Full download ebooks at https://ebookmeta.

com

Engineering Statistics: An Introduction Edward

B. Magrab

For dowload this book click link below

https://ebookmeta.com/product/engineering-statistics-an-
introduction-edward-b-magrab/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Anthropology an introduction to the study of man and

civilization 1st Edition Edward B Tylor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/anthropology-an-introduction-to-
the-study-of-man-and-civilization-1st-edition-edward-b-tylor/

Accounting: An Introduction to Principles and Practice

Edward Clarke

https://ebookmeta.com/product/accounting-an-introduction-to-
principles-and-practice-edward-clarke/

Statistics for Data Scientists: An Introduction to

Probability, Statistics, and Data Analysis Maurits
Kaptein

https://ebookmeta.com/product/statistics-for-data-scientists-an-
introduction-to-probability-statistics-and-data-analysis-maurits-
kaptein/

Linguistics An Introduction 2nd Edition William B

Mcgregor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/linguistics-an-introduction-2nd-
edition-william-b-mcgregor/
Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to
Engineering, 6th Edition Moaveni Saeed

https://ebookmeta.com/product/engineering-fundamentals-an-
introduction-to-engineering-6th-edition-moaveni-saeed/

Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst

https://ebookmeta.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-hoerst/

An introduction to probability and statistics using

BASIC First Edition Groeneveld

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-introduction-to-probability-and-
statistics-using-basic-first-edition-groeneveld/

Engineering Software Products: An Introduction to

Modern Software Engineering Ian Sommerville

https://ebookmeta.com/product/engineering-software-products-an-
introduction-to-modern-software-engineering-ian-sommerville/

Theatre Histories An Introduction 2nd Edition Phillip B

Zarrilli

https://ebookmeta.com/product/theatre-histories-an-
introduction-2nd-edition-phillip-b-zarrilli/
Engineering Statistics
Edward B. Magrab

Engineering Statistics
An Introduction
Edward B. Magrab
University of Maryland
College Park, MD, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-05009-1 ISBN 978-3-031-05010-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05010-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For
June Coleman Magrab
Preface

This book presents a concise and focused introduction to engineering statistics,

emphasizing topics and concepts that a practicing engineer is mostly likely to use:
the display of data, confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, fitting straight lines to
data, and designing experiments to find the impact of process changes on a system or
its output. The book introduces the language of statistics, contains sufficient detail so
that there is no mystery as to how equations come about, makes extensive use of
tables to collect and summarize in one place important formulas and concepts, and
utilizes enhanced graphics that are packed with visual information to illustrate the
meaning of the equations and their usage.
The book can be used as an introduction to the subject, to refresh one’s knowl-
edge of engineering statistics, to complement course materials, as a study guide, and
to provide a resource for laboratories where data acquisition and analysis are
performed.
The book recognizes that there are many computational tools available to perform
the statistical analysis of data, and, therefore, the numerical details in the more
computationally intensive examples are omitted. However, to facilitate all numerical
calculations used in the book and to permit one to further explore the material, a set
of interactive graphics (IGs) has been created using Mathematica®. The IGs are
designed to do specific tasks in the context of the material. The IGs can be used to
expand many of the figures by changing the figure’s parameters, to evaluate relations
in tables, to verify examples, and to solve exercises. One IG determines values for
the probability and inverse probability of the normal, t, chi square, and
f distributions. They do not require any programming, and their use is self-
explanatory in the context of the material. The IGs are on the publisher’s website
as are their description and how to acquire the free software to run them.
The book consists of four chapters. In each chapter, there are numerical examples
to illustrate the application of the results and exercises at the end of the chapter. Each
example cites the applicable IG that can be used to verify the results and in the more
computationally intensive ones to evaluate and plot them. The tables of data that

vii
viii Preface

accompany several of the exercises are available in a text file on the publisher’s
website and formatted so that they can be copied into any analysis software program
that is used. A solution manual is also available on the publisher’s website.
In Chap. 1, we introduce several fundamental aspects of statistics: its language,
quantities used to describe data, visualization of data, discrete probability distribu-
tions, and terms that describe measurements. For the language of statistics, we define
such terms as experiments, random samples, bias, and probability. For the quantities
that describe data, we define the mean, median, mode, quartiles, expected value,
unbiased variance, and covariance. For visualizing data, we discuss histograms,
box-whisker plots, and scatter plots. Discrete probability distributions, the cumula-
tive frequency function, the probability mass function, and the binomial distribution
and the Poisson distribution are defined. Then, the concept of independent random
variables and its significance is discussed. Lastly, terms used to describe measure-
ments are defined and illustrated: accuracy, precision, repeatability, reproducibility,
and stability.
In Chap. 2, we introduce continuous probability density functions: normal,
lognormal, chi square, student t, f distribution, and Weibull. These probability
density functions are then used to obtain the confidence intervals at a specified
confidence level for the mean, differences in means, variance, ratio of variances, and
difference in means for paired samples. These results are then extended to hypothesis
testing where the p-value is introduced and the type I and type II errors are defined.
The use of operating characteristic (OC) curves to determine the magnitude of these
errors is illustrated. Also introduced is a procedure to obtain probability plots for the
normal distribution as a visual means to confirm the normality assumption for data.
In Chap. 3, we provide derivations of the applicable formulas for simple and
multiple linear regression. In obtaining these results, the partitioning of the data
using the sum of squares identities and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) is
introduced. The confidence intervals of the model’s parameters are determined,
and how an analysis of the residuals is used to confirm that the model is appropriate.
Prior to obtaining the analytical results, we discuss why it is necessary to plot data
before attempting to model it, state general guidelines and limits of a straight-line
model to data, and show how one determines whether plotted data that appear to be
nonlinear could be intrinsically linear. Hypothesis tests are introduced to determine
which parameters in the model are the most influential.
In Chap. 4, the terms used in experimental design are introduced: response
variable, factor, extraneous variable, level, treatment, blocking variable, replication,
contrasts, and effects. The relations needed to analyze a one-factor experiment, a
randomized complete block design, a two-factor experiment, and a 2k-factorial
experiment are derived. For these experiments, an analysis of variance is used to
determine the factors that are most influential in determining its output and, when
appropriate, whether the factors interact.

