutionary societies in March,

1799. Bills were passed for suppressing these societies and restricting

debating societies, and for compelling printers to obtain certificates

and to affix their names to all matter that they printed. In evident

connexion with these measures was the law against combinations of

workmen enacted in this, and amended in the next session, to which

reference has already been made (p. 277); though probably political in

intention, it had an oppressive effect on the condition of the working

classes. Only three trials for sedition took place during the year, one

of them of the printer and publisher, and another of the author of the

same libel, a pamphlet by Gilbert Wakefield in answer to one on the

government side. Wakefield, who had taken deacon's orders and afterwards

left the Church, was a distinguished scholar and a friend of Fox. He was

prosecuted by Scott, the attorney-general, and sentenced to two years'

imprisonment, and to find sureties for his future behaviour. The

severity of the sentence excited the indignation of the opposition, and

L5,000 was subscribed for him. In July Scott was appointed chief-justice

of the common pleas, and received a peerage as Lord Eldon.

[Sidenote: _THE INCOME TAX._]

The burdens of the country were increasing. In December, 1798, Pitt

announced that the supplies exceeded the ordinary revenue by

L23,000,000. He repeated the principle which he enunciated when

proposing the triple assessment, that loans should not exceed such

amount as could be defrayed within a limited time by temporary taxation.

The triple assessment had failed, though the deficiency had been

supplied by voluntary contributions. He proposed to substitute an income

tax of 2s. in the pound on all incomes of and above L200, and of

graduated amounts between L60 and L200. The produce, he calculated,

would be at least L10,000,000 a year. The opposition, led by Tierney,

objected to the tax as inquisitorial, as a grievous confiscation, and as

unjust, in that it would fall equally on precarious and on settled

incomes, on the produce of industry and on the wealth of the idle. It

was carried in the lords without a division, and in the commons by a

large majority, and came into operation on April 5, 1799. During the

year 1799 Pitt raised L15,000,000 by loan, including L3,000,000 for

Ireland, charging the income tax with the interest and redemption of

L11,000,000. The loan was raised in the 3 per cents; it created L175

debt for each L100 money, and the rate was therefore 5-1/4 per cent. In

his next budget, for 1800, Pitt reported the supplies for the year at

L39,500,000. The produce of the income tax for the first year was

disappointing, and for the coming year he reckoned it only at

L7,000,000. In return for a renewal of its charter the bank of England

granted a loan of L3,000,000, without interest, for six years, and Pitt

further borrowed L20,500,000, including L2,000,000 for Ireland. The

income tax was charged with L13,500,000 of the British loan, and

additions were made to the taxes on tea and spirits. Public credit was

good and commerce and manufactures rapidly increasing, and Pitt obtained

the loan at an average rate of not quite 4-3/4 per cent.

But while commerce was flourishing the poor were suffering terribly from

scarcity. The spring and summer of 1799 were cold and wet, and the

harvest was wretched. During the twelve months which succeeded September

1, 1799, the average price of wheat rose to 106s. a quarter. Parliament

held several debates on the scarcity. Whitbread for the second time

brought in a bill for the regulation of the wages of agricultural

labourers; Pitt opposed it on sound economic grounds and it was again

rejected. During the spring of 1800 parliament made some proposals for

the husbanding of wheat and for bounties on importation, but, as we

shall see later, the scarcity grew more grievous. The distress of the

poor and the burden of taxation strengthened the desire for peace, and a

large meeting of London citizens petitioned parliament for negotiations

with France. In May the king was shot at in Drury Lane theatre. The

incident had no political significance; his assailant, Hadfield, a

discharged soldier, was insane and was sent to Bedlam.

At the beginning of 1800 Pitt's hopes were mainly founded on his scheme

of co-operation with the French royalists, which was rendered abortive

by Bonaparte's measures of pacification, and on the arms of Austria.

Thugut knew that from Bonaparte the emperor could not expect to gain

better terms than those of the treaty of Campo Formio, and held that the

best chance of forwarding Austrian interests lay in prosecuting the war

in alliance with England. Austria, however, could not move without

English money. The English government promised a loan of L2,000,000 and

made subsidiary treaties with the Elector of Bavaria, the Duke of

Wurtemberg, and the Elector of Mainz for contingents to serve with the

Austrian armies. In April the Austrians under Melas defeated the French

in the mountain passes to the west of Genoa, shut up the left wing of

their army within the lines of Genoa, and forced the right wing under

Suchet across the Var. Their advance was stayed by Massena's defence of

Genoa. His troops suffered terribly from famine; they were shut in on

land by the Austrians and bombarded from the sea by British ships.

Meanwhile Bonaparte was preparing to attack the Austrians in northern

Italy as soon as their chief army in the Black Forest country under Kray

was effectually held in check by the French army of the Rhine, so as to

enable the French to use the Swiss passes. If Massena could detain the

Austrians before Genoa until Bonaparte descended into Italy, they might

then be taken in the rear. A promise had been made that a British force

would co-operate with the Austrians and excite the royalists of southern

France to insurrection. If such a force had landed on the rear of the

French, Suchet's corps must have been destroyed, Genoa would probably

have fallen, and the campaign might have had a different event. But the

ministers failed to see the supreme importance of supporting the

Austrians. They hesitated, and withdrew troops which should have been

sent to Minorca to form an army to co-operate with Melas, in order to

employ them in Portugal. There, however, they were not wanted, for

Portugal was not attacked. The great opportunity was lost. Sir Ralph

Abercromby with 5,000 men sailed from Minorca for Genoa on June 22, but

then it was too late.

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF MARENGO._]

In April Moreau defeated Kray in a series of engagements and forced him

to retire to Ulm. Bonaparte, who had formed "an army of reserve" at

Dijon, crossed the Great St. Bernard in May with 41,000 men, reached

Aosta on the 22nd, and entered Milan on June 2. On the 4th Massena

capitulated, and led his half-starved force out of Genoa with the

honours of war. It had done its work by keeping the Austrians before the

city. The successes of Moreau secured Switzerland and enabled Bonaparte

to summon other French divisions, partly composed of detachments from

Moreau's army, to enter Italy by the passes of the Simplon and the St.

Gothard. Their appearance upset the plans which Melas was making for

defence. He met Bonaparte at Marengo on the 14th, and after a

hard-fought battle was totally defeated. On the 16th he signed a

convention at Alessandria, which left the French masters of the country

as far as the Oglio. Hostilities in Germany were suspended on July 9.

Bonaparte returned to Paris in triumph after an absence of less than two

months. On June 20, before the news of Marengo reached Vienna, Minto

signed a convention with Austria which guaranteed the loan to the

emperor, and stipulated that neither power should make peace without the

consent of the other. Pitt's hopes were defeated; for the time Austria

was completely paralysed. The opposition reproached the government with

the failure of its plans. The country, it was urged, desired peace;

another defeat would reduce Austria to impotence, and France, disengaged

from all continental war, would direct her whole strength against

England. Parliament remained steadfast in its support of the government.

Bonaparte, anxious to detach Austria from her alliance with England,

offered peace to the emperor, who sent an envoy to Paris to find out

what terms he proposed. It was a dangerous move, for the English

ministers might have interpreted the mission as a negotiation for a

separate peace, contrary to the convention of June 20; and Thugut feared

that England might take offence and leave Austria to Bonaparte's mercy.

The emperor's envoy was in fact persuaded by Talleyrand to sign articles

of peace, generally on the basis of the treaty of Campo Formio. The

emperor disavowed his unauthorised action. Austria's interests would be

best served by a general peace, arranged at a European congress, at

which Great Britain should be represented. This was in accordance with

the views of the British government, and on August 9 Minto informed the

emperor that his court desired to take part in negotiations for a

general peace. The emperor proposed a congress at Luneville in which

England should be invited to take part. Bonaparte's design of disuniting

Austria from England and treating separately with the emperor was

foiled; he could not reject the emperor's proposal, for France was eager

for peace. Pitt and Grenville believed that negotiations were certain,

and Thomas Grenville was chosen to attend the congress.

But Bonaparte's diplomatic resources were not exhausted. He declared

that if the continental armistice with Austria was to be prolonged, it

must be supplemented by a naval armistice with Great Britain, and in

September he employed an agent named Otto to negotiate this armistice

and to propose a separate peace between France and England. Bonaparte's

project would have enabled France to revictual Malta and to send

supplies and reinforcements to her army in Egypt, and would thus have

robbed England of the most powerful means of enforcing her demands in

the proposed congress. The king was for rejecting the project

absolutely. The cabinet was divided: Dundas and some others were for

making a separate peace; Pitt and Grenville were determined to maintain

the alliance with Austria, to insist that all negotiations should be for

a general peace, and to refuse to throw away the advantages which

England derived from her naval supremacy, but, as a speedy termination

of the armistice would have been fatal to Austria, they hoped to modify

Bonaparte's demands. Pitt, of course, had his way, and the government,

after sending Bonaparte a counter-project which he refused, finally

rejected his proposal. Bonaparte was enraged and stormed against

England's usurpation of the lordship of the sea. Determined to isolate

her, he pressed the emperor's ministers to negotiate separately. They

foresaw that they might be forced to yield, but so long as they were not

assured of advantageous terms, decided to remain united to England; for

they were unwilling to stand alone, to lose the money of England, or to

risk a possible alliance between England and Prussia.

[Sidenote: _AUSTRIAN POWER CRUSHED._]

While the proposed naval armistice was still in debate, the blockade of

Valetta came to an end. England's supremacy in the Mediterranean

prevented France from relieving the garrison. The only two ships which

remained to France of the fleet defeated in Abukir bay were captured,

one of them by Nelson himself. The blockade was kept up until September

15, when the place was surrendered after a siege of two years, and Malta

passed into the possession of Great Britain. About the same time the

Dutch island of Curacao put itself under the king's protection. Earlier

in the year Goree was surrendered to a British squadron. Elsewhere

British ships were less profitably employed. Some attacks on the Breton

coast did little damage to the enemy, and brought no material advantage

to England. The government employed the troops which should have been

sent in the spring to the support of the Austrians in desultory

expeditions. In August a considerable force under Sir James Pulteney was

sent against Ferrol. After landing his men Pulteney found that the place

was too strong to be taken by a _coup-de-main_, and abandoned the

enterprise. An equally abortive attempt was made on Cadiz in October by

a force of 22,000 men under Abercromby, then commanding at Minorca, and

by the Mediterranean fleet under Keith. The plague was raging in the

town, and Keith could not guarantee that, if the troops were landed, the

weather might not cut them off from communication with the fleet, and

possibly hinder re-embarkation. Abercromby therefore refused to land his

troops, and decided to sail off to Gibraltar. He received orders to

attack the French in Egypt in co-operation with the grand-vizier. The

troops landed in Abukir bay on February 8 and 9, 1801, with results

which must be deferred to our next volume.

The armistice in Germany ended on November 28. A strong Austrian army

under the archduke John, a general of no experience, held the line of

the Inn. The archduke adopted the offensive, crossed the river, attacked

the French under Moreau at Hohenlinden on December 3, and was totally

defeated, losing ninety-seven guns and 15,000 men, or more, killed,

wounded, or prisoners. The Austrians were utterly crushed; the French

crossed the Inn and the Salzach without meeting serious opposition. The

archduke Charles again took command of the defeated army, and on the

25th signed an armistice at Steyer. Meanwhile Cobenzl, the imperial

ambassador, was haggling over terms of peace with Joseph Bonaparte at

Luneville; he refused to negotiate officially without the participation

of England, and at last proposed that if a treaty was made, it should

not be announced until after March 10 when the Anglo-Austrian alliance

would lapse. The battle of Hohenlinden brought the alliance to a

premature end. The emperor informed the British court that he was no

longer able to maintain the alliance, and gave Cobenzl authority to sign

preliminaries independently of Great Britain. The splendid achievement

of Macdonald, who led the "second army of reserve" from the Grisons

across the Splugen, and the subsequent success of the French under

Brune, who forced the passage of the Mincio and crossed the Adige,

enabled Bonaparte to dictate his own terms to Austria. By the treaty of

Luneville, signed on February 9, 1801, Belgium and the left bank of the

Rhine were ceded to France, and the line of the Adige was made the

Austrian boundary in Italy; the grand-duchy of Tuscany was to be

transferred to the house of Parma, and Modena annexed to the Cisalpine

republic, and the independence of the Batavian, Helvetian, Cisalpine,

and Ligurian republics was acknowledged by Austria; they remained

practically under French domination.

In addition to the loss of her ally, new dangers threatened England in

the later part of the year. They arose from the animosity of the tsar.

