^{page 90 note 1} According to Lord Stanhope (Life of Pitt, i. 156) he offered his services.

^{page 90 note 2} In fact Lord Temple resigned next day. There can be little doubt, since the publication by the Duke of Buckingham of Lord Temple's letter to Pitt, December 29, 1783, that Temple's real reason for resigning was that suggested by Lord Stanhope (Life of Pitt, i. 164), namely, that Templelhad applied for “a dukedom or some other personal object of ambition. Finding that the King refused him and that Mr. Pitt was not willing to make that personal object a sine qua non condition in so anxious a state of public afEairs, he flung down the seals in anger and set off to Stowe.”

^{page 91 note 1} Pitt, in his letter to the Duke of Rutland, written at eleven a.m. the same day, says that he is to see the King at one.

^{page 93 note 1} His father had been accidentally drowned in an old well in his park at Nnneham, September 16, 1777.

^{page 93 note 2} Received by the King on December 24.

^{page 93 note 3} This referred to the acceptance by the Treasnry of bills from India amounting to about two millions and a half.

^{page 93 note 4} This was about a week earlier than the ordinary time of meeting.

^{page 93 note 5} Stanhope (i. 169) says: “The finances at the close of an unprosperous war were in the utmost disorder. The commercial system with the now independent colonies was as yet undetermined, and required prompt and final regulation. Our foreign relations, which at last had left us almost without a single ally, called for vigilant foresight and conciliating care. But as claiming precedence above all others was the East India question. It was necessary for the new Cabinet, without the loss of a single hour, to frame a new measure in place of that which the House of Lords had rejected. By incessant labour Mr. Pitt and his colleagues effected this object. Their draft Bill was not only prepared, but was approved by both sections of the East India body, previous to the meeting of the House of Commons on January 12.

^{page 94 note 1} On January 12 Fox had moved and carried three resolutions: 1. That any person issuing money for the public service without the sanction of an Appropriation Act would be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. 2. That an account should be rendered of all sums of money issued since December 19 for services voted but not appropriated by Act of Parliament; and 3. To postpone the Second Reading of the Mutiny Bill to February 23.

^{page 94 note 2} There is no trace of this hesitation elsewhere.

^{page 95 note 1} Mr. Bankes had assured the House, on behalf of Pitt, on December 19, “that he was authorised by his right hon. friend to assure the Committee that he had no intention whatever to advocate either a dissolution or a prorogation of Parliament, and that he would not be one of those who should advise any such measure. This he quotes from authority, and he stated it as an assertion to which his right hon. friend would most readily pledge himself.” Mr. Pitt's scruples seem more justified than Lord Carmarthen's explanations. It does not appear in the ordinary histories that Pitt was so strongly opposed to a dissolution.

^{page 95 note 2} His house and the Duke of Eutland's were both in Arlington Street.

^{page 98 note 1} Probably in St. Alban's Street, Pall Mall, a small street removed to make way for the enlargement of Waterloo Place and Regent Street. The party was called the Independents. They met to the number of 53, and put Mr. Thomas Grosrenor in the chair. (Stanhope's Pitt, i. 184 foil.)

^{page 98 note 2} Son of the Lord Chancellor; he died 1786.

^{page 98 note 3} On February 2 Mr. Coke moved against the continuance of the present Ministry in office. This was carried by 223 to 204. Next day Mr. Coke moved to lay this resolution before the King. This was carried by a majority of 24—211 to 187. On February 20 Mr. Powys moved, “That the House relies on the King's readiness to form a united and efficient administration.” This was carried by a majority of 20—197 to 177. A motion to present an address was carried by 177 to 156. On March 1 Mr. Fox moved for an address to the King to remove his Ministers. This was carried by a majority of 12—201 to 189.

^{page 100 note 1} Lord Stormont held many places of importance both at home and abroad. He was buried in Westminster Abbey 1796. He was a representative peer of Scotland from 1766 to 1790.

^{page 101 note 1} In 1784 New Brunswick and Cape Breton were separated from Nova Scotia and made independent governments. In 1819 Cape Breton was united with Nova Scotia again. At this time this colony was especially important as being the place of refnge of loyalists escaping from America. The town of Shelbnrne rapidly developed in this way, but was afterwards nearly deserted.