College Park, MD, USA Edward B. Magrab

Contents

1 Descriptive Statistics and Discrete Probability Distributions . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Statistical Measures and the Display of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Histograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.2 Sample Median and Quartiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.3 Sample Mean and the Expected Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.4 Sample Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.5 Probability Mass Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.6 Independent Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3.7 Unbiased Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4 Binomial and Poisson Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4.1 Binomial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4.2 Poisson Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.5 Definitions Regarding Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2 Continuous Probability Distributions, Confidence Intervals,
and Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2 Continuous Probability Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.2 Definitions Using Continuous Probability
Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3 Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3.1 Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3.2 Combining Independent Normally Distributed
Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.3.3 Probability Plots for the Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 47

ix
x Contents

2.3.4 Central Limit Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.3.5 Lognormal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4 Chi Square Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.5 Student t Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.6 Differences in the Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.6.1 Paired Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.7 f Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.8 Weibull Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.9 Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.9.2 p-Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.9.3 Examples of Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.9.4 Type I and Type II Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.10 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3 Regression Analysis and the Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2 Simple Linear Regression and the Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . 95
3.2.1 Simple Linear Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.2.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.3 Analysis of Residuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.3 Multiple Linear Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.4 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.2 One-Factor Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.3 Randomized Complete Block Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.4 Two Factor Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.5 2k-Factorial Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Appendix A: Moment Generating Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

A.1 Moment Generating Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
A.2 Moment Generating Function of the Chi Square Distribution . . . . 162
A.3 Independence of Mean and Variance for Normally Distributed
Independent Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Chapter 1
Descriptive Statistics and Discrete
Probability Distributions

In this chapter, we introduce several fundamental aspects of statistics: its language,

quantities used to describe data, visualization of data, discrete probability distributions,
and terms that describe measurements. For the language of statistics, we define such
terms as experiments, random samples, bias, and probability. For the quantities that
describe data, we define the mean, median, mode, quartiles, expected value, unbiased
variance, and covariance. For visualizing data, we discuss histograms, box-whisker
plots, and scatter plots. Discrete probability distributions, the cumulative frequency
function, the probability mass function, and the binomial distribution and the Poisson
distribution are defined. Then, the concept of independent random variables and its
significance is discussed. Lastly, terms used to describe measurements are defined and
illustrated: accuracy, precision, repeatability, reproducibility, and stability.

1.1 Introduction

The world is awash with data, but data by themselves are often meaningless. It is
statistics that provides the ability to give meaning to data and allows one to draw
conclusions and to make decisions. One important aspect of statistics is that is can be
used to quantify and interpret variability, which can then be used to identify
meaningful changes in processes and experiments.
The approach to statistics used here will be analogous to that used to analyze many
engineering problems; that is, based on a set of factors one chooses an appropriate
model to describe the system, process, or artifact under consideration. These factors are
usually determined from a combination of prior experience, engineering judgment, and
direct measurements. In statistics, the vocabulary is different, but the procedure is

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at

[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05010-7_1].

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

E. B. Magrab, Engineering Statistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05010-7_1
2 1 Descriptive Statistics and Discrete Probability Distributions

similar: from a collection of measurements, one selects an appropriate statistical model

to describe them and then uses this model to draw conclusions.
Many of the numerical values used in this and subsequent chapters are given
without context. They are values that are employed to illustrate the various concepts
and to illustrate the statistical inferences that can be drawn from their analysis.
However, except for possibly their magnitudes, they could be representing such
physical measurements as component/product time to failure, percentage shrinkage,
number of defective components, variation in composition, production rates, reac-
tion times, dimensional characteristics, weight, tensile/shear strength, displacement/
velocity/acceleration, acoustic sound pressure level, flow rate, and temperature to
name a few. The interpretation in the physical domain is simply a specific applica-
tion of the topic that is being discussed.

1.2 Definitions

Samples are collections of observations from measuring a specific characteristic of a

system, process, or artifact. Each observation is given a numerical real value
(positive, negative, or zero) and this numerical value is considered a random
variable. The samples themselves can be the entirety of all possible measurements,
called the population, or they can be a subset of the population.
Using a sample of a population is never as good as using the population; however,
a sample is used because: (a) timeliness of results is important; (b) some measured
characteristics may require the destruction of the artifact; and (c) the population is
too large.
Random variables are classified as either discrete or continuous. A discrete
random variable is a value from an enumerable set. For example, the number of
students in a class, the number of occupants in city, and the number of defective
components. A continuous random variable has any value in a specified interval,
finite or infinite. For example, the life of an appliance, automobile gas mileage, and
atmospheric temperature and pressure. The classification of whether a variable is
discrete or continuous determines how it is defined mathematically. In either case,
one ends up choosing a probabilistic model that best describes the sample. When the
range of a discrete random variable is very large, it may be more convenient to
represent them as a continuous random variable. Conversely, there are situations
where a continuous random variable can be converted to a discrete random variable
by, for example, placing the data into three groups, where each sample’s value is
assigned to one of three values to indicate which group.
In statistics, an experiment is a procedure that when repeated in the same manner every
time results in different outcomes, with each outcome resulting in a random variable.
Probability quantifies the likelihood that an outcome of an experiment will occur.
A random sample is one in which a sample selected from a collection of samples
had an equal chance (probability) of being selected.
Bias is any sample selection procedure that consistently overestimates or under-
estimates the measured values.
1.3 Statistical Measures and the Display of Data 3

1.3 Statistical Measures and the Display of Data

We shall introduce several measures that can be used to describe a set of

observations:
1. The relative frequency of the observations, which gives a sense of the probability
of an observation having a specific value.
2. The mean, mode, and median, which give a sense of the location of the center of
the data
3. The variance, which gives a sense of the variability or dispersion in the data about
the location of the center of the data
We now define each of these quantities and their meaning for discrete random
variables.