He was angered by England's alliance with Austria, and by the certainty

that his hostile attitude would prevent her from handing over Malta to

him; for though the government would have ceded the island to him as

grand-master of the knights, if he had continued to co-operate with

England, it was not bound to do so by treaty, and would not cede it to a

sovereign who was fast becoming an open enemy. Paul was greatly enraged,

and on February 1, 1800, wrote to Vorontsov, his minister in England,

desiring that Whitworth (created Lord Whitworth in March) should be

recalled, as he did not want "liars as ministers at his court".[308] He

refused a passport to Whitworth's messenger in March, and behaved,

Whitworth wrote, in the way which showed that he was "literally not in

his senses".[309] At last, apparently on April 1, he demanded

Whitworth's recall.[310] After long delay Whitworth obtained a passport

and returned to England, leaving the embassy to a _charge d'affaires_,

who was peremptorily dismissed by Paul, and left Russia with the embassy

in June. Bonaparte was quick to take advantage of Paul's anger against

England. After some overtures to him, begun as early as March,[311] he

proposed in July to restore to him 6,000, and, later, a larger number of

Russian prisoners taken in Holland and Switzerland, and suggested ceding

to him Malta, which was then hard pressed by the British fleet. Paul was

delighted, and made arrangements for garrisoning Valetta; but the place

was surrendered to Great Britain, and the British government would not

part with it.

[Sidenote: _THE ARMED NEUTRALITY._]

Paul had already laid his hand on the weapon forged by his mother

Catherine in 1780, an armed neutrality of the Baltic powers. The war put

many difficulties in the way of neutral commerce. England's maritime

supremacy gave the trade of Europe into her hands. For her own purposes

she encouraged neutral trade with herself to the great profit of those

who engaged in it, but she placed rigorous restrictions on the trade of

neutrals with her enemy. France, in a more lawless fashion, had

attempted to destroy neutral trade with England, but had only succeeded

in driving the ships of neutral states from her own ports.[312] England

could enforce her system in every sea. She refused to allow that an

enemy's goods were covered by a neutral flag, and insisted that naval

stores were contraband of war, and that no trade should be carried on

with a port of which she declared a blockade. In 1798 Sweden and Denmark

adopted the plan of sending their merchant ships under convoy to exempt

them from search. Paul saw his opportunity in the annoyance which the

British system caused to neutral states, and in May and June, 1800,

invited Sweden and Denmark to resist it. In July a Danish frigate, the

_Freya_, with a convoy was stopped by British ships in the Channel; her

captain refused to allow the ships under his convoy to be searched, and

after a short resistance the _Freya_ was captured and taken into the

Downs. The government despatched Whitworth to Copenhagen to remonstrate

on this act of war on the part of Denmark, and enforced his

representations by sending a squadron into the Sound.

Christian VII. gave way, and promised to send no more convoys until the

question was decided by treaty. He complained to Russia, and Paul in

November laid an embargo on all British ships, imprisoned the crews of

those in his ports, and seized British merchandise. He further invited

Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia to form an alliance for the protection of

their flags on the basis of insisting that the neutral flag should cover

an enemy's goods, not being contraband of war, that contraband should

not include naval stores, and that if a declaration of blockade was to

be respected, the blockade must be effectual, and that ships convoyed by

a man-of-war belonging to their sovereign should be exempt from search

by a belligerent on a declaration by the captain of the convoying ship

that they were not carrying contraband goods. This move was highly

gratifying to Bonaparte, for it struck at England's naval and commercial

ascendency, and a treaty which he concluded with the United States in

September contained provisions of a like kind. Frederick William III. of

Prussia, seeing that Austria was at its last gasp, was anxious to please

him, for he hoped to gain some advantage from him in Germany, and

specially coveted the possession of Hanover. He complained that a

Prussian ship, laden with timber and bound for Amsterdam, had been

seized by a British cruiser and taken into Cuxhaven, a port belonging to

the state of Hamburg, and he ordered his troops to occupy Cuxhaven, a

measure which threatened George's electoral dominions. That would not in

itself have concerned England, but Cuxhaven was at the mouth of the

Elbe, the principal route by which British commerce was carried on with

central Europe. In the existing state of affairs it was not advisable to

give the Prussian king a cause of grievance. The government, therefore,

directed the restoration of the ship in the hope of pacifying him, but

he nevertheless persisted in the occupation of the port. On December 16

the maritime confederacy was signed by Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, and

on the 18th by Prussia.

[Sidenote: _ENGLAND TO BE HUMBLED._]

In January, 1801, Paul sent an ambassador to Paris to arrange a treaty

of alliance. Bonaparte's hopes seemed likely to be more than fulfilled.

An attempt made on his life on December 24, which many Frenchmen

absurdly believed to have been abetted by the English government, gave

him the opportunity of crushing his domestic foes. England, the object

of his passionate hatred, was bereft of her Austrian ally; he was

pressing Spain to invade Portugal unless she would close her ports

against English ships; the northern powers were striking at England's

maritime lordship; her navy would be deprived of stores, and her people

of foreign wheat. An alliance with Russia would enable France to become

dominant in central Europe, to overthrow the British supremacy in the

Mediterranean, and to preserve her hold on Egypt. Soon every state would

shut its ports against British ships, and England's sea-power would be

overthrown by the power of France on land. Paul held out yet greater

hopes; he would undertake a joint invasion of India and drive the

British from the east. Though his wild schemes did not meet with

Bonaparte's approval, Paul set an army in motion for the conquest of

India. Yet neither the government nor the people of England was dismayed

by the isolation of their country nor the number of their foes. Nor had

they cause. Bonaparte, great general as he was, could not understand the

nature of England's strength, and was indeed profoundly ignorant of all

that concerned maritime power and commerce. The British navy was in

admirable condition, both as regards material and men; it was blockading

the Dutch in the Texel, and the ships of France and Spain in every port

in which they lay from Toulon to Flushing, and the thunder of its guns

was soon to be heard in the north. In India Lord Wellesley had not only

crushed resistance and added a vast territory to the company's

possessions, but was establishing the British rule on a firm basis, and

there, too, British ships would have to be reckoned with. On January 14

the government placed an embargo on the ships of Russia, Sweden, and

Denmark. Orders were sent for the capture of the Danish colonies in the

West Indies, and a fleet was prepared to sail for the Baltic under Sir

Hyde Parker, and with Nelson as second in command.

Yet, though undismayed by her foes, England was sorely dismayed by the

sufferings of her poor. Peace was very needful for her. Wealth indeed

was rapidly increasing; her foreign trade which in 1792 was L44,500,000

in value had risen to over L73,750,000. But the poor lacked bread. The

increase in the manufacturing population caused an increased demand for

food, and England depended on supplies of cereals from abroad. The war

restricted the importation of corn and sent up its price. The hopes

fixed on the harvest of 1800 were disappointed; the stock of the

previous year was exhausted, and wheat rose to the famine price of

120s. a quarter. Bread riots were raised in various places, and were in

some cases due to a belief, existing even among persons of education,

that the high price of corn was largely caused by the dealers. Some

dealers were prosecuted under the old statutes against "forestalling and

regrating," and when one named Rusby, charged with buying oats at 41s. a

quarter and selling them again in the same market at 44s., was found

guilty, Lord Kenyon congratulated the jury on the benefit which their

verdict conferred on the country. On appeal his law was questioned and

the proceedings dropped. The future looked even darker than the present,

for the Russian embargo cut off a main source of supply. The desire for

peace was general. Pitt, whose health was giving way, was full of

anxiety, for the scarcity seemed likely to embarrass the government in

its efforts to maintain the honour of England, and might even compel the

country to assent to a peace alike disadvantageous and fallacious. "The

question of peace or war," he wrote in October, "is not in itself so

formidable as that of the scarcity with which it is combined".

He determined on an early meeting of parliament, believing that some

relief might be afforded by legislation, and that, at the least, it

would quiet the public mind and check the rise of disaffection. Besides

measures for the encouragement of home agriculture, which would

necessarily operate slowly, he planned others to meet the immediate

crisis, for though as a disciple of Adam Smith he disliked interference

with the regular course of trade, he considered that the situation of

the country rendered some regulation necessary. Grenville differed from

him. He held closely to the maxims of political economy, and though he

did not oppose him in the cabinet, he urged on Pitt in private that all

interference with the process by which supply and demand counteracted

each other must be harmful. Pitt held to his own opinion. Parliament met

on November 11. The king's speech invited it to consider means by which

agriculture might be extended, and, for the present, the best means of

stimulating the importation of grain and promoting frugality in using

it, and checked the foolish and mischievous outcry against the dealers

by pointing out that the ordinary practices of buying and selling were

necessary in the existing state of society. Acting on the reports of

committees, parliament granted bounties on the importation of corn and

rice, and prohibited the use of corn in distillery and the manufacture

of starch, the exportation of provisions, the making of bread solely

from fine flour, and the sale of bread within twenty-four hours of its

baking. The opposition reproached the government, and especially Pitt,

with having caused the scarcity by the rejection of Bonaparte's

proposals for peace; but motions for an inquiry into the state of the

nation, for immediate negotiations with France, and for the dismissal of

the ministers received scarcely any support. It was not from parliament

that Pitt's ministry was to receive its death-blow.

[Sidenote: _IRISH UNION DESIRABLE._]

Almost as soon as the Irish rebellion was quelled, the project of a

legislative union with Great Britain was publicly discussed. Such a

union existed from 1654 to the restoration in 1660. At the time of the

union with Scotland, in 1703 and 1707, the Irish parliament proposed a

union, and its wish was disregarded. Since then various writers on

politics had recommended it, chiefly as a means of giving Ireland

freedom of trade. The improvement in the material condition of the

country which began in the fourth decade of the century strengthened the

spirit of nationality, the Irish interest became dominant in politics,

religious animosity decreased, and during the American war Ireland,

instead of looking to a union as a means of attaining prosperity, found

herself in a position to demand the concessions she desired. The

abolition of restrictions on her trade in 1779-80 removed the chief

motive which had impelled Scotland towards union; the grant of

legislative independence fostered the national pride. The constitution

of 1782 left Ireland connected with Great Britain only by the unity of

the executive in both countries. The Irish parliament might have

expressed disapproval of a war or alliance entered on by Great Britain

and might have refused supplies; it might have imposed excessive duties

on English goods, might have refused a commercial compact with Great

Britain, and did so in 1785; it might have taken a different course from

the British parliament on a constitutional question, and did so on the

regency question in 1789. The empire was weakened by lack of union.

English statesmen, and above all Pitt, saw that the tie, precarious in

quiet times, might break under some stress, and desired to strengthen it

by an incorporate union, and the king heartily agreed with them.

For Ireland a union afforded the only chance of tranquillity, for

catholic emancipation could not safely be granted without it. Since the

extension of the suffrage to Roman catholics in 1793, emancipation

unaccompanied by union would have placed the government of the country

in the hands of a popish democracy; for the catholics outnumbered the

protestants by three to one, and the act of 1793 established little

short of manhood suffrage. A catholic parliament would have made Ireland

no place for protestants, and would have provoked a civil war, in which,

unlike the late rebellion, England would probably have had almost the

whole catholic population arrayed against her. With a united parliament

the catholics might enjoy equal privileges with their protestant

neighbours, and would be powerless to oppress them. The war with France

revealed the dangers of the existing system; the rebellion left the two

religious parties at deadly feud; the protestants feared catholic

vengeance, the catholics held the protestant ascendency in deeper hatred

since the rise of Orangeism and the barbarities of '98. The time seemed

ripe for the fulfilment of Pitt's long-cherished hope of union. He

desired to do the catholics justice and intended that the union should

provide for emancipation, a provision for their priesthood, to be

accompanied by an increase of the _regium donum_, the endowment granted

by William III. for the support of the Irish presbyterian ministers, and

the commutation of tithe; and this comprehensive scheme was warmly

approved by Cornwallis. But the principal men of the government party in

Ireland were strongly opposed to the admission of catholics into the

united parliament, and in October, 1798, Clare convinced Pitt that the

proposal would wreck the chances of union. Pitt therefore dissociated

emancipation from union, adopted a scheme of union on a protestant

basis, and left the settlement of the just claims of the catholics,

which was necessary to the successful working of a union, to be effected

later.

[Sidenote: _CATHOLIC SUPPORT._]

The intended union was announced and advocated in a pamphlet by Cooke,

the Irish under-secretary. The protestants generally were hostile to the

scheme, some from feelings of national pride, others from dislike to the

threatened overthrow of the political ascendency of their party.