^{page 101 note 2} The key-note of the English foreign policy at this time was jealousy of France, and connected with this was a strong desire to separate her from Austria. Carmarthen's letters are full of this, to the derision of more experienced statesmen, such as Kaunitz. It can scarcely be believed that Pitt shared this ungenerous distrust of France. Certainly things became much better after the conclusion of the commercial treaty.

^{page 101 note 3} There can be little doubt that Pitt's predominant desire was for peace at this time.

^{page 101 note 4} About 160 supporters of the Coalition Ministry lost their seats, and went by the name of “Fox's Martyrs.”

^{page 102 note 1} The Prince of Wales had begun to reside there in 1783.

^{page 102 note 2} The address was carried by a majority of 282 to 114.

^{page 102 note 3} The principal measures carried were Pitt's India Bill and certain financial reforms.

^{page 102 note 4} The King closed the session on August 20.

^{page 102 note 5} Previously to the French Revolution the word was not used in a bad signification; it only implied a serious and important change of government. The change which Carmarthen here alludes to happened as follows : Frederick V. of Denmark had married as his second wife Julia Maria, of Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel. Her stepson Christian V. married the unfortunate sister of George III., Caroline Matilda. Caroline Matilda was exiled to Celle, in consequence of an intrigue with the minister, Struensee. The King, Christian, was unfit to govern, and everything was left in the hands of Queen Julia. She placed herself in the power of Guldberg, a Minister of the most narrow and retrograde type. When the Crown Prince Frederick was fourteen years of age he ought to have been confirmed and taken his place at the council table; but the Queen, Julia, contrived to defer this event for two years. He received confirmation on March 28, 1784, and was admitted to the Council on April 14 of the same year. He persuaded the King to sign papers appointing a new Council, and summoned Count Bernstorff to the direction of affairs. Bernstorff, who was the nephew of his more illustrious predecessor of the same name, had been dismissed in 1780. He developed commerce, industry, and education in the most enlightened manner. A full account of this is given in the Appendix.

^{page 103 note 1} Carmarthen probably made more of this Gothenburg business than it deserved. He was actuated, as I have before said, principally by jealousy of France and desire to separate France and Austria. Sweden was at this time closely attached to France. There is in the English Record Office a Project of Instructions for Mr. FitzHerbert, dated about the second week in October, which gives a clear account of our position. It appears to me to show the hand of Pitt: “A joint representation on the part of the Courts of London, Petersburg, and Copenhagen, to that of Stockholm, to require an explanation of the treaty by which Sweden allows France a depôt in the port of Gothenburg, and to be informed to what extent the privileges allowed to the French by this arrangement are bonâ fide meant to be carried out.

“The answer probably may be an assurance of its being by no means calculated to occasion the jealousy of other powers, being merely a renewal of the privileges granted to the French at Wismar by the treaty of 1741. It will be necessary however for Sweden to be explicit on the subject; that in case the answer may be satisfactory for the present, and any advantage may be taken at a future period of the French establishment at Gothenburg, to the prejudice of the three above-mentioned powers, or either of them, they may be enabled to produce the friendly assurance of Sweden in addition to the other motives which may call for action and effectual interference, in order to defeat such a dangerous and hostile design. And if it shall appear that the convention shall have no other than its professed object in view it may be fully worth the consideration of the three Courts how far that arrangement may be consistent with the interests (both commercial and political) of their respective dominions.

“Bnt, on the contrary, should a total silence be observed, and a direct refusal on the part of Sweden be the result of this application, it will then behove the three powers to take (in concert) such measures as may effectually tend to protect their mutual and reciprocal rights from the ambitious projects of those at whose instigation or by whose connivance the public tranquillity as well as the particular concerns of individual nations shall have been endangered. The very suggestion of such an idea taking place must be an additional though an unnecessary motive to prove the expediency (not to say necessity) of a cordial, firm, and permanent system of alliance between the three Courts.” It is obvious that Pitt did not rate the danger as highly as Carmarthen.

^{page 106 note 1} Joseph II., Emperor of Austria.

^{page 106 note 2} Frederick the Great still occupied the throne of Prussia. Denmark was the natural rival of Sweden; and, that country being at this time friendly to France, it was natural for Carmarthen to make overtures to Denmark.