1.3.1 Histograms

Consider a set of samples S comprised of the random variables xj, j ¼ 1, 2, . . ., n; that

is, S ¼ {x1, x2, x3, . . ., xn,}. We create a set of m equal intervals Δi ¼ (yi + 1 - yi), i ¼ 1,
2, . . ., m, where {y1, y2, . . ., ym + 1} are the end points of the intervals. The quantity
Δi is often referred to as the ith bin. In creating these intervals, we require that
y1  xmin and ym + 1 > xmax where xmax is the maximum value in S and xmin is the
minimum value in S. The range of the values in S is xmax - xmin. We denote the
number of values in S that fall within Δi as ni, where yi  X < yi + 1 and X denotes a
random variable from S. Then, the relative frequency pi of S having a value in Δi is
pi ¼ ni/n. Therefore,

X
m
pi ¼ 1 ð1:1Þ
i¼1

pffiffiffiWhen creating histograms, the quantity m is often selected as an integer close to

n and that Δi is often selected as an integer.
The quantity pi is an estimate of the probability that the elements of S will have a
value in the interval Δi. To express this idea mathematically, we introduce the
notation
 
P yi  X < yiþ1 ¼ pi ð1:2Þ

which reads: the probability that the random variable X will have a value between yi
and yi + 1 is pi. Then, the probability of finding a value in S that lies within the range
of contiguous intervals Δj to Δk, which is the interval Δkj ¼ (yk - yj), where
1  j  m  1 and j + 1  k  m, is
4 1 Descriptive Statistics and Discrete Probability Distributions

Table 1.1 Data used in the 503 487 499 668 411 390 322 918 925
construction of a histogram 585 752 436 451 184 953 656 548 559
(n ¼ 90) with the minimum 869 1000 1005 592 830 265 707 818 444
and maximum values identi- 453 616 409 437 346 30 792 621 592
fied in bold 574 860 336 607 637 794 527 832 739
322 802 306 495 640 719 482 578 201
289 171 351 1068 737 843 1441 270 560
618 470 370 439 858 305 570 709 514
629 441 404 991 758 212 638 521 572
250 522 494 448 550 766 480 792 272

  Xk
P y j  X < yk ¼ pi
i¼j

The above expression leads to the idea of the cumulative probability Fk(x), which
is given by

X
k
F k ðxÞ ¼ PðX < yk Þ ¼ pi ð1:3Þ
i¼1

Equation (1.3) gives the probability of having a value from S in the region yk - y1, and
this probability is denoted Fk(x). It is seen from Eq. (1.1) that Fm(x) ¼ 1.
The mode occurs at that Δi where ni (or pi) is maximum. This interval is the one in
which a sample from S has the highest probability of occurring.
To illustrate these definitions, consider the data shown in Table 1.1. These data
are sorted so that the first element has the smallest value and the last element has the
largest value; that is, we create the ordered set e S ¼ fex1 , ex2 , ex3 , . . . , exn g, where
ex jþ1  ex j j ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n  1: After a little experimentation, it is decided to initially
set m ¼ 8 and Δi ¼ 200; therefore, yi ¼ 200(i – 1), i ¼ 1, 2, . . ., 9. We shall present
the data three ways.1 The first way is shown in Fig. 1.1, which displays the actual
values that appear in each bin and encases these values in a rectangular box.
Underneath each ith box is the number of values that appear in that box denoted
ni, the corresponding fraction of the total values denoted pi, and the sum of the
fraction of values that appear in the present bin and all those preceding denoted Fi(x).
The second way that these data are displayed is in the traditional way, which is
that of a histogram shown in Fig. 1.2. In Fig. 1.2a, we have used Δi ¼ 200 and in
Fig. 1.2b, Δi ¼ 100. In both figures, we have chosen to plot the relative frequency of
the data in the bins and to place thevalue of ni corresponding to that Δi above each
bar. It is seen in Fig. 1.2b that the smaller bin interval provides a better indication of

1
All symbolic work, numerical work, and graphics are obtained with Mathematica. Mathematica is
a registered trademark of Wolfram Research, Inc.
1.3 Statistical Measures and the Display of Data 5

Fig. 1.1 Calculations and manipulations that go into making a histogram

the distribution of the data. As expected by the nature of the bin collection procedure,
the number of values between 0 and 200 in Fig. 1.2a equals the sum of the number of
values in the bins in the same interval in Fig. 1.2b. Similarly, for the bins between
200 and 400, and so on. The cumulative probability (or cumulative relative fre-
quency) for the data presented in Fig. 1.2b is shown in Fig. 1.3. Another form of
representing the data is to combine the histogram with a scatter plot of the data as
shown in Fig. 1.4. The order of the samples in the scatter plot has no effect on the
shape of the histogram.
Figures 1.2 and 1.3 can be replicated for any data set with interactive graphic
IG1–1.
Histograms are used to visualize the distribution of the data and, as discussed
subsequently, can be used to obtain an approximation to a quantity called the
probability mass function and when continuous models are used, the probability
density function. The shape of a histogram also provides some indication as to which
probability model one should use to represent the data. Histograms additionally
show the extent of the variability or ‘spread’ of the values about its central location,
whether the data tend to be symmetrical or skewed, and whether the data are
bimodal; that is, they have two separate and distinguishable groupings, each with
6 1 Descriptive Statistics and Discrete Probability Distributions

Fig. 1.2 Histograms of the a

relative frequency of the
data in Table 1.1 where the
number above each bar
indicates the number of
values that fall within that
bin’s interval (a) Bin
interval Δi ¼ 200 (b) Bin
interval Δi ¼ 100

Fig. 1.3 Cumulative

frequency of the data in
Fig. 1.2b by using Eq. (1.3)
where the number above
each bar indicates the sum of
the fraction of the number of
values that fall within that
bin’s interval and all those
preceding it

its own peak. This latter case may occur, for example, when a physical characteristic
of humans is measured, and this characteristic depends on gender. Other examples
are when water/electrical usage depends on the season, or the measurement of travel
time depends on the time of day and day of the week.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
in all the Courts of Europe, and figuring as “the posture-master of the
Balance of Power.” Undismayed by this brilliant invective, Dundas once
more appealed for a continuance of the confidence which Ministers
had merited by their conduct; and the House accorded it by 253 votes
1004
to 173. On 15th April the figures were 254 to 162.
It is clear, then, that Pitt kept his party well together, despite the
fact that his hands were tied by official reserve, while the Opposition
ramped at large in the unalloyed bliss of ignorance. Storer might
choose to tell Lord Auckland that “the country throughout have told
1005
Mr. Pitt that they will not go to war.” But, apart from an influential
deputation from Manchester, there was no decided protest. Seven
weeks later Pitt admitted to Ewart that it would have been difficult to
keep his party together in the event of war, and if he had “to state, as
would then be indispensable, the precise ground on which it
1006
arose.” But the news which arrived up to 27th March clearly
warranted the hope that Russia would give way. Then, however, the
diplomatic situation underwent a curious change.