Catholic support might be gained if there was reason to expect that

union would be followed by emancipation, a provision for the clergy,

which would entail a royal power of veto over episcopal appointments,

and the commutation of tithe. Dublin was strongly against a measure

which would injure its position as a capital; and the lawyers, who would

also lose by it, were formidable opponents. In preparation for the

coming struggle the government informed the catholic bishops that,

though emancipation could not be included in the measure, they were

anxious to make provision for their clergy; a few anti-unionist

officials resigned or were dismissed, and the demands of some of the

government party, who, as usual, clamoured to be rewarded beforehand,

appeared to have been satisfied. The king's speech at the opening of the

Irish parliament on January 22, 1799, though not mentioning union,

recommended some effectual means of strengthening the connexion. The

address was carried in the lords by 52 votes to 17. In the commons it

was moved by Lord Castlereagh, the chief secretary, and was strongly

opposed by Plunket, Ponsonby, and others. After a debate which lasted

from 4 P.M. to 1 P.M. the next day, the government had a majority of

only one, and in a subsequent division was in a minority of 5. On the

31st Pitt, in an eloquent speech, moved resolutions for a union in the

British house of commons. Sheridan, Grey, and Burke's friend, Laurence,

fought hard against them, but were in a minority which varied from 45 to

15. In the lords they were agreed to without a division, and in April

both houses adopted an address in favour of union.

The failure of the government in the Irish parliament was hailed with

delight and rioting in Dublin. The prospects of the union soon began to

brighten. The cabinet made it clear that the measure would not be

abandoned. As it seemed likely that the protestants would offer the

catholics emancipation in order to induce them to combine against union,

Cornwallis was authorised to declare that the government would resist to

the utmost any concession to the catholics so long as a separate

parliament existed. No definite promise was made to the catholics, but

their hopes were excited. In the autumn, Castlereagh, who came over for

the purpose, represented to the cabinet the importance of gaining their

support; he was told to inform Cornwallis that the cabinet was

favourable to emancipation, and that without giving the catholics "any

direct assurance," he might safely solicit their support. This he did

with general success; and the catholic bishops and many of their

clergy, allured by the prospect of a provision from government, were

active on the unionist side. The unionist party was further strengthened

by the state of the country. Many districts were infested by bands of

men, survivals of the rebel armies, who murdered, robbed, and

intimidated their neighbours, and mutilated cattle. A fresh outbreak of

rebellion seemed likely in the spring; the large British force already

in Ireland was augmented, and an act was passed giving the

lord-lieutenant power to authorise the capital or other punishment of

those convicted by court-martial of rebellion or attacks on the king's

subjects. The opinion that Ireland needed a new system of government

gained ground. Yet the feeling against union remained overwhelmingly

general, specially among the protestants.

[Sidenote: _A MAJORITY SECURED._]

A majority in parliament had to be gained by the ministers. The county

members, who were independent, for the most part were, and remained,

anti-unionists. The preponderance of power lay with the 236 members for

the 118 boroughs, of which only eight were free from all patronage.

Nearly all the remainder belonged to borough-owners and were regarded as

their personal property. A large number of them would be disfranchised

by a union. Not to compensate the owners would have been contrary to the

general moral standard of the age when uninfluenced by party feelings,

and would have made union impossible. As Pitt in his reform bill of 1785

proposed to buy up the patronage of the English close boroughs, so the

government determined to compensate those Irish borough-owners whose

boroughs were to lose both members. The price of each borough was

eventually fixed at L15,000, the market value, and as eighty-four were

disfranchised, the sum paid for them was L1,260,000. This was not

bribery; it was an open transaction, and the money was paid alike to

opponents and supporters of the union. The services of great men were

secured by peerages and other dignities. During and at the end of the

struggle twenty new Irish peerages were created, sixteen peers were

promoted, and five received English peerages. Most of these grants were

mere bribes, and so too were the many places and pensions which helped

to swell the unionist party in parliament. Some money, though the amount

must have been small, was probably also spent in bribery. The government

would not risk a general election; the union was to be carried by the

existing parliament. Gradually sixty-three vacancies were created in the

commons, some by death, some by acceptance of office, most of them

doubtless by the resignation of members who would not follow their

patrons by becoming unionists, and others, probably, through the

purchase of seats by the government from sitting members. The vacancies

were eventually filled by supporters of the union. While, then, the

extent of the corruption practised by the government has been

exaggerated, the union was undoubtedly carried by corrupt means.

Nevertheless, Pitt did not corrupt the Irish parliament; it was corrupt

already: he merely continued the immemorial methods of dealing with it

on a larger scale than before. Nobles and gentry chose to sell

themselves, and, in order to rid Ireland of a source of trouble and

danger, and Great Britain of a cause of weakness, he paid them their

price. Cornwallis murmured at having to negotiate and job with "the most

corrupt people under heaven"; but he did his share of the work.

Castlereagh, personally not less honourable, who had much of it to do,

did it without compunction, for it was, he said, "to buy out and secure

to the crown for ever the fee-simple of Irish corruption, which has so

long enfeebled the powers of the government and endangered the

connection". It was essential to the welfare both of Great Britain and

Ireland that the union should be effected, and that it should be

effected without delay; and it could not have been effected by any other

means than those which Pitt adopted. It was better by giving these

greedy politicians their price to put an end to a system maintained by

perpetual corruption, worked in the interests of an ascendant minority,

distrusted by the mass of the people, incapable of affording the country

the blessings of domestic peace, and dangerous to the security of the

empire.

The Irish parliament began its last session on January 15, 1800, and the

address was hotly debated. Grattan, who had not appeared there since

1797, spoke with extraordinary eloquence in support of an amendment on

the side of legislative independence. Though the vacant seats were not

nearly all filled up, the amendment was rejected by 138 votes to 96. The

anti-unionists were furious; they raised a fund of L100,000, paid or

promised, for the purpose of out-buying the ministers, bought some

seats, and paid and offered bribes. The catholics, the yeomanry, and

the Orangemen were urged to combine to withstand the union. Some rioting

took place in Dublin, but there was no serious outbreak; for the Orange

grand lodge kept the society quiet, and the mass of the people, except

when excited by agitation, regarded the question with indifference. A

fierce struggle ensued in parliament, and it was not until March 28 that

the articles of union were carried and sent to England. They were

debated at some length in both houses of the English parliament, but

were carried by large majorities. They were next presented in the Irish

parliament in the form of a bill. It was vehemently opposed. In the

debate on the commitment, on May 26, Grattan delivered an oration

against it, splendid in diction and inflammatory in tone, and was

answered by Castlereagh who spoke, as indeed he spoke throughout these

debates, with conspicuous dignity and moderation. The majority for

committing the bill was 118 to 73. It was then passed by the English

parliament and received the royal assent on August 1. A new great seal

and a new royal standard were made for the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Ireland, and on January 1, 1801, the king's new title was

proclaimed, from which the words "King of France," retained since the

time of Edward III., were omitted.

By the act of union Ireland was to be represented in the united

parliament, in the upper house by four spiritual lords sitting in

rotation and twenty-eight temporal lords elected for life by the Irish

peerage, and in the lower by 100 members.[313] The right of the crown to

create fresh Irish peerages was restricted. The established Church of

Ireland was declared one with the Church of England, and the

preservation of the united Church of England and Ireland was to be "an

essential and fundamental part of the union". Commercial interests were

mainly settled in accordance with the proposals of 1785, and some Irish

manufactures were temporarily protected from suffering by British

competition. The debts of the two countries were to be kept separate for

twenty years, or until they should be to each other in the same

proportion as the respective contributions of the two countries; and

until their amalgamation the annual contribution of Great Britain

towards the expenditure of the United Kingdom was fixed at fifteen parts

and of Ireland at two parts. The first session of the united parliament

was opened on January 22, 1801, the members for Great Britain being the

same as those of the previous parliament.

[Sidenote: _THE CATHOLIC QUESTION._]

The Irish catholics could have prevented the union. They made it

possible, some by giving active help, others by maintaining neutrality;

and though no definite promise had been made to them, they were led to

expect that union would be followed by emancipation, a provision for

their clergy, and the commutation of tithe. Pitt recognised this, and

further held that his work would be incomplete without these healing

measures, which would give "full effect to the great object of the

union--that of tranquillising Ireland and attaching it to this country".

Accordingly, in September, 1800, as soon as the union was effected, he

called a meeting of the cabinet to consider these questions. He said

nothing to the king on the subject, thinking, doubtless, that it would

be less difficult to gain his consent if a complete plan was presented

to him as the policy adopted by the cabinet. The risk was great, for in

1795 George, as we have seen, held that to consent to emancipation would

be a breach of his coronation oath, and so lately as the autumn of 1799

he told Dundas that he hoped the government was "not pledged to anything

in favour of the Roman catholics". Loughborough, the chancellor, saw an

opportunity for ingratiating himself by betraying the prime minister.

When he received Pitt's letter summoning him to the cabinet meeting on

the catholic question, he was with the king at Weymouth, where George

often resided in the summer since his recovery in 1789. He showed the

king Pitt's letter, excited him against emancipation, and furnished him

with arguments. Lord Auckland, the postmaster-general, who was allied

with the chief Irish anti-catholics, was his cousin, and, probably at

Auckland's suggestion, the Archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh wrote to

the king to strengthen him against emancipation. When the cabinet met,

Loughborough agreed to the commutation of tithe, but objected to any

further concession, and the matter was adjourned.

Pitt again brought it before the cabinet in January, 1801. The king's

feelings were then generally known, and the Duke of Portland and Lords

Westmorland and Liverpool more or less decidedly joined Loughborough in

opposing emancipation. On the 28th George attacked Dundas on the subject

at a levee: "I shall," he said, "reckon any man my personal enemy who

proposes such a measure". He requested Addington, the speaker, to

remonstrate with Pitt. On the 31st Pitt wrote him a long letter setting

forth the general grounds of his desire for emancipation, by the

substitution of a political oath for the sacramental test, and for a

provision for the catholic clergy, adding that if the king refused his

consent, he must resign office. George, after taking counsel with

Addington, replied that he was bound by his coronation oath to refuse

his consent, and proposed that both he and Pitt should say no more on

the subject. In answer Pitt wrote on February 3 that he must resign

office as soon as a new ministry could be formed. George, who was

incapable of appreciating his splendid services, and showed later that

he must often have chafed under his control, invited Addington, a dull

man after his own heart, to form a ministry. He consented, and on the

5th the king accepted Pitt's resignation. Dundas, Grenville, Spencer,

and Windham decided to go out with Pitt, so did Canning and others who

held minor offices, and Cornwallis and Castlereagh also retired. Pitt

promised his help to Addington, whose father had physicked the Pitt

family, and persuaded some of his followers to join the new ministry. As

it was to be an anti-catholic ministry, his conduct has been held to

prove that he was paving his way to a return to office, and that the

change, so far as he was concerned, was, to use Fox's expression, "a

juggle". It should be remembered that the country was engaged in a

deadly conflict, and that its safety was always Pitt's first

consideration. Emancipation was hopeless. He had felt bound in honour to

break up a strong ministry because he could not carry it, and it was his

duty to do what he could to strengthen the new ministry so long as it

did not prove incapable of guiding the country in critical times.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S IMPENDING RESIGNATION._]

In this, as in every part of these transactions, his conduct was

honourable and straightforward. He would not continue in office when

thwarted by the king on a question of great importance, nor would he

consent to disappoint hopes which he had encouraged and by which he had

benefited. That he was influenced by any other motive, such as that his

continuance in office would hinder peace, is a vain imagining. He has

been blamed by an eminent historian for not having persevered in his

attempt to overcome the king's determination, which on other occasions

had yielded to pressure.[314] On none of these occasions had George's

religious convictions been concerned. Some experience of the power

exercised by religious prejudice in strengthening the resistance which a

naturally obstinate person can make to reason, persuasion, and the force

of circumstances, leads me to believe that Pitt was right in accepting

the king's decision as final and in not engaging in a struggle which

might, especially at that time, have had disastrous consequences. Short

of such a struggle he did insist on his policy in the only way open to

him; he resigned. Where he was to blame, and he acknowledged it, was in

keeping his intentions secret from the king. Whether if he had

communicated them to the king at an early date, he would have gradually

won George over to his policy, it is impossible to say; he certainly

went the wrong way to work in disregarding the right of the crown to be

consulted on the policy which the prime minister hopes to carry out.

The impending resignations were announced in parliament, and Sir John

Mitford, the attorney-general, was chosen speaker in place of Addington,

but the completion of the ministerial arrangements was delayed, and Pitt

remained _de facto_ prime minister. To prevent public inconvenience he

brought forward his budget on the 18th. He announced a loan of

L25,500,000 for Great Britain and L1,500,000 for Ireland, afterwards

increased by another L1,000,000, which the commercial prosperity of the

country, though then in the ninth year of the war, had enabled him to

negotiate, at the rate of about 5-1/4 per cent., and he proposed

fourteen new taxes to defray the interest. The budget was well received.

The delay in the change of ministry was prolonged by the king's illness.

He had been much excited and distressed by the late events, and on the

20th again became insane. The Prince of Wales approached Pitt on the

subject of a regency, and Pitt told him that, if the necessity should

arise, he should propose the restrictions of 1789. By March 6 the

king's condition was materially improved and the question became of no

further importance. George bade Willis, his doctor, tell Pitt that he

was quite well, adding, "but what has he not to answer for who is the

cause of my having been ill at all?" Pitt was much distressed. Would an

assurance, he asked Willis, that he would not again trouble the king on

the catholic question "be material to his health?" "Certainly," Willis

replied, "and to his life also."[315] Pitt bade him give the king the

assurance. George was much comforted. Pitt's surrender has been blamed

in strong terms.[316] It cannot be defended completely. The question was

of deep importance to Ireland, and he treated it as a personal matter.

It is, however, unfair to represent his conduct as an attempt to resume

office. His followers constantly urged him to invite Addington to

retire, for they justly regarded him as incompetent, and when they heard

of Pitt's message to the king, they expected that their wish would be

fulfilled. But Addington had received his appointment, and was not

likely to resign it willingly, and Pitt, as Canning complained, would

not make any "forward movement towards the king". Nothing was to be got

from him except that, if the king and Addington earnestly wished him to

continue, he was ready to discuss matters. On the strength of this,

Dundas and others went to Addington, who rejected their proposal that he

should offer to make way for Pitt, and Pitt himself told them that their

action was improper.

[Sidenote: _PITT RESIGNS OFFICE._]

Pitt would willingly have continued in office. He loved power, and he

knew that England needed him and the strong ministry of which he was the

head and soul, but he was not a man to barter principle for office. His

message to the king is intelligible, as a prime minister of our own time

has pointed out, without so mean an interpretation.[317] He recognised

that while the king lived catholic emancipation could not be gained save

at too high a price. George was sixty-two, and his life was thought to

be precarious; no one could foresee that he would outlive Pitt, who was

twenty years younger. An attempt to force the question on him would

have again brought on insanity, and would perhaps have killed him. Pitt

was deeply moved by the king's words, and yielded to feelings of pity

and personal affection for the sovereign he had served for seventeen

years. On March 14 he gave back the seal of the exchequer into the

king's hands. Once again then, and not for the last time, did George

defeat the policy of his ministers and drive them from office. In this

case the blame chiefly rests on the traitor Loughborough, who, for his

own purposes, happily to be foiled, interfered between the king and Pitt

and excited the king's religious prejudices. But George's conduct at

this crisis cannot be viewed wholly apart from his earlier attempts at

personal rule, for it proves that he was unable to understand that his

ministers were responsible for his political acts. His refusal to assent

to emancipation deprived Ireland of the happy results which Pitt

expected, and brought much trouble on the country. As regards its effect

on the empire at large, it is enough to say that it took the helm of

state out of the hands of Pitt.

FOOTNOTES:

[301] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 1, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[302] Acton to Nelson, Aug. 1, 1799, _Nelson and the Neapolitan

Jacobins_, p. 325.

[303] The latest discussions on this affair are in Captain Mahan's _Life

of Nelson_, 2nd edition, 1899; _Engl. Hist. Rev._, April, 1898, July,

1899, October, 1900; _Athenaeum_, July 8 and Aug. 5, 1899; Mr.

Gutteridge's _Nelson and the Neapolitan Jacobins_ (Navy Records Soc.),

1903, containing documents, with the _Diario Napol._ and the _Compendio

di Micheroux_ from the _Archivio Storico per le province Napol._, xxiv.

(1899), pt. iv.; Marchese Maresca's _Il Cavaliere Micheroux_, 1895;

Madame Giglioni's _Naples in 1799_, 1903, and two articles by Dr.

Hueffer in the _Revue Historique_, Sept.-Dec, 1903, and Jan.-April,

1904, to which I am indebted.

[304] Mahan, _Life of Nelson_, i., 439.

[305] Whitworth to Grenville, Nov. 1 and 13, and Dalrymple to Huskisson,

Dec. 31, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[306] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 5 and 24, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[307] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 13, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[308] Martens, _Recueil des Traites conclus par la Russie_, xi., 5-7.

[309] Whitworth to Grenville, March 18, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.

[310] Same to same, April 2, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.

[311] Whitworth to Grenville, March 6, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.

[312] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution_, ii., 17,

18.

[313] In 1801 the population of Great Britain was about 10,500,000, and

of Ireland about 4,500,000; in 1901 the population of Great Britain was

36,999,946, and of Ireland 4,458,775.

[314] Lecky, _History_, viii., 512.

[315] Lord Colchester, _Diary_, i., 255-61. Malmesbury (_Diaries_, iv.,

31-32) says that Pitt wrote a contrite letter to the king, which seems a

mistake (see Stanhope, _Life_, iii., 303-4).

[316] Lecky, _Hist._, viii., 523. Pitt has been admirably defended by

Lord Rosebery (_Pitt_, pp. 226-28).

[317] Lord Rosebery, _u.s._

APPENDICES.

I. ON AUTHORITIES.

II. ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.

III. THE GRENVILLES.

APPENDIX I.

ON AUTHORITIES.

For the sake of convenience an attempt is made to classify the

authorities used in writing this volume under different heads; the plan

adopted is unscientific, and books noted under one head belong partly to

others, but it has, perhaps, the one merit of clearness. The editions

quoted here are those which have been used.

(1) General histories of England for the period 1760-1801:--LECKY,

_History of England in the 18th Century_, 8 vols., 1879-90, from which

much help has been obtained. It is a work to which every historian of

the period must be deeply indebted, and though faults may be found with

its plan, it holds a high place among our histories for learning,

moderation, and philosophical treatment. The history of England is

carried down to the outbreak of the war in 1793, that of Ireland to the

Union. ADOLPHUS, _History of England from the Accession of George III._,

8 vols., 1840-45, a laborious and impartial record of events, viewed

from a conservative standpoint. MASSEY, _History of England_, 4 vols.,

1855-63, ends 1803, chiefly treating of home affairs; neither animated

nor philosophic, written from a liberal point of view, unduly severe to

the king, but deriving some value from the author's legal and

parliamentary experience. Lord STANHOPE, _History_, 7 vols., edit. 1853,

vols. iv.-vii., ends 1783, trustworthy, dull, and whiggish. To these

must be added Sir T. E. MAY (Lord Farnborough), _Constitutional History

of England from 1760 to 1860_, 3 vols., 5th edit., 1875.

(2) The chief manuscript sources consulted:--The great collection of the

_Duke of Newcastle's Papers_ in Add. MSS., British Museum, extremely

important down to 1767, specially with reference to ministerial

intrigues, the old whig methods of government, the negotiations with

France in 1761-62, and the growth of the cabinet system. The _Pitt

Papers_, a mass of letters addressed to Pitt (Earl of Chatham) and

William Pitt, and some to Lady Chatham, together with various political

memoranda. These papers have been sorted into different bundles, to

which the numbers given in my footnotes refer, and a manuscript index of

them has been made by Mrs. Lomas of the Record Office, where they are at

present deposited by their owner. They have been used in the preparation

of the _Chatham Correspondence_, and by Lord Stanhope, but the field is

large and may be gleaned with profit. _Foreign Office Correspondence_

(despatches of ambassadors, etc.). With respect to these, the kind and

efficient help given me by Mr. Hubert Hall, of the Record Office, is

gratefully acknowledged.

(3) Akin to these sources are various publications of the Historical

Manuscripts Commission. Among these special reference should be made to

the Reports on Mr. Fortescue's _Dropmore MSS._, 3 vols., containing the

papers of Lord Grenville, of the highest interest and importance,

specially from 1793; the Duke of Rutland's _Belvoir MSS._, 3 vols., with

_inter alia_ the fourth Duke of Rutland's correspondence while

lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 1784-87; the _Charlemont MSS._, also

essential for Irish history; _Lord Dartmouth's MSS._, vol. 2, American

Papers to 1776, and Mrs. _Stopford-Sackville's MSS._, and Sir _E.

Strachey's MSS._, both throwing much light on the conduct of the war

with America.

(4) Of pre-eminent importance is the _Parliamentary History_, xv.-xxxv.,

and its complement, Sir HENRY CAVENDISH's _Debates of the House of

Commons_ during the parliament of 1768, 2 vols., edit. by Wright, 1841,

begins May, 1768, and ends March, 1771. It is much to be wished that the

remainder of these valuable reports should be published from the

manuscript in the British Museum. Dodsley's _Annual Register_ has

historical chapters written by Burke, perhaps to 1778, and chapters in

many later volumes probably written under his supervision; they are of

course generally excellent. The volumes for the later years of our

period contain many useful state papers. Burke's speeches, pamphlets,

and letters, of which the edition used here is his _Works and

Correspondence_, 8 vols., 1852. For his life see PRIOR, _Life of Burke_,

2 vols., 5th edit. (Bohn's Lib.), 1854, Mr. J. MORLEY, _Burke_, a

historical study, 1867, and _Burke_ (Engl. Men of Letters Series), 1879.

[Sidenote: _MEMOIRS AND CORRESPONDENCE._]

(5) Political and other memoirs and printed correspondence:--H. WALPOLE

(Lord Orford), _Letters_, edited by Cunningham, 9 vols., 1880, the

letters in vols. i. and ii. are of earlier dates than 1760. A more

complete edition, in 16 vols., by Mrs. P. TOYNBEE, is in course of

publication by the Clarendon Press. WALPOLE'S _Memoirs of the Reign of

George III._, 1760-72, edited by Mr. Russell Barker, 4 vols., 1894, and

his _Journals of the Reign_, 1771-83, edited by Doran, 2 vols., 1859.

These works are of considerable historical value, but Walpole was not a

politician; he was a whig for personal reasons rather than from

conviction, and his sentiments were largely determined by filial

prejudice and the interests of his friends; his views are generally

superficial, and his judgments of persons biassed, sometimes

contradictory, and often unjust. DODINGTON (Lord Melcombe), _Diary_,

edited by Wyndham, 1785, ending with 1761. HARRIS, _Life of Lord

Hardwicke_, 3 vols., 1847, useful to 1764, and with an account of the

circumstances preceding C. Yorke's death in 1770, written by his

brother. BISSET, _Memoirs of Sir Andrew Mitchell_, 2 vols., 1850.

Mitchell was ambassador at Berlin in 1760 and later. The Memoirs are

based on his correspondence (Add. MSS. British Museum and elsewhere),

and throw light on the causes of Frederick's angry feelings towards the

British government, and the negotiations for peace in 1762. _The

Grenville Papers_, edited by W. J. Smith, 4 vols., 1852, consisting

principally of the correspondence of Richard, Earl Temple, and his

brother George, first lord of the treasury, 1763-65, together with

George Grenville's diary of "memorable transactions" during his

administration, which gives a full account of the relations between the

king and his first minister. The Papers are of primary importance for

the first eleven years of the reign. [ALMON,] _History of the Late

Minority_, 1765, a clever account of the politics of the parliamentary

opposition from 1761, attributed to Lord Temple, and written in his

interest. _Correspondence of John, fourth Duke of Bedford_, 3 vols.,

1846, well edited by Lord John (Earl) Russell, the last part of vol. ii.

and vol. iii. cover from 1760 to 1770. The correspondence and extracts

from the duke's diary afford a striking picture of the whig system of

government by "connexion"; they have much on the negotiations for the

Peace of Paris, the ministerial crises of 1763 and 1765, and the discord

between the whigs which was fatal to their chance of effectually

resisting the king's policy. The work is a necessary complement to the

Grenville papers. _A Narrative of the Changes of Ministry, 1765-1767,

told by the Duke of Newcastle_, edited by Miss M. Bateson for the Royal

Hist. Soc. (Camden Series), 1898, from the Newcastle Papers (see sec.

2), giving an interesting account of the king's efforts to supply the

place of the Grenville ministry, the difficulties both on the king's

side and that of Pitt which kept Pitt out of office, the duke's

discomfiture when the king put Pitt in power in July, 1766, and his

attempt in 1767 to arrange a coalition between Grafton and the

Rockingham party.

The lack of any sufficient biography of Chatham renders _The Chatham

Correspondence_, 4 vols., 1840 (see sec. 2, _Pitt Papers_), well edited

by Taylor and Captain Pringle, of peculiar importance; vols. ii.-iv.

contain letters both from and to Chatham, which illustrate the whole of

his career during our period. Pitt's political position and conduct,

1761-65, and specially his relations with Bute, are the subject of an

interesting study, _William Pitt und Graf Bute_, by Dr. A. VON RUVILLE,

Berlin, 1895. _William Pitt, Earl of Chatham_ (Heroes of the Nation

Series), by Mr. W. D. GREEN, M.P., 1901, is good from 1760, so far as

its limits allow. Earl of ALBEMARLE, _Memoirs of the Marquis of

Rockingham_, 2 vols., 1852, an ill-arranged book, has letters of value,

exhibits the policy of the Rockingham whigs, their differences with Pitt

(Chatham), and their efforts for reform. _Autobiography and Political

Correspondence of the Duke of Grafton_, 1898, edited by Sir WILLIAM

ANSON, with an excellent introduction and useful footnotes, gives

valuable notices of the first Rockingham ministry, the weakness of the

administration formed under Chatham, the collapse of all ministerial

vigour during his illness and when Grafton was nominally at the head of

affairs, and the views of the whigs with regard to the constitution.