* * * * *
On the 27th, then, that is, on the very day on which the Cabinet
sent off the decisive despatches referred to above, most disconcerting
news from Lord Auckland reached the Foreign Office. It was to this
effect:

With respect to the good disposition of the Count of Vienna,

which is made the groundwork of His Prussian Majesty’s
Instruction of the 11th inst. to M. de Redern, I think it material to
mention to Your Grace that, in a subsequent letter of the 12th, in
cypher, which is gone by this day’s mail to M. de Redern (and
which I have happened to see), His Prussian Majesty states in
terms of the strongest uneasiness that the Emperor’s conduct
becomes more suspicious and that he evidently intends to defeat
the whole Convention of Reichenbach; that he has given up his
own opinion to that of Messrs. de Kaunitz and Cobenzl and,
 particularly, that he is collecting large magazines and preparations
in the neighbourhood of Cologne, which M. de Redern is instructed
1007
to mention to Your Grace as a subject of just uneasiness.

This sudden transition from a warlike resolve to timorous prudence

in part resulted from the Prussian monarch’s habit of listening to two
sets of advisers. Hertzberg whispered peaceful advice into one ear,
while the other took in the bellicose counsels of Bischoffswerder; and
the royal mind sent forth to London both sets of impressions. Other
proofs were soon at hand betokening a reaction towards pleasure and
inertia. Hertzberg, so Jackson reported, sought to enforce the cession
of Danzig and Thorn as a sine quâ non of Prussia’s acting conjointly
with England—a step which obviously aimed at hindering such action.
Still more important was the news that came from Copenhagen.
On 27th March there reached the Foreign Office a despatch from
Francis Drake, our envoy at Copenhagen, who was destined one day
to win unenviable notoriety as the dupe of Napoleon’s secret police,
and to figure in French caricatures as a ruffled mallard flying off with
bottles of invisible ink. At present he merely forwarded a pacific
proposal of Count Bernstorff. In the hope of averting strifes in which
Denmark must inevitably suffer, that Minister had begged the Czarina
to accept the terms of the Allies if they were modified in her favour.
When Catharine smiled on the proposal, Bernstorff assured Drake of
his desire to reconcile the Courts of St. Petersburg and London without
compromising the dignity of George III. He declared that Catharine
had eagerly welcomed the prospect of a peaceful arrangement, and
hoped that the Allies would appreciate the force of her reasons for
rejecting the strict status quo ante, seeing that she had been unjustly
attacked by the Turks, and had won a brilliant triumph. While restoring
to them a large part of her conquests, she was determined to retain “a
single fortress and a desert region in order to gain a safer frontier.”
She therefore hoped that the Allies would show their moderation by
substituting a limited status quo for their present demand. Bernstorff
added the suggestion that she should have all the land up to the
Dniester, on condition that the walls of Oczakoff were razed for all
time, and that no military colonies should be founded in the ceded
territory, which also should remain waste. He further hinted that
Russia might be induced to grant England a favourable commercial
1008
treaty.
This last was added as a bait especially tempting to Pitt, who had
been much annoyed by the failure of his efforts in that direction in
1787, and now found the Dutch obdurate to some parts of his
proposed commercial treaty with them. Is it too much to assume that,
if the news which arrived on 27th March concerning the shifting of
Prussian policy and the reasonableness of the Czarina had reached him
two or three days earlier, he would have led the Cabinet to a far
different decision? The speeches of Ministers in Parliament were now
marked by coolness and caution, characteristics which came out even
more strongly on 12th and 15th April.
The searchings of heart in the Cabinet on the anxious days 30th
March–10th April are laid bare in the memoranda of the Duke of
Leeds. The Duke of Richmond and Grenville were opposed to the use
of coercion against Russia. Pitt, Leeds, Thurlow, Camden, and
Chatham at first resolutely maintained their position. At the second
meeting of the Cabinet, on 31st March, Stafford joined Grenville and
Richmond. Pitt also heard of the defection of the Duke of Grafton and
his sons. Camden seemed shaken by the news before them; and
Thurlow attained a prudent neutrality by diplomatic slumber. Pitt
himself was now impressed with the need of circumspection; and, on
the ground of the proposals from Denmark, advised the sending of a
special messenger to Berlin, to request Jackson not to forward the
ultimatum to Russia. Leeds objected to the Danish proposal being
assigned as the reason for delay, and declared that if the despatch
1009
were sent in that form, Grenville must sign it, for he could not.
Pitt then agreed to tone down the despatch into a request for a few
days’ delay. This was his first decided disagreement with Leeds. He
sought to end it by friendly conversation, but in vain; for the Duke
believed the honour of the Cabinet to be tarnished by so unworthy a
surrender.
Pitt took a more sanguine view of the situation, as appears in
some hitherto unpublished letters that passed between him and Ewart.
That over-wrought envoy had departed for Buxton in the belief that he
had persuaded the Cabinet of the certainty of Catharine acquiescing in
the demands of the Triple Alliance. What must have been his chagrin,
then, to receive a letter from Pitt, of 6th April, begging him to return
to town at once. “Events have taken a turn here,” wrote Pitt, “which
seem to leave little or no chance of pushing our Plan to its original
extent, and that the best thing we shall have to —(?) it is some
modification, which perhaps, however, may be so managed as to
provide more fully than could have been expected for the general
1010
object.” This sounds the hopeful note which was rarely missing
from Pitt’s utterances. Evidently he wished that Ewart should return to
Berlin to make the best of the situation. Ewart had an interview with
him, on or about 10th April, which he described in a letter of 14th April
to Jackson, his locum tenens at Berlin. He found Pitt as deeply
impressed as ever with the importance of the political and commercial
objects at issue, which were

well worthy of every exertion. “But,” continued Pitt, “all my efforts

to make a majority of the House of Commons understand the
subject have been fruitless; and I know for certain that, tho’ they
may support me at present, I should not be able to carry the vote
of credit. In short, Sir, you have seen that they can be embarked
in a war from motives of passion, but they cannot be made to
comprehend a case in which the most valuable interests of the
country are at stake. What, then, remains to be done? Certainly,
to risk my own situation, which my feelings and inclination would
induce me to do without any hesitation; but there are
unfortunately circumstances in the present state of this country
which make it certain that confusion and the worst of
consequences might be expected, and it would be abandoning the
King.”
After stating several facts in confirmation [Ewart says], and
repeating, even with the tears in his eyes, that it was the greatest
mortification he had ever experienced, he said he was determined
not to knock under but to keep up a good countenance: that the
 armaments should therefore continue to be made with vigour, and
the fleet to be made ready for sailing; and that in the meantime
he hoped means might be found to manage matters so as not to
have the appearance of giving up the point, but modifying it so as
to prevent any serious bad consequences from ensuing, tho’ he
repeated that he was well aware that the difference between any
such plan would always be very great and extremely
1011
mortifying.