_The Correspondence of George III. with Lord North_, 1768-83, 2 vols.,

1867, edited by W. B. Donne, with copious notes and comments, shows the

king's system of personal rule through his ministers in full working,

the position held by North under it, and his unavailing attempts to

resign office when forced to carry out a policy he disapproved, together

with much that concerns the conduct of the war. Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE,

_Life of the Earl of Shelburne_ (Marquis of Lansdowne), 3 vols.,

1875-76, based on papers at Lansdowne House and elsewhere, represents

Shelburne's political conduct in as favourable a light as possible; the

parts relating to the quarrel between Shelburne and H. Fox in vol. i.,

the negotiations in Paris in 1782 and 1783, and the quarrel with C. J.

Fox, are perhaps specially useful, but the whole work down to 1784 is

necessary and authoritative.

Lord STANHOPE, _Life of Pitt_, 4 vols., 2nd edit., 1862, founded on

unpublished papers (see sec. 2, _Pitt Papers_); a good biography and a

standard and indispensable work. With this should be read Lord ROSEBERY,

_Pitt_ (Twelve English Statesmen Series), 1891, an admirable

appreciation of Pitt's work and character. Lord JOHN (Earl) RUSSELL,

_Memorials and Correspondence of C. J. Fox_, 4 vols., 1853, has many

letters of importance, but is otiosely edited, and _Life of C. J. Fox_,

3 vols., 1859-67, more concerned with politics, which it treats from a

strongly whig standpoint, than with biography. Sir G. O. TREVELYAN,

_Early History of C. J. Fox_, 1880, written on the whig side, ends with

1774. _Court and Cabinets of George III._, edited by the Duke of

Buckingham, 4 vols., 1853-55 (vol. i. begins at 1782, and 1801 is

reached early in vol. iii.), contains the correspondence of the brothers

Lord Temple (later Marquis of Buckingham), Thomas, and W. W. Grenville

(later Lord Grenville); the letters of the last named are of much value;

they are supplemented by the _Dropmore MSS._ (see sec. 2). _Diaries and

Correspondence of the First Earl of Malmesbury_, 4 vols., 1844, edited

by the third earl, chiefly concerned with the foreign relations of Great

Britain; his despatches, letters, and journal while minister at St.

Petersburg, 1770-80, at the Hague, 1784-88, at Berlin, 1793, and during

his mission to Paris in 1796, and to Lille in 1797, are of first-rate

importance. In vol. ii. are reports of two conferences with the Prince

of Wales on the subject of his debts in 1785. Malmesbury (Sir James

Harris) was one of the Portland whigs, joined in their secession, and

was much trusted by Pitt. _Correspondence of Marquis Cornwallis_, 3

vols., 1859, well edited by C. Ross, has several letters relating to the

war with America, an account of his interview with Frederick of Prussia

in 1785, many despatches and letters written by him as governor-general

of India, 1786-92, and a large mass of correspondence during his

vice-royalty of Ireland, 1798-1801. _Journal and Correspondence of Lord

Auckland_, 4 vols., 1861-62, edited feebly by Lord Auckland, Bishop of

Bath and Wells. Auckland (Eden) was a personal friend of Pitt until

1801. His letters while ambassador at Paris, 1785-87; correspondence

relating to the regency question, 1788; his letters from the Hague,

1792-93; some on the course of the war, and those referring to the

recall of Fitzwilliam and to the catholic question in 1801, are to be

noted. He was chief secretary for Ireland in 1780, and was closely

allied with Beresford and the protestant ascendency party. _Political

Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds_, edited by Mr. O. Browning for the

Camden Soc., 1884, specially valuable for its account of the whig scheme

for a coalition in 1792. Also edited by Mr. Browning, _Despatches of

Earl Gower_, 1885. Gower was ambassador at Paris, 1790-92. Lady MINTO,

_Life of Sir Gilbert Elliot, afterwards Lord Minto, to 1806_, 3 vols.,

1874; vol. i. contains information as to the illness of the king and the

regency question; vol. ii. as to the secession of the Portland whigs;

Elliot, whose sister married Lord Auckland, and whose wife was a sister

of Lady Malmesbury, was one of the party. His letters, while he was

employed on a diplomatic mission at Toulon during the siege, as viceroy

of Corsica, at Naples, and as minister at Vienna, 1799-1801, are worthy

of attention. Sir N. W. WRAXALL, _Historical and Posthumous Memoirs_,

1772-84, 5 vols., 1884, carefully edited by Mr. H. B. Wheatley, diffuse

and amusing. Wraxall's inaccuracies, or worse, have been exaggerated,

and his work, which goes to 1789, together with some later

"reminiscences," is of value, specially as regards its portraiture of

public men of a secondary rank. Wraxall was a follower of North until

1783, and afterwards, until he resigned his seat in 1794, generally

supported Pitt. _Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose_, 2 vols.,

1860, edited by L. V. Harcourt. Rose was secretary to the treasury

during the whole of Pitt's first administration, and was intimate with

him. Vol. i. contains, among other matters, an account of Pitt's

resignation; vol. ii. has some reminiscences which the king communicated

to Rose in 1804. _The Diary and Correspondence of Abbot, Lord

Colchester_, edited by his son, 3 vols., 1861, vol. i. and PELLEW, _Life

of Lord Sidmouth_ (Addington), 3 vols., 1847, vol. i. should be

consulted for the circumstances of Pitt's retirement. Lord HOLLAND,

_Memoirs of the Whig Party_, 2 vols., 1852, edited by his son, Lord

Holland. As the writer was the nephew of Fox, who was much attached to

him, and by 1800 was himself a prominent member of the party, these

papers have great authority; many of them refer to events and persons

belonging to our period. Along with much else which does not concern

political history, the _Life of William Wilberforce_, by his sons, 5

vols., 1838, contains some interesting notices of public affairs before

1801, along with a record of Wilberforce's efforts in and out of

parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. See also _Private

Papers of W. Wilberforce_, 1897, with a character of Pitt by

Wilberforce.

(6) Miscellaneous books, pamphlets, etc. On public finance, see

HAMILTON, _Inquiry concerning ... the National Debt_, 1813; NEWMARCH,

_On the Loans Raised by Mr. Pitt_, 1793-1801, a highly valuable and

interesting treatise; _Parliamentary Report, Accounts_, xxxiii., 1858,

on the national debt, and S. DOWELL, _History of Taxation in England_, 4

vols., 1884. On the commercial treaty with France of 1786, see Count DE

BUTENVAL, _Precis du Traite de Commerce_, 1786, Paris, 1869, and

Auckland Corr. as above. Some of the articles by Sir G. C. LEWIS,

_Administrations of Great Britain_, 1783-1830, edited by Sir E. Head,

1864, are founded on Memoirs, etc., noted in sec. 5, and are excellent

commentaries on them. The private life of the king is written by JESSE,

_Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III._, 3 vols., 2nd edit.,

1867, in itself scarcely to be reckoned as of historical value, but

giving copious references to authorities. Life at the court is vividly

described in Madame D'ARBLAY'S (Miss Burney's) _Diary_, 7 vols., 1854; a

new edition by Mr. Austin Dobson is in course of publication. The Diary

should be read with an allowance for the writer's dislike of her work at

court, which Macaulay does not perhaps sufficiently consider in his

essay. His other essays relating to this period should be read, but the

views of history which they present must not be accepted in all cases.

Bishop DOUGLAS, _Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man_, 1761; _Case of

the Troops Serving in Germany_, 1781; MAUDUIT, _Occasional Thoughts on

the Present German War_, 1761, and other pamphlets. Many of the

Caricatures of _Gillray_, _Rowlandson_, and others are valuable as

historical documents. In default of the originals, see WRIGHT, _England

under the House of Hanover_, 2 vols., 3rd edit., 1852, republished in

one vol. as _Caricature History of the Georges_ [1867?].

[Sidenote: _ON THE AMERICAN REBELLION._]

(7) Of books on the American revolutionary war the best general history

of a popular kind is by Mr. FISKE, _American Revolution_, 2 vols., 1891;

it is written with moderation and a desire for impartiality. GORDON,

_History of the Rise of the Independence of the United States_, 4 vols.,

1788, with many documents. G. BANCROFT, _History of the United States_,

centenary edition, 1879, vols. iii.-vi. containing the history of the

revolution, display wonderful industry, but are disfigured by violent

partisanship. _Narrative and Critical History of America_, edited by J.

Winsor, vol. vi., 1888, has some good papers by various writers.

_Cambridge Modern History_, vol. vii., _The United States_, 1903. TYLER,

_Literary History of the American Revolution_, 2 vols., 1879,

illustrates the course of American sentiment during the period. Sir G.

O. TREVELYAN, _The American Revolution_, pts. i. and ii., 3 vols., in

progress, written on the whig side: the views taken in the present book

as to the causes and character of the dispute, and as to some other

points are different from those advanced by this distinguished author.

For the loyalists, L. SABINE, _American Loyalists_, Boston, 1847,

revised edit., _Biographies, etc._, 2 vols., 1864, and Mr. FLICK,

_Loyalism in New York_ (Columbia University Studies, xiv.). The best

purely military history of the war is by STEDMAN, _History of the

American War_, 2 vols., 4to, 1794; he served under Howe, Clinton, and

Cornwallis, and his book is a standard authority. TARLETON, _Campaigns

of 1780, 1781 in the Southern Provinces, 1787._ Other books consulted

are _Washington's Writings and Life,_ by SPARKS, 12 vols., Boston,

1833-39; FRANKLIN, _Works_, edit. Bigelow, 10 vols., N.Y., 1887-88;

TUDOR, _Life of Otis_, Boston, 1823; _Diary and Letters of Thomas

Hutchinson_, edited by P. Hutchinson, 2 vols., 1883, 1886; FROTHINGHAM,

_Siege of Boston,_ 1849, a careful piece of work, though written in a

remarkably vainglorious tone; Mr. CODMAN, _Arnold's Expedition to

Quebec_, New York, 1902, an excellent and interesting monograph;

KINGSFORD, _History of Canada_, vol. v., 1892, also deals with the

expedition. JOHNSTON, _Campaign of_ 1776 (Long Island Hist. Soc.), 1878,

a good narrative well furnished with documentary proofs, and by the

same, _The Yorktown Campaign_, New York, 1881. Judge JONES, _History of

New York during the War_, 2 vols., New York, 1879-80, edited by Mr. De

Lancy, a book of special interest, for Jones was a loyalist; it is

written with vigour, and censures the misdeeds on both sides alike. For

Burgoyne's expedition--Sir J. BURGOYNE, _State of the Expedition from

Canada_, 1779, with his defence before the house of commons; FONBLANQUE,

_Episodes from the Life of Burgoyne_, 1876, and Lieut. HADDEN, _Journal

and Orderly-books_, 1886. For Howe's conduct of the war--_Examination of

Joseph Galloway before the House of Commons_, 1779; [Galloway,] _Letters

to a Nobleman_, 1779, Galloway, a Philadelphian lawyer of large

property, joined the British in 1776; Sir W. HOWE, _Narrative_ before a

committee of the house of commons, April 29, 1779, with _Observations on

Letters to a Nobleman_, 1780; _Detail and Conduct of the War_, including

the celebrated _Fugitive Pieces_, 1780. Mr. M'CRADY in his _History of

South Carolina_: i. _Under Royal Government_, New York, 1899, an able

book, shows how the desire for independence gained ground in the

provinces; vols. ii. and iii. _In the Revolution_, 1902, contain a

careful but tedious narrative, which seems to err in exalting the

partisan commanders, Marion and Sumter, at the expense of Greene. _The

Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy_, 2 vols., 1888, edited with minute care

by the late Mr. B. F. STEVENS, and containing all the official letters,

orders, and the like of the campaigns in the Carolinas; this elaborate

work is essential for forming a judgment on the controversy between the

two generals. Other authorities more or less bearing on the quarrel with

the colonies and the subsequent war are noted in other sections.

(8) On military matters generally:--Colonel the Hon. Sir EDWARD CUST,

_Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century_, iii.-v., 3rd edit.,

1862; the Hon. J. W. FORTESCUE, _A History of the British Army_, 3

vols., 1899-1902, in progress, an important work to which this volume is

indebted, though the view with regard to Clinton and Cornwallis taken by

Mr. Fortescue is widely different from that adopted here; M. CHUQUET,

_La jeunesse de Napoleon, Toulon_, 1897, and _Guerres de la Revolution_,

11 vols., in progress, an important work, vol. x. _Valenciennes_, vol.

xi. _Hondschoote_; Sir H. BUNBURY, _Narratives of the Great War with

France_, 1854, begins with the campaign in Holland of 1799; DRINKWATER,

_History of the Siege of Gibraltar_, Dublin, 1793; C. J. FOX, _Napoleon

Bonaparte and the Siege of Toulon_, Washington, U.S.A., 1902; Dr.

HOLLAND ROSE, _Life of Napoleon I._, 2 vols., 1902, and some other

works.

[Sidenote: _ON NAVAL HISTORY._]

(9) For naval history:--Captain MAHAN, _Influence of Sea Power upon

History_, 1889, _Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution_, 2

vols., 4th edit., 1892, and _Life of Nelson_, 2 vols., 1897, books to

which all students of the history of the eighteenth century are deeply

indebted. JAMES, _Naval History of Great Britain_, 6 vols., edit. 1837;

vols. i.-iii. include from 1793 to 1801, a famous work which is still of

high authority on naval engagements and tactics, the size and classes of

ships, the number and character of their guns, etc., but it neither

explains nor criticises strategy. BRENTON, _Naval History of Great

Britain, 1783-1822_, 5 vols., 1823, uncritical and inaccurate, though as

the work of a naval officer in active service, who had a part in some of

the events it describes, it has a certain importance. Sir W. L. CLOWES,

_The Royal Navy_, vol. iv., 1899. T. KEPPEL, _Life of Viscount Keppel_,

2 vols., 1842. MUNDY, _Life of Rodney_, 2 vols., 1830. Mr. D. HANNAY,

_Rodney_ (English Men of Action Series), 1891, an admirable little book,

and his edition of the _Letters of Sir S. (Viscount) Hood_ (Navy Records

Soc.), 1895, exhibiting the determining effect of naval failure on the

part of England on the last phase of the war with America. BARROW, _Life

of Earl Howe_, 1838. Mr. J. K. LAUGHTON, _Nelson_ (English Men of Action

Series), 1895, by an acknowledged master of English naval history, and

his articles in the _Dict. of National Biography_ on the sea-captains of

the period. _Logs of the Great Sea Fights, 1794-1805_ (Navy Records

Soc.), vol. i., 1899, in progress, well edited by Rear-Admiral T.

Sturges Jackson, a delightful book of first-rate value. References to

the latest contributions to the subject of Nelson at Naples are given in

the text. CHEVALIER, _Histoire de la Marine Francaise pendant la Guerre

de l'Independence Americaine_, 1877, _Histoire, etc., sous la premiere

Republique_, 1886, most valuable works; a third vol., _Hist., etc., sous

le Consulat_. M. le Capitaine DESBRIERE, _Projets de Debarquement_, 2

vols., 1901, a phase of the great war told with all the care and

lucidity which distinguish the best French historical work.

(10) For European politics during the French revolution the best books

are by HEINRICH VON SYBEL, used here in the French translation,

_Histoire de l'Europe pendant la Revolution Francaise_, 6 vols.,

1869-88, and by M. ALBERT SOREL, _L'Europe et la Revolution Francaise_,

6 vols., 1903, in progress; vol. vi. covers 1800-5, a work distinguished

alike by learning, insight, and literary quality; the great collection

of G. F. VON MARTENS, _Recueil des Traites depuis 1761_, vols. i.-vi.,

1817-29; Comte DE GARDEN, _Histoire des Traites_, vols. iv.-vi.,

1848-87, and F. DE MARTENS, _Recueil des Traites conclus par la Russie_,

vols. ix., x. (_Angleterre_), 1892.

(11) In Irish history LECKY has generally been followed, supplemented by

PLOWDEN, _History of Ireland to the Union_, 2 vols., 1809; H. GRATTAN,

_Life of Grattan_, 5 vols., 1839; _Correspondence between Pitt and the

Duke of Rutland_, 1781-87, edit. 1890. Earl FITZWILLIAM, _First_ and

_Second Letters to the Earl of Carlisle_, 1795; TONE, _Life of T. W.

Tone_, 2 vols., 1826; MADDEN, _United Irishmen_, 2 vols., 2nd edit.,

1858; GORDON, _History of the Rebellion_, 2nd edit., 1803, a trustworthy

and graphic narrative by a protestant clergyman of co. Wexford; _Memoirs

and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh_ (Lord Londonderry), 12

vols., 1848-85, vols. ii.-iv.; INGRAM, _History of the Irish Union_,

1887, though failing in its hopeless attempt to prove that the union was

not effected by corrupt means, a book well worth reading; _Cornwallis

Correspondence_ and some other books already noted.

(12) For Indian matters:--MILL and WILSON, _History of British India_,

10 vols., 1858, vols. iii.-vi., a standard work; Sir J. F. STEPHEN,

_Story of Nuncomar_, 2 vols., 1885; Mr. G. FORREST, _Selections from

State Papers, India_, 1772-85, 3 vols., 1890, documents of first-rate

importance, well edited, with good introduction, which, perhaps,

attempts too complete a defence of Hastings; Sir A. LYALL, _Warren

Hastings_ (English Men of Action Series), 1902, a thoroughly sound and

well-considered biography; Mr. S. J. OWEN, _Selections from the

Despatches of Marquess Wellesley_, 1877, with the _Cornwallis

Correspondence_ already noted.

[Sidenote: _ON ECONOMIC PROGRESS._]

(13) For the social and economic history in chap, xiii., a general

account will be found in LECKY, _History_, vol. v., an admirable and

delightful piece of work; _Social England_, vol. v., 1896, edited by

TRAILL, papers of various merit by various authors; a new edition with

well-chosen illustrations is now (1904) published; and chapters at the

end of vols. vii. and ix. of the _Pictorial History of England_, edited

by CRAIK and MACFARLANE, 1841, 1843. Manners and customs are described

by Mr. SYDNEY, _England and the English in the Eighteenth Century_, 2

vols., 1891, and by Mr. ASHTON, whose _Old Times_, 1885, is almost

wholly composed of newspaper cuttings and caricatures, and is,

therefore, so far as it goes, a contemporary authority. Notices of the

gambling and frivolity of a portion of the upper class, some not before

printed, are given in Sir G. TREVELYAN'S _Early Life of C. J. Fox_ (see

above). An independent study should include the chronicle in the _Annual

Register, Walpole's Letters_, JESSE, _George Selwyn and his

Contemporaries_, 4 vols., 1843, and _Selwyn's Letters_, edited by Mr.

Roscoe and Miss Clergue, 1899; SMOLLETT, _Humphrey Clinker_, written in

1770; ANSTEY, _New Bath Guide_, "poetical epistles describing life at

Bath" in 1766; Miss BURNEY, _Evelina_, in 1778, and many other books. A

good introduction to the literary history of the period is given by Mr.

G. SAINTSBURY, _Short History of English Literature_, 1898. Though the

late Sir LESLIE STEPHEN in his _English Thought in the Eighteenth

Century_, 2 vols., 2nd edit., 1881, deals chiefly with the earlier part

of the century, he has much of the highest value, specially in chaps. x.

and xi., on writers of this period; see also his articles on them in the

_Dict. of National Biography_. Church history is carefully treated by

ABBEY and OVERTON, _The English Church in the Eighteenth Century_, ed.

1887. For the administration of the criminal law--Major GRIFFITH,

_Chronicles of Newgate_, 2 vols., 1884. For prisons--JOHN HOWARD, _The

State of the Prisons_, 4th edit., 1792. For the police arrangements of

London--COLQUHOUN, _Treatise on the Police_, 1795.

On economic and industrial history the latest and best authority is Dr.

CUNNINGHAM, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times_,

pts. i. and ii., 2 vols., 1903. Other books used are CRAIK, in

_Pictorial History_ as above, republished in his _History of British

Commerce_, 1844; MACPHERSON, _Annals of Commerce_, 4 vols., 1805;

MCCULLOCH, edition of ADAM SMITH, _Wealth of Nations_, 1863; ROGERS,

_Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, 2 vols., 1884, and his _Industrial

and Commercial History of England_, lectures, 2 vols., 1898, and WARNER,

_Landmarks in English Industrial History_, 1899, a useful and

well-arranged little book. For the cotton manufacture--Sir E. BAINES,

_History of the Cotton Manufacture_, 1836. With reference to agriculture

and the poor--A. YOUNG, _Six Weeks' Tour in the Southern Counties_,

1769, and _Tour through the North_, 4 vols., 1770, present the condition

of agriculture at the time, with lists of wages and the expenses of the

labouring class; Rev. J. HOWLETT, pamphlets on the _Influence of

Enclosures_, 1786, and the _Causes of the Increase of the Poor_, 1786;

Mr. R. E. PROTHERO, _Pioneers and Progress of English Farming_, 1888, an

excellent account; Sir G. A. NICHOLLS, _History of the English Poor

Law_, 2 vols., 1898, and Mr. and Mrs. S. WEBB, _History of Trades

Unionism_, 1902.

[Asterism]: Dr. A. von Ruville's important and masterly work, _William

Pitt, Graf von Chatham_, 3 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1905, appeared

while this book was in the press.

APPENDIX II.

ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.[318]

1. NEWCASTLE, AS IN NOVEMBER, 1760.

_First ld. treasury_ D. of Newcastle.

{_s. dept._ Pitt.

_Secs. of state_ { E. of Egremont. _succ._ Oct., 1761.

{_n. dept._ E. of Holdernesse.

{ E. of Bute, _succ._ March, 1761.

_Ld. president_ Ld. Granville.

_Ld. keeper_ } Ld. Henley.

_Ld. chan._, 1761 }

_Ld. privy seal_ E. Temple.

D. of Bedford, _succ._ Nov., 1761.

_Ld. chamberlain_ D. of Devonshire, _in cabinet_.

_Groom of the stole_ E. of Bute, _in cabinet_.

E. of Huntingdon, _succ._ Oct., 1761.

_Board of trade_ E. of Halifax, _in cabinet_.

Ld. Sandys, _succ._ March, 1761,

_not in cabt._

_Ch. exchequer_ H. B. Legge.

Ld. Barrington, _succ._ March, 1761.

_Admiralty_ Ld. Anson.

_Ordnance_ Visct. Ligonier.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ D. of Bedford.

E. of Halifax, _succ._ 1761.

_Unofficial_ Ld. Hardwicke, _in cabinet_.

_Unofficial_ Ld. Mansfield, C. J., _in cabinet_.

_Secretary at war_[319] Visct. Barrington.

C. Townshend, _succ._ 1761.

2. BUTE, MAY, 1762.

_First ld. treasury_ E. of Bute.

{_s. dept._ E. of Egremont.

_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._ G. Grenville.

{ E. of Halifax, _succ._ Oct., 1762.

_Ld. president_ Ld. Granville.

_Ld. chancellor_ Ld. Henley.

_Ld. privy seal_ D. of Bedford.

_Ch. exchequer_ Sir F. Dashwood.

_Admiralty_ E. of Halifax.

G. Grenville, _succ._ Oct., 1762.

_Ordnance_ Visct. Ligonier.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ E. of Halifax.

_Secretary at war_ C. Townshend.

W. Ellis, _succ._ Dec., 1762.

3. GRENVILLE, MAY, 1763.

_First ld. treas. and ch._ } G. Grenville.

_exchequer_ }

{_s. dept._ E. of Egremont.

_Secs. of state_ { E. of Halifax, _succ._ Sept., 1763.

{_n. dept._ E. of Sandwich, _succ._ Sept., 1763.

_Ld. president_ Ld. Granville.

D. of Bedford, _succ._ Sept., 1763.

_Ld. chancellor_ E. of Northington (_before_ Henley).

_Ld. privy seal_ D. of Marlborough.

_Admiralty_ Ld. Egmont.

_Ordnance_ M. of Granby.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ E. of Northumberland.

Visct. Weymouth, _succ._ 1765.

_Secretary at war_ W. Ellis.

4. ROCKINGHAM, JULY, 1765.

_First ld. treasury_ M. of Rockingham.

{_s. dept._ H. S. Conway.

{ D. of Richmond, _succ._ May, 1766.

_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._ D. of Grafton.

{ H. S. Conway, _succ._ May, 1766.

_Ld. president_ E. of Winchelsea.

_Ld. chancellor_ E. of Northington.

_Ld. privy seal_ D. of Newcastle.

_Ch. exchequer_ W. Dowdeswell.

_Admiralty_ Ld. Egmont.

_Ordnance_ M. of Granby.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ M. of Hertford.

_Secretary at war_ Visct. Barrington.

5. CHATHAM, AUGUST, 1766.

_First ld. treasury_ D. of Grafton.