This revelation of Pitt’s feelings and intentions is of the highest

interest. Nowhere else do we hear of wounded pride bringing tears to
his eyes; and nowhere do we find a clearer statement of his desire to
resign, were it not that such a course would abandon the King and the
country to a factious Opposition. He therefore resolved on a
compromise, the weakness of which he clearly saw, because it would
satisfy Parliament and his opponents in the Cabinet without too much
offending Prussia or unduly exalting the horn of the Czarina. Ewart
decided to return to Berlin to help on his chief, to whom he expressed
unfaltering devotion. It is further noteworthy that Pitt at this time
desired to send the fleet to the Baltic; and we may reasonably infer
that the subsequent reversal of that salutary resolve was the work of
Grenville.
One other detail in Ewart’s letter claims attention. Why did Pitt
assign so great weight to the opposition in Parliament? Had he
received private remonstrances? Rumour says that Dundas and others
warned him to desist from his scheme. But, as we have seen, his
majority held well together. On 12th April he beat Fox by eighty votes,
and on the 15th by ninety-two. How is it possible to reconcile this
increase with wavering or lukewarmness? I think it probable that Pitt
chose now and at a later date to ascribe his change of front to
parliamentary opposition (on which he could descant), while it really
resulted from difficulties in the Cabinet, on which he had to keep
silence. Further, he may have hoped that if Ewart, the soul of the
forward policy, consented to return to Berlin, the Duke of Leeds would
find it consonant with his own dignity to retain office.
 If so, he was disappointed. Before the Cabinet meeting of 10th
April he had convinced himself that the pacific overtures of Catharine
sent through Bernstorff were genuine and sincere. He also pointed out
to the Duke that the violent language of the Opposition would certainly
encourage the Empress to reject the absolute status quo. The
inference was irresistible, that England and Prussia must be content
with securing rather less for Turkey. Pitt decided in favour of this
course, and on 15th and 16th April, drew up the drafts of despatches
to this effect, in the hope that Leeds would sign them. The Duke,
however, declined to do so, and, by the King’s leave, Grenville
appended his signature.
This implied a ministerial change; and on 21st April Leeds returned
the seals to the King after the Drawing Room at St. James’s Palace.
Thus disappeared from the forefront of history a personality whose
sprightliness and charm earned him a high place among the wits and
amateur playwrights of that age, and whose jealousy for the honour of
England at this crisis won the regard even of those who differed from
him. He was far from being a great Foreign Minister. At every crisis Pitt
took the reins into his own hands, and at other times the business of
the Foreign Office went on somewhat loosely, Keith complaining at
Vienna that in the year 1788 he received only one reply to fifty-three
1012
despatches sent from that capital. The Duke’s tenure of office was
marked by two of the greatest triumphs ever won by peaceful means,
namely, over France in 1787 and Spain in 1790; but these, as we have
seen, were essentially the work of Pitt. There could be but one
successor to Leeds. Grenville, though a far from attractive personality,
possessed qualities of shrewdness, good sense, and untiring assiduity.
He was strong where Leeds was weak, namely, in system,
thoroughness, and equability; but he was weak where Leeds was
strong, namely, in managing men. George III certainly approved of the
accession of Grenville to power, and sent to him the seals on the same
day. After some delay, arising from Pitt’s desire that Cornwallis should
succeed Grenville at the Home Office, Dundas took that
1013
appointment.
 On 20th April, then, Ewart was instructed to return to Berlin for
the purpose of explaining to Frederick William that the difficulties
arising from the trend of public opinion and the opportunity afforded
by the Danish proposals induced the British Government to seek for a
peaceful compromise with Russia. Pitt also urged the desirability of
Austria joining the Triple Alliance. As to the new Russo-Turkish
boundary, it should be fixed if possible East of the Dniester, namely, at
Lake Telegul, the lands eastward up to the River Bug being also left a
1014
desert.
Ewart arrived at Potsdam on 29th April (a remarkably quick
journey), and found Frederick William in a gracious mood. The King
agreed to Pitt’s new proposals, and highly approved of the overtures to
Austria. While expressing mortification at the change of front towards
Russia, he assured Ewart of his belief in the good intentions of the
British Ministry. It is easy to see that Frederick William felt some relief
at the prospect of avoiding a war, of which nearly all his counsellors
expressed disapproval. Hertzberg on 24th April assured Lucchesini that
a war with Russia would probably be the tomb of the Prussian
1015
monarchy. There was, indeed, every need for caution, owing to
the doubtful attitude of Austria. Lord Elgin followed the Emperor
Leopold to Florence for the purpose of urging him to join the Triple
Alliance; but, while receiving the overture with Tuscan graciousness,
he in effect waived it aside. In vain did our envoy follow the Emperor
from city to city for some weeks, and urge him to join the Allies.
Leopold, with his usual penetration, saw that the situation favoured
the two Empires, provided that they held together; and Pitt’s offer
appeared to him merely an ingenious means of separating them.
Further, Kaunitz detected the rift in the Anglo-Prussian concert, and
the hatred of England which pervaded the letters of Marie Antoinette
to the Emperor may also have strengthened his resolve to dally with
Pitt’s proposals, even while he took the most effective means of
thwarting them. The Polish Revolution of 3rd May 1791, soon to be
described, also led Leopold to draw closer to Russia. Thus, despite
affable converse with Elgin in the towns of Lombardy, he instructed his
envoys at Sistova to raise their demands and assume an arrogant
tone. The Turks received this rebuff with oriental composure, and,
having the support of Keith and Lucchesini, resisted this flagrant
attempt of Austria to shuffle out of the Reichenbach compact.
Accordingly the early days of June 1791 witnessed a break in the
negotiations and a rapid increase of warlike preparations on the
1016
Danube—a turn of affairs highly favourable to Catharine.
The indignation of Pitt and Grenville at the double-dealing of
Leopold finds expression in a note of the latter to Auckland (6th July):
“If the Emperor does break faith with us at last, he does it in a manner
so directly and personally disgraceful to himself, that it is hard to
suppose he can make up his mind to hear all that he must hear in
1017
such a case.” In these words we see the cause of the distrust of
the Emperor which clogged all attempts at an Anglo-Austrian compact
directed against French democracy. Events, therefore, told heavily
against Pitt’s efforts to bring about an honourable compromise with
Russia. Nothing, however, is further from the truth than to represent
his offers to Catharine as a humiliating surrender. The instructions to
Fawkener, the special envoy to St. Petersburg, were as follows: Either
the whole of the Oczakoff territory as far west as the River Dniester
should be left neutral and uninhabited; or it should become Russian on
condition of lying waste; or the Russian boundary should be drawn
east of the Dniester, no fortress being constructed in the ceded
1018
territory. It is worth noting that the Turkish envoy at Berlin
thought these terms satisfactory. Fawkener was to agree to the third
and least desirable alternative only in case Austria proved obdurate.
But in this respect he was allowed a certain latitude, provided that
Turkey retained adequate means of defence on that side. In order to
avoid any appearance of menace, the British fleet was not to enter the
Baltic or the Black Sea, a resolve much resented at Berlin and
1019
Warsaw.
Frederick William received Fawkener most cordially at Sans Souci
on 11th May. He showed some concern at the Manchester petition to
Pitt, as it would stiffen the tone of the Czarina; he urged the sending
of a British squadron to the Black Sea to ward off the threatened
attack on Constantinople, and stated his preference for the third of the