_Secs. of state_ {_s. dept._ E. of Shelburne.

{_n. dept._ H. S. Conway.

_Ld. president_ E. of Northington.

_Ld. chancellor_ Ld. Camden.

_Ld. privy seal_ E. of Chatham.

_Ch. exchequer_ C. Townshend.

Ld. North, _succ._ Sept., 1767.

_Admiralty_ Sir C. Saunders.

Sir E. Hawke, _succ._ Dec, 1766.

_Ordnance_ M. of Granby.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ E. of Bristol.

Visct. Townshend,

_succ._ Oct., 1767.

_Secretary at war_ Visct. Barrington.

6. GRAFTON, DECEMBER, 1767.

_First ld. treasury_ D. of Grafton.

{_s. dept._ E. of Shelburne.

{ Visct. Weymouth, _succ._ Oct., 1768.

_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._ Visct. Weymouth.

{ E. of Rochford, _succ._ Oct., 1768.

{_colonies_ E. of Hillsborough, _apptd._ Jan., 1768.

_Ld. president_ E. Gower.

_Ld. chancellor_ Ld. Camden.

C. Yorke, _received great seal_, Jan. 17,

_d._ 20th, 1770.

_Ld. privy seal_ E. of Chatham.

E. of Bristol, _succ._ Oct., 1768.

_Ch. exchequer_ Ld. North.

_Admiralty_ Sir E. Hawke.

_Ordnance_ M. of Granby.

_Unofficial_ H. S. Conway, _in cabinet_.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ Visct. Townshend.

_Secretary at war_ Visct. Barrington.

7. NORTH, JANUARY, 1770.

_First ld. treas. and ch._ } Ld. North.

_exchequer_ }

{_s. dept._ Visct. Weymouth.

{ E. of Rochford, _succ._ Dec., 1770.

{ Visct. Weymouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775.

{ E. of Hillsborough, _succ._ Nov., 1779.

_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._ E. of Rochford.

{ E. of Sandwich, _succ._ Dec., 1770.

{ E. of Halifax, _succ._ Jan., 1771.

{ E. of Suffolk, _succ._ June, 1771.

{ Visct. Stormont, _succ._ Oct., 1779.

{_colonies_ E. of Hillsborough.

{ E. of Dartmouth, _succ._ Aug., 1772.

{ Ld. G. Germain, _succ._ Nov., 1775.

{ W. Ellis, _succ._ March, 1782.

_Ld. president_ E. Gower.

E. Bathurst (_bef._ Apsley),

_succ._ Nov., 1779.

_Ld. chancellor_ Great seal in commission.

Ld. Apsley, 1771.

Ld. Thurlow, _succ._ June, 1778.

_Ld. privy seal_ E. of Halifax.

E. of Suffolk, _succ._ Jan., 1771.

D. of Grafton, _succ._ June, 1771.

E. of Dartmouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775.

_Admiralty_ Sir E. Hawke.

E. of Sandwich, _succ._ Jan., 1771.

_Ordnance_ M. of Granby.

Visct. Townshend, _succ._ Oct., 1772.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ Visct. Townshend.

E. Harcourt, _succ._ 1772.

E. of Buckinghamshire, _succ._ 1777.

E. of Carlisle, _succ._ 1780.

_Secretary at war_ Visct. Barrington.

C. Jenkinson, _succ._ Dec., 1778.

8. ROCKINGHAM, MARCH, 1782.

_First ld. treasury_ M. of Rockingham.

_Secs. of state_ {_home_ E. of Shelburne.

{_foreign_ C. J. Fox.

_Ch. exchequer_ Ld. J. Cavendish.

_Ld. president_ Ld. Camden.

_Ld. chancellor_ Ld. Thurlow.

_Ld. privy seal_ D. of Grafton.

_Admiralty_ Visct. Keppel.

_Ordnance_ D. of Richmond.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ D. of Portland.

_Secretary at war_ T. Townshend.

9. SHELBURNE, JULY, 1782.

_First ld. treasury_ E. of Shelburne.

_Secs. of state_ {_home_ T. Townshend.

{_foreign_ Ld. Grantham.

_Ld. president_ Ld. Camden.

_Ld. chancellor_ Ld. Thurlow.

_Ld. privy seal_ D. of Grafton.

_Ch. exchequer_ W. Pitt.

_Admiralty_ Visct. Keppel.

_Ordnance_ D. of Richmond.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ E. Temple.

_Secretary at war_ Sir G. Yonge.

10. COALITION, NORTH AND FOX, APRIL, 1783.

_First ld. treasury_ D. of Portland.

_Secs. of state_ {_home_ Ld. North.

{_foreign_ C. J. Fox.

_Ld. president_ Visct. Stormont.

_Ld. chancellor_ Great seal in commission.

_Ld. privy seal_ E. of Carlisle.

_Ch. exchequer_ Ld. J. Cavendish.

_Admiralty_ Visct. Keppel.

_Ordnance_ Visct. Townshend.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ E. of Northington.

_Secretary at war_ R. Fitzpatrick.

11. PITT, DECEMBER, 1783.

_First ld. treas. and ch._ } W. Pitt

_exchequer_ }

{_home_ E. Temple, sole sec. for one day.

{ Lord Sydney (_before_ T. Townshend).

{ W. W. Grenville, _succ._ June, 1789.

{ H. Dundas, _succ._ June, 1791.

_Secs. of state_ { D. of Portland, _succ._ July, 1794.

{_foreign_ M. of Carmarthen (1789 D. of Leeds).

{ Ld. Grenville (_before_ W. W. Grenville),

{ _succ._ June, 1791.

{_war_ H. Dundas, _apptd._ July, 1794.

_Ld. president_ E. Gower.

Ld. Camden, _succ._ Dec, 1784.

E. Fitzwilliam, _succ._ July, 1794.

E. of Mansfield (_before_ Stormont),

_succ._ Dec., 1794.

E. of Chatham, _succ._ Dec, 1796.

_Ld. chancellor_ Ld. Thurlow.

Ld. Loughborough, _succ._ Jan., 1793.

_Ld. privy seal_ D. of Rutland.

E. Gower (1786 M. of Stafford),

_succ._. Nov., 1784.

E. Spencer, _succ._ July, 1794.

E. of Chatham, _succ._ Dec., 1794.

E. of Westmorland, _succ._ Feb., 1798.

_Admiralty_ Visct. Howe.

E. of Chatham, _succ._ July, 1788.

E. Spencer, _succ._ Dec, 1794.

_Ordnance_ E. of Richmond.

M. Cornwallis, _succ._. Feb., 1795.

_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_ D. of Rutland.

M. of Buckingham (before E. Temple),

_succ._ 1787.

E. of Westmorland, _succ._ 1790.

E. Fitzwilliam, _succ._ 1794.

E. Camden, _succ._ 1795.

M. Cornwallis, _succ._ 1798.

_Secretary at war_ Sir G. Yonge, _not in cabinet_.

W. Windham, _succ._ July, 1794,

_in cabinet_.

FOOTNOTES:

[318] In preparing these lists I have derived much help from the _Book

of Dignities_, edited by Mr. Ockerby, 1890, though my lists do not

always agree with it. The division of the spheres of the secs. of state

into n. and s. depts. was merely a matter of convenience, and I am not

sure that my attempt to present the changes of depts. is accurate in

every case.

[319] Not a cabinet office.

APPENDIX III.

THE GRENVILLES.

Richard Grenville = Hester Temple,

of Wotton, Bucks, | _succ._ Visctess. Cobham,

_ob._ 1727. | _cr._ Ctess. Temple.

___________________________|_____________________

| | | |

Richard Grenville-Temple,[320] George[321] James Hester = William

E. Temple, _o.s.v.p._, 1779. _ob._ 1770. _ob._ 1783 _cr._ | Pitt, E.

| | Ctess. | of

______________________| | Chatham.| Chatham,

| | | | | _ob._

George, E. Temple,[322] | William Wyndham,[324] | | 1778.

_cr._ M. of Buckingham, | _cr._ Baron Grenville, | |

1784, _ob._ 1813. | 1790, _o.s.p.,_ 1834. | |

| | | |

/|\ Thomas,[323] James, _cr._ |

_o.s.p._, 1846. Baron Glastonbury, |

_o.s.p._, 1825. |

|

_________________|

| |

John, E. of William Pitt,

Chatham, _ob. cael.,_ 1806.

_o.s.p._, 1835.

FOOTNOTES:

[320] In 1760 ld. privy seal; resigned, 1761.

[321] In 1760 treas. of navy; sec. of state, 1762; first ld. of treas.

and ch. of exch., 1763-65.

[322] Ld.-lieut. of Ireland, 1782; one day sec. of state, 1783;

ld.-lieut. of Ireland, 1787.

[323] Minister plen. at Paris, 1782; ambassador at Vienna, 1793;

book-collector.

[324] Chief sec. for Ireland, 1782; paymaster-general, 1783; speaker,

1789; sec. of state, home, 1789; sec. of state, foreign, 1791; first ld.

of treas., 1806.

INDEX.

Abercromby, Sir Ralph, 377, 389;

commander-in-chief in Ireland, 405, 406, 430, 436, 439.

Abington, Mrs., 258.

Abukir bay, 417, 439. See Nile, battle of the.

Academy, Royal, 262.

A'Court, General, 52.

Acre, siege of, 418, 419.

Acton, Sir John, 427.

Adam, William, advocate, 358.

Adam, Robert, architect, 262.

Adams, John, 132, 134.

Adams, Samuel, 60, 109, 124-126, 132, 142, 147.

Addington, Henry (afterwards Viscount Sidmouth), 187;

speaker, 315, 452, 453;

first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 454.

Agricultural revolution, 273-278.

Aiguillon, Duc d', 114, 115.

Aitken, James, "John the Painter," 170.

Albany (U.S.A.), 172, 173, 176, 178-180.

Albemarle, Earl of (Keppel), general, 37.

Alessandria, convention signed at, 437.

Alexandria taken by the French, 416.

Alien act, 341, 403.

Alkmaar, 430.

Allen, Ethan, 144, 151.

Almon, John, 116, 324.

Alvinzi, Austrian general, 382, 390.

Ambleteuse, 401.

Amboy (U.S.A.), 169.

American colonies, proposed taxation of, 54, 57;

trade advantages of, 55;

contraband trade of, 56;

stamp duty imposed upon, 59, 60;

troubles in, 61;

claim exemption from taxation, 62, 63;

the Townshend duties in, 83, 84;

penal laws against Massachusetts, 128;

quartering bill in, 129;

first continental congress, 132;

outbreak of war in, 139;

second congress, the "United Colonies," 146;

declaration of Independence, 158.

American War of Independence, 139-169, 172-188, 191, 193-198, 214-216,

218-226, 238-244.

Amherst, Sir Jeffrey (later baron), 58, 89, 186.

Amsterdam, 209;

pensionary of, 210.

Andover, parliamentary election for, 19.

Andre, Major, 215, 216.

Anson, George, Lord Anson, admiral, first lord of the admiralty, 8, 16,

29, 35.

_Anti-jacobin_, the, 399.

Antwerp, conference at, 349.

Arbuthnot, Marriot, admiral, 219.

Architecture, state of, 261.

Arcola, battle of, 390.

Arcot, capture of, 196, 237;

nawab of, 232.

Arden, Pepper, master of the rolls, 306.

Arklow (Ireland), battle of, 411.

Arkwright, Richard, 271, 272.

Armagh, Archbishop of (William Stuart), 45.

Armed Neutrality, leagues of, 208-210, 441, 442.

Armistead, Mrs., 309.

Arnold, Benedict, 144, 151, 152, 156, 166, 178;

treachery of, 215, 216, 221-223, 225.

Artois, Comte d', 376, 377.

Asaf-ud-Daula, nawab wazir of Oudh, 249.

Atholl, Duke of (Stewart Murray), 63.

Auckland, Earl of. See Eden, William.

Augsburg, proposed congress at, 23.

Austen, Jane, 260.

Austria. See Francis II.; Joseph II.; Leopold II.

Austria, makes war for Silesia, 17, 23, 24, 36;

joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;

aggressive policy under Joseph II., 297-298;

war with Turks, 325-326;

agreement with Prussia against revolution in France, 334;

war with France, 334, 337;

joins the first coalition, 340;

aims of, 351, 361;

renews hostilities, 374;

losses in Italy, 380;

peace with France, 390, 397;

joins second coalition, 423;

deserts it, 440.

Austrian Netherlands, plan of exchange 297, 349, 351;

revolt of, 325, 326;

French party in, 331;

French invasion of, 336, 337;

occupation of, 342;

French evacuate, 349;

French conquest of, 360-363;

surrender of proposed, 383;

emperor surrenders, 397;

Belgium ceded to France, 440.

Bacon, John, sculptor, 263.

Bahama islands, 217, 243.

Bakewell, Robert, grazier, 275.

Ballinamuck, battle of, 414.

Baltimore (U.S.A.), 168, 225.

Bank of England, suspension of cash payments, 387, 388;

grants a loan, 435.

Banks, Sir Joseph, 263.

Barbadoes, 199, 227.

Barras, Comte de, 224.

Barre, Isaac, colonel, 52, 59, 107, 117, 130, 139, 238, 240, 253.

Barri, Madame du, 114.

Barrier treaty (1713), 297.

Barrington, Samuel, admiral, 195, 202.

Barrington, Viscount (Barrington), 20, 35;

secretary at war, 68, 96, 153.

Basle, treaty between Prussia and France signed at, 374.

Bass, George, 264.

Bastia, captured by British, 363.

Bastille, fall of the, 316.

Bath, Earl of (Pulteney), 16.

Bathurst, Earl (previously Lord Apsley); lord chancellor, 115;

lord president of council, 203.

Bavaria, Elector of, subsidiary treaty between Great Britain and, 436.

See Austrian Netherlands for plan of exchange.

Baxar, battle of, 78.

Beaufoy, Henry, M.P., 295.

Beaumarchais, dramatist, 182.

Beckford, William, alderman, 32, 76, 100, 107, 110, 111;

death of, 116, 260.

Bedford, Duke of (Russell), 8, 26, 31;

privy seal, 32-34;

ambassador at Paris, 38, 44, 46-48;

lord president of the council, 49, 52, 65-67, 89, 100, 274, 359.

Belgium. See Austrian Netherlands.

Belle Ile, capture of, 15, 23, 24, 26, 40.

Bennington, battle at, 177.

Beresford, John, 369, 370.

Bergues, 353.

Bernard, Sir Francis, governor of Massachusetts, 82, 88;

recalled, 91.

Bewick, John, 263.

Bewick, Thomas, 263.

Bill of Rights Society, 104.

Birmingham riots. See Riots.

Black, Joseph, 263.

Blackstock, battle at, 221.

Blackstone, Sir William, his _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, 6, 261.

Blake, William, artist poet, 260.

Blanca, Florida (_corr._ Florida Blanca), 210, 319, 320.

Bligh, Captain, 263.

Bloomsbury gang, 87.

Bloomsbury Square. See London.

Bolingbroke, Viscount (St. John), his _Idea of a Patriot King_, 6.

Bompard, Admiral, 415.

Bonaparte, Joseph, 439.

Bonaparte, Napoleon, 375;

first Italian expedition, 380-383, 390, 397, 401, 402, 414;

his Egyptian campaign, 415-417;

his Syrian campaign, 418-420, 424, 431;

first consul, 432;

negotiates with England for peace, 433, 436;

second Italian expedition, 437;

offers peace to the emperor, 437, 438;

proposes naval armistice with Great Britain, 440;

makes a treaty with the United States, 442;

schemes against England, 443, 445.

_Bonhomme Richard_, the, 197.

Boscawen, Admiral, 15.

Boston, opposition to stamp act, 60, 61;

massacre, 109, 124, 125;

riot, 126-128;

port bill, 129;

harbour closed, 132, 138;

siege of, 139, 142;

evacuation of, 155, 157, 161, 179, 194, 198.

Bouille, Marquis de, 227.

Bounties, 273, 274;

corn, 404;

on importation of wheat, 435, 444, 445.

Bouquet, Colonel, 58.

Boydell, John, 263.

Braddock, General, 146.

Brandywine, battle of the, 174.

Brant, Joseph, Mohawk chief, 178.

Braxfield, Robert, Lord Braxfield (Macqueen), 357.

Breeds hill (U.S.A.), 148.

Bremen, 362.

Brest, 193, 197, 217, 226, 386, 390, 432.

Briand, Bishop, 152.

Bridgewater, Duke of (Egerton), 271.

Bridport, Viscount (Alexander Hood), admiral, 376, 387, 390.

Brindley, James, 271.

Bristol, Burke returned as member for, 136;

rejected, 212;

corporation of, 186;

petition from, 138.

Bristol, Earl of (George William Hervey), ambassador at Madrid, 27-29, 32.

Bristol, Earl of (Frederick Augustus Hervey), Bishop of Derry, 289.

Broglie, Marshal de, 14.

Brooklyn (Long Island), battle of, 164, 169.

Bruce, James, 264.

Brueys, Admiral, 416, 417.

Bruckenmuhle, battle of, 36.

Brune, French general, 430, 440.

Brunswick (Canada), 167, 169.

Brunswick, Charles, Duke of, 154.

Brunswick, Charles William Ferdinand, Prince and Duke of, 300, 336, 351,

354, 360.

Brunswick, Ferdinand, Prince of, 14, 36.

Brussels, 360;

French occupation of, 361.

Buccarelli, governor of Buenos Ayres, 113, 114.

Buckingham House. See London.

Buckingham, Marquis of. See Temple, Earl.

Buckinghamshire, Earl of (Hobart), Viceroy of Ireland, 202.

Buckinghamshire, Lady, 257.

Buenos Ayres, expedition against, 38.

Bunbury, Sir Charles, 257, 260.

Bunker hill, battle of, 148-150, 152, 155, 185.

Burgoyne, Sir John, general, 37, 122, 145, 147, 155, 156, 166, 172-181,

183, 186, 191.

Burke, Edmund, speech on American colonies, 70, 89, 99;

opposed to parliamentary reform, 105;

_Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents_, by, 106, 107, 110,

116-121, 127-130, 136, 137, 139, 145, 160, 169, 170, 188, 192, 200-202;

economical reform, 203, 204, 212, 213, 217, 226;

paymaster of forces, 229, 240, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 265,

266, 268;

opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 302-304, 314, 322, 327;

_Reflections on the French Revolution_, by, 329;

quarrel with Fox, 330;

_Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs_, by, 330, 333, 339-342;

on war with France, 347;

retires from parliament, 366;

urges relief of catholic disabilities, 367;

_Letter on a Regicide Peace_, by, 382, 385;

death of, 396.

Burkersdorf, battle of, 36.

Burney, Fanny (Madame d'Arblay), 260.

Burns, Robert, 260.

Bushy Run, Indians defeated at, 58.

Bussy, Comte de, 24-27.

Bute, Earl of (Stuart), 5;

enters cabinet, 8, 11, 12;

acts with Pitt, 15;

his insincerity, 17;

his peace policy, 17;

his power secured, 19-20;

secretary of state, 20-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34;

first lord of the treasury, 35, 42, 43;

retires from office, 44, 45;

king's private adviser, 45-49, 51-52, 65, 66;

ceases to be, 67, 112, 187.

Butler, John, colonel, 178, 194.

Byron, Commodore, 263.

Cabinet, changes in the character of the, 7-9;

system, 7-9, 33, 229;

George III.'s first, how composed, 8;

councils, reports and notices of, 8, 12, 28-30, 35, 60, 70, 76, 90,

206, 229, 238, 246, 310, 312, 369, 383, 452;

sovereign ceases to preside over council, 12.

Cadiz, 199, 211, 388, 390, 395, 439.

Caesar's camp, capture of, 350, 351.

Caldiero, 390.

Calonne, French minister, 331.

Cambrai, 360.

Cambridge (U.S.A.), 143, 148, 151.

Camden, 219;

battle of, 220, 223.

Camden, Charles, first Earl (Pratt), chief justice of the common pleas, 47;

created Baron Camden, 68, 71;

chancellor, 74, 76, 90, 100, 101;

dismissed from office, 102, 116;

lord president of the council, 229, 287, 324.

Camden, John Jeffries, second Earl, 370, 385, 412.

Campbell, Colonel, 195.

Camperdown, battle of, 398.

Campo Formio, treaty of, 397, 436, 437.

Canada, conquest of, 1, 2, 23, 26, 40, 57;

Quebec act, 129-131, 133, 146;

congress orders an invasion of, 151, 152, 155, 166, 172, 176;

France renounces all claim on, 183;

Franklin proposes the cession of, to the Americans, 239-240;

Pitt's Canada bill, 329-330.

Canals, 271.

Canning, George, 372, 396;

under secretary for foreign affairs, 399, 433, 452, 454.

Canterbury, Archbishops of, John Moore, 451;

Thomas Seeker, 60.

Cape Breton, 23, 24, 26, 40, 129.

Cape de Verde islands, 237.

Cape Fear, 157.

Cape St. Vincent, battle of, 388, 389.

Caracciolo, Francesco, 429.

Carhampton, Earl of. See Luttrell, Henry Lawes.

Carleton, Sir Guy, 130, 151, 152, 155, 156, 166-168;

resigns office, 173;

at New York, 228, 242.

Carlisle, Earl of (Howard), 202;

viceroy of Ireland, 232, 233, 243, 245, 340.

Carlton house. See London.

Carmarthen, Earl of (Osborne), afterwards Duke of Leeds, foreign secretary,

251, 297, 298, 300, 321, 325;

resigns office, 328, 333.

Carnot, organiser of victories, 353, 354, 396.

Caroline of Brunswick. See Wales, Princess of.

Caroline of Denmark, queen, sister of George III., 119.

Carronades, 233.

Carron ironworks, 270.

Cassano, battle of, 425.

Cassel, 14;

surrender of, 36.

Carteret, Philip, R.N., 263.

Cartwright, Edmund, 273.

Castlebar, the race of, 413.

Castlereagh, Viscount (Stewart), secretary of state for Ireland, 447,

449, 450, 452.

Catherine II., Empress of Russia, 36;

alliance with Frederick of Prussia, 74, 75, 114, 208, 209, 296, 297,

299, 324-328, 331, 338, 349, 351, 374;

death of, 384, 390, 441.

Cavendish, Lord John, chancellor of the exchequer, 229, 240, 246, 263.

Cawdor, Lord (Campbell), 387.

Ceylon, Dutch settlements in, taken by the English, 378.

Chait Singh (raja of Benares), 248, 249.

Chambers, Sir William, 262.

Chamblee (Canada), 151.

Charlemont, Earl of (Caulfield), 94, 202, 232, 289.

Charles, Archduke, 382, 425, 426, 439.

Charles Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, 349, 354, 425.

Charles VII., King of Denmark, 441.

Charles III., King of Spain, 24-25, 114.

Charleston (U.S.A.), 148, 149, 157, 198, 219, 221, 223.

Charlotte, Princess, 373.

Charlotte Sophia, queen of George III., 22, 313.

Charlotte (U.S.A.), 220.

Chatham, first Earl of. See Pitt, William, the elder.

Chatham, second Earl of. See Pitt, John.

Chatterton, Thomas, 259.

Chauvelin, French ambassador to England, 324, 336, 337, 339, 340-343.

Chesterfield, Earl of (Stanhope, Philip Dormer), 94, 261.

Choiseul, Duc de, 23-29, 74, 112, 114, 192.

Chouans, the, 376.

Christian, Admiral, 377.

Churchill, Charles, satirist, 43.

Cider tax, 43;

repealed, 72.

Civil list settled, 13;

arrears of, 80, 99, 108, 171, 231, 284;

Burke's proposed reform of, 204, 213;

curtailment of the expenditure of, 238.

Clairfait, Austrian general, 361, 375.

Clare, Earl of. See Fitzgibbon, John.

Clarkson, Thomas, philanthropist, 295.

Clerk of Eldin, naval tactician, 235.

Clinton, Sir Henry, 145, 149, 157, 164, 168, 174, 175, 178-181, 193-195,

197-198, 215, 216, 218-226, 228.

Clive, Robert, Baron Clive, 1;

returns to England, 76;

succeeded in India by Vansittart, 77;

made governor of Bengal, 78;

returns to England, 79;

parliamentary inquiry held into the conduct of, 122;

death of, 123, 248.

Clubs. See London.

Coalition ministry, the, 244-246, 249-250;

dismissed, 251.

Coalitions against France, the first, 349, 351, 363;

the second, 420, 421, 423.

Cobenzl, imperial ambassador, 439, 440.

Coblentz, 331.

Coburg, Duke of, 350, 351, 353, 354, 360, 361.

Colberg, surrender of, 14.

Coleridge, Samuel T., 260.

Collier, Sir George, admiral, 197, 198.

Collingwood, Captain, R.N., 388, 389.

Colman, George (the younger), 258.

Colonial policy of Great Britain, 54-63, 69, 70-72, 84, 88-91, 109-110,

121-128.

Colooney, Vereker defeated by French at, 414.

Commutation tax, 284.

Conciliation bills, 138, 139, 145, 146.

Concord (U.S.A.), 140, 144, 145.

Conde, Prince of, 316, 350, 354.

Connecticut (U.S.A.), 61, 134, 143, 144, 167, 197, 225.

Constantinople, 327, 328, 418.