alternatives named by Grenville. Fawkener therefore felt bound to
place it first in his proposals to the Czarina: and it is noteworthy that
Prussian diplomacy once again favoured a concession to Catharine
larger than Pitt was disposed to grant. Inward satisfaction at the
course of events was, as usual, accompanied by many sneers at the
1020
weakness of British policy. Gustavus of Sweden adopted a similar
tone. He assured Liston of his readiness to receive the British fleet and
to arm against Russia, provided that the Allies would grant him the
needful subsidies. Liston, knowing his shiftiness, received these offers
with polite incredulity. Certainly they had no effect at Whitehall.
1021
Pitt’s change of front ruined his influence in the North; and in
diplomacy prestige counts for so much that Catharine had virtually
won her case by the end of May. Fawkener arrived at St. Petersburg on
24th May, and soon found himself involved in a series of gorgeous
fêtes which proclaimed the wealth and power of the Empress and her
entire indifference to all that England might do. For the irksome details
of business he was referred to the Ministers and Prince Potemkin. The
latter boasted in his lordly way of his resolve to seize Constantinople,
wage eternal war on the miscreant Turks, and finally conquer Egypt.
After a delay of three weeks the Empress received Fawkener graciously
at a ball; she assured him of her admiration of Burke’s “Reflections” on
the French Revolution, and expressed her horror of that event as well
as her regret at the sympathy of Fox with it. She petted her grandson,
Alexander, and ostentatiously avoided all reference to the subject of
Fawkener’s mission, except that, when a dog chanced opportunely to
bark, she said, “Dogs that bark do not always bite.” So matters
dragged on, it being the aim of Catharine to gain another success on
the Danube, to win over Leopold definitely to her side (as Fawkener
found to be the case by 21st June), and to sow discord among
1022
Britons.
In this last she achieved a startling success. On 17th June there
arrived at St. Petersburg Mr. (afterwards Sir) Robert Adair, who later on
was to figure as a diplomatist under the Ministry of Fox and that of All
the Talents. We may accept his solemn declaration, in a letter written
in the year 1842, that Fox had no hand in sending him on this so-
1023
called “mission”; but we are able to correct Adair’s version in
several respects, from documents in the “Pitt Papers,” which Bishop
1024
Tomline, when challenged by Adair, thought fit to withhold.
Adair asserted in 1842 that his object in going to Russia was not to
oppose Pitt’s policy of recovering Oczakoff, because that Minister had
already renounced it in obedience to the mandate of Parliament. This,
as we have seen, is incorrect; for when Adair left England, in May
1025
1791, warlike preparations were still going on. He admits that Fox
said to him before starting, “Well: if you are determined to go, send us
all the news”; and that Fox provided him with a cipher so that that
news might elude the prying eyes of British diplomatists. It may be, as
Adair says, that he and he alone was accountable for this odd attempt
to direct the foreign policy of his country. But it is highly probable that
Vorontzoff (Woronzow), the Russian ambassador in London, abetted
the scheme. On 2nd May Whitworth wrote that Vorontzoff’s
despatches had given great satisfaction at the Russian capital. “He
assures his Court that Russia has many friends and partisans in
England, and affirms pretty positively that His Majesty’s Ministry will
have no small difficulty in carrying through their measures contrary to
1026
the interest of the country.” Further, the account of Adair’s
“mission,” given by William Lindsay, Whitworth’s secretary, states that
Adair came with strong letters of recommendation from Vorontzoff,
while the Duchess of Devonshire commended him to Whitworth. He
travelled viâ Vienna, where he stayed with the Russian ambassador. At
St. Petersburg he at first received countenance from the British
embassy, owing to the high recommendations which he brought with
him, and he was presented at Court by Whitworth himself!
Thus Adair found his path everywhere strewn with flowers.
Catharine smiled on him and plied him with important questions,
ironically asking him whether the British fleet had set sail. Fawkener,
on the other hand, she treated with marked coldness. The British
embassy, however, had its revenge; for Lindsay opened the letters,
which Adair trustfully asked him to take to London, and apparently
was able to decipher the ciphered parts, which gave hints to Fox for an
attack on Pitt. But Adair was more than a purveyor of hints for the
Whig orators. It is clear that he stiffened the resistance of the Russian
Government. “He shows,” so Whitworth wrote privately to Grenville, on
21st July, “the most virulent opposition to His Majesty’s measures, and
1027
takes great pains to counteract the negotiation.” In official
documents Whitworth and Fawkener depict him as a vain,
meddlesome, ignorant person, concerned with stockjobbing no less
than with diplomacy. But it is certain that his presence at St.
Petersburg, and the biassed information which he supplied, greatly
harmed the cause of the Allies; and Pitt, after seeing copies of Adair’s
letters, was justified in hinting that his action had prejudiced the
success of Britain’s efforts at St. Petersburg. As for Fox, Catharine
showed her regard for him by placing his bust between those of
Demosthenes and Cicero in her palace; and Adair, on his departure,
received from the hands of Potemkin a ring containing her
1028
miniature.
Such is the story of this singular “mission.” Even before its details
were fully known at Whitehall, Ministers debated whether they should
not take action against Adair. On 29th July Grenville wrote to Auckland,
à propos also of a recent letter of Fox to Barnave: “Is not the idea of
Ministers from Opposition to the different Courts of Europe a new one
in this country? I never heard of it before, and should think that, if it
can be proved, I mean legally proved, it would go very near to an
1029
impeachable misdemeanour.” Ministers, however, decided to treat
Adair’s “mission” with the silence of contempt. Probably their
judgement was correct; for the finesse of Vorontzoff and Catharine, if
fully revealed to the world, would have covered the Opposition with
obloquy, but the Cabinet with ridicule; and in politics the latter
alternative is more to be feared. Apart, therefore, from one scornfully
vague reference by Pitt to the damage done to the nation’s interests
by a partisan intrigue at St. Petersburg, little was heard of the affair.
The reader who wades through the dreary debates on the Russian
Question early in 1792 will probably conclude that Adair’s tour belongs
 1030
to the annals, not of diplomacy, but of electioneering. Fox, Grey,
Sheridan, and Whitbread proved to their own satisfaction, from
Russian sources of information, that Pitt, besides wasting the public
money on futile preparations for war, had been outwitted and publicly
flouted by the Czarina. They did not prove that the occasion called for
no effort to curb her ambition, or that Pitt was not justified in taking
up the challenge which their factious conduct had emboldened her to
fling down. In one sense it is unfortunate that the Foxites did make
further diplomatic excursions; for the result might have been the
addition of interesting gargoyles to the edifice of the party system in
the form of Opposition embassies, worked by fallen Ministers,
disappointed place-hunters, and discharged clerks.
Meanwhile other events were working against Pitt. The successes
of the Russian arms had been crowned by the capture of Anapa, near
the River Kuban, and their triumph seemed assured both in Asia and
Europe. The Russian Black Sea fleet was preparing to deal a blow at
Constantinople; and, for a time, as we have seen, the Turks were
distracted by the prospect of the renewal of war with Austria.
Yet here again, by one of those sudden turns of fortune which
have so often saved the Ottoman Empire, the designs of the Viennese
Court were cut short. At Padua, during his Italian tour, the Emperor
Leopold heard the news of the capture of the King and Queen of
France by the rabble of Varennes. This ignominious ending of his
schemes for a counter-revolution in France stirred the sluggish blood
of the Emperor. On 6th July he wrote to his brother Maximilian that it
was high time to save Marie Antoinette and stifle the French plague. A
forward policy in the West implied moderation in the East, and even
the Prussophobe Chancellor, Kaunitz, saw the need of a definite peace
with the Sultan. Accordingly, Austria waived her demands for parts of
Wallachia and Servia, and made peace with the Porte at Sistova on 4th
1031
August, on condition of receiving Old Orsova. Thus the Varennes
incident, which involved the royalist cause in ruin, brought salvation to
the Moslems.
The desire of Leopold to crush the French Revolution was to have
far-reaching consequences, which will concern us later. Here we may
remark that the woes of Marie Antoinette and the volte-face of the
Emperor produced a marked effect at St. Petersburg. Hitherto, all had
been bluster and defiance. So late as 15th July Fawkener reported that
the Empress had lately seemed inclined to conquer and keep all that
she could; but the news from France impelled the Vice-Chancellor,
Ostermann, to declare that all animosities should now be laid aside
and “that every nation in Europe should unite [against France]
1032
whenever any proper plan could be agreed on.” Thus, here again,
the failure of the royalist attempt in France helped to avert the utter
breakdown of the Anglo-Prussian case. Even so, the Czarina won the
day at nearly every point. Little by little the Allies gave up all the
safeguards on which Pitt had at first insisted; and on 26th July their
envoys consented to the acquisition by Russia of all the Turkish lands
east of the Dniester, provided that the Czarina agreed not to hinder
the navigation of that river. On the whole, the Porte sustained no very
serious loss, considering the collapse of its defence, the slight interest
felt on its behalf both at London and Berlin, and the marked dislike of
Catharine for England and Prussia. She hated Pitt, but she despised
Frederick William. How then could she, in the midst of her military
triumphs, give way to the demands of the Triple Alliance, whose inner
weakness she had probed?
Nevertheless, the intervention of the Allies was not the failure that
has often been represented. It checked the soaring ambitions of
Potemkin. The Roumans, Bulgars, and Greeks had to thank the Allies
for delivering them from this selfish adventurer. Their day of liberation
was deferred, but it came ultimately in far better guise than as a gift
from Catharine and her favourite. Strange to say, he fell a victim to
fever, and expired by the roadside in Moldavia as he was proceeding to
the front; and this event, which wrung the heart of Catharine, had no
small share in facilitating the signature of the Russo-Turkish treaty (on
the terms required by the Allies) at Jassy early in the following year.
Other influences were leading Catharine towards peace. In the
spring of the year 1791 Poland entered on a new lease of life. That the
Poles should alter their constitution without her permission was a
grievous affront, for which she inveighed against them as rebels.
Thenceforth Warsaw, rather than Constantinople, took the first place in
her thoughts. Apart from this, the prospects of the Poles were radiant
with promise; and the student who peruses the despatches of Hailes,
British envoy at Warsaw, cannot but picture the results that might
have occurred had the Poles received adequate support from Prussia
and England against the Muscovites. The confederated Diet at Warsaw
then showed a reforming zeal equal to that of the French National
Assembly. In the middle of April it struck off the shackles from the
burghers and made them citizens. Early in May, when the political
horizon darkened, fear cowed even the Russophiles, while a storm of
patriotic fervour swayed the Diet, and burst through the two barriers
which hemmed in the national life. There was no hubbub in this
memorable sitting. No swords flashed forth, as had happened on many
a petty pretext. Emotion held the Assembly spellbound, while the
majority swept away those curses of the land, serfdom and the
elective kingship. Thereupon one of the leading obstructives aroused
general astonishment by proposing that members should swear to
uphold the new order of things. King Stanislaus evinced his patriotic
zeal by calling on the Bishop of Cracow to administer the oath, which
deputies and visitors alike recorded with shouts of joy. The exulting
throng of nationalists and their recent converts then sallied forth and
took the oath once more at the foot of the high altar of the Cathedral;
and the sullen dissidence of some thirty of Russia’s henchmen served
but to emphasize the overwhelming triumph of intelligence and
1033
patriotism.
Such was the peaceful Revolution of 3rd May 1791 at Warsaw. It
sent a thrill of exultation through France, and moved Burke to a
splendid panegyric, which he crowned with the startling statement that
the events at Warsaw were probably the purest good ever conferred
1034
upon mankind. Even Grenville’s cold and insular nature warmed
and dilated at the news; and he bade Hailes express the interest of
Great Britain in the new constitution, especially as it would benefit the
1035
cause of the Allies.
But the ill fortune which dogged the steps of the Poles willed that
in this time of their revival the Alliance, from which alone they could
hope for safety, should go to pieces. The refusal of England to send a
fleet either to the Baltic or the Black Sea depressed the influence of
England at Berlin. “Oh! how my blood boils, my dear Sir,” wrote Ewart
to Keith on 18th June. “Our influence was all powerful so long as it
was maintained with the necessary vigour; and the moment we
flinched, all the Powers, as if by common consent, turned the tables
1036
upon us.” This proved to be the case. The web of Ewart’s
diplomacy, the toil of four years, which connected England with
Prussia, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, was unravelled in as many
weeks. The general trend of events helped on the work of dissolution;
and among the sinister influences at Berlin, jealousy of the reviving
power of Poland played no small part. Hertzberg, whose fortunes were
now on the decline, sought to postpone his fall (it came early in July)
by exciting animosity against the Courts of London and Warsaw. To his
reckless charge against Pitt, of seeking to ruin Prussia by a war against
the Muscovites, he now added a jeremiad against the Polish reformers
of Warsaw—“The Poles have just dealt the coup de grace to the
Prussian monarchy by making their kingdom hereditary and adopting a
1037
constitution better than that of England.” Dislike of its Allies was
now the prevalent feeling at the Prussian Court, and by the end of
June Frederick William decided to have an interview with Leopold for
1038
the purpose of coming to a friendly understanding.
This resolve, fraught with evil for Poland, was clinched by the news
of the capture of the King and Queen of France at Varennes. Concern
at their ignominious position now began to influence the Central and
Eastern Powers. The wrath of the Czarina fell upon French democrats;
for in the nature of this extraordinary woman sentiment and passion
always ran an even race with foresight and reason. In her present
mood the French Revolution and all its abettors were anathema. The
results were curious. The bust of Voltaire was deposed from its place
of honour and huddled away amidst lumber. Within a short space the
bust of Fox, now that he had served her purpose, shared the same
fate. More important, perhaps, if less striking to the imagination, is the
fact that she now formed a close alliance with Sweden. Early in
October Gustavus III ended his long balancings by espousing the side
 1039
of Russia, with a view to eventual action against France. The
decline or collapse of the Anglo-Prussian Alliance followed as a matter
of course so soon as Frederick decided to clasp the hand of Leopold. It
is curious to find Pitt and Grenville, even at the end of August 1791,
seeking to include Austria in the Triple Alliance, when statesmen at
Berlin and Vienna were scoffing at England, and were adopting an
offensive policy at variance with the pacific aims cherished at
Whitehall. Kaunitz and Bischoffswerder looked about for a scape-goat,
and found him in Joseph Ewart. Auckland had also been making a
dead set at this able ambassador; and some hitch in the negotiations
attending the marriage of the Duke of York with the eldest daughter of
the King of Prussia served to increase his troubles at this time. But the
following hopeful letter which Pitt wrote to him on 2nd September
must have salved his mental wounds:

... Many events have certainly concurred to disappoint the

accomplishment of very important objects, and to produce in
some respects an unfavourable change both in Prussia and
elsewhere. But the general state of Europe, taking in the whole,
affords so favourable a prospect to this country that we have great
reason to be contented. Any temporary fluctuation in the
disposition at Berlin is therefore, at the moment, of less
consequence. The connection between Prussia and Austria,
whatever right we have to complain of the steps which have led to
it, cannot, I think, produce any permanent mischief to our system;
and, at least, I am convinced that the best chance of preventing it
is to mark no suspicion on our part to preserve as much good
humour and cordiality as possible. For the rest, in the singular and
uncertain state of Europe, our chief business must be to watch
events and keep ourselves quiet. I have been sincerely concerned
not to have more favourable accounts of your health....

The prospects, so far as concerned the freedom of Poland and the

peace of the West, were worse than Pitt anticipated. Ewart foresaw
the course of events more correctly. A little later he obtained the recall
for which he had some time been pressing; but he had the
mortification of seeing Morton Eden, the brother of his rival, Lord
Auckland, installed in his place. He retired to Bath for treatment by his
brother, a medical man; but an internal disease of long standing
developed very suddenly on 25th January 1792, and ended his life two
days later amidst delirium. The details, as set forth in the family
papers, show that the delirium of his last hours was the outcome of
acute internal troubles, which resembled appendicitis. They serve also
to refute the wild rumours that Ewart went raving mad as a result of
political disappointments, or that he was poisoned by some Russian
1040
agent. The last letter which Pitt wrote to this brilliant but most
unfortunate diplomatist shows a chivalrous desire to screen him from
needless anxiety:

1041
Downing Street, Jan. 20, 1792.
Your letter having come at a time of very particular
engagement, it was impossible for me to answer it sooner. Your
recollection of what pass’d between the Duke of York and yourself
is certainly different from the manner in which I am told that
H.R.H. understands it; but no difficulty whatever will arise from
this circumstance in settling the business; nor do I see any reason
for your entertaining any apprehension of its producing any
consequences disagreeable to yourself. I am very sorry that you
should already have felt so much on the subject. The train in
which the business now is will, I am in hopes, relieve you from
any further anxiety or trouble respecting it, and makes it wholly
unnecessary to dwell further upon it.

Worse than private misfortunes was the blow dealt to the Polish
cause. The rebuff encountered by the Allies at St. Petersburg deeply
depressed the reformers of Warsaw. On the return of Fawkener
through the Polish capital, King Stanislaus expressed grave concern at
the abandonment of all the safeguards for Turkey and Poland on which
Pitt had at first insisted. The cession to Russia of all the land up to the
Dniester seemed to him to presage ruin to the Poles—“Nor did my
pointing out [added Hailes] the attention which had been paid to their
interests by the preservation of the liberty of the Dniester produce any
1042
advantageous effect.” In truth, Stanislaus knew Catharine well
1043
enough to see in her triumph the doom of his kingdom. Just as
the ascendancy which she acquired over Turkey by the Treaty of
Kainardji led naturally, perhaps inevitably, to the First Partition of
Poland, so now the principle of the Balance of Power impelled Austria
and Prussia to look about for lands that would compensate them for
the expansion of Russia. Those lands could be found most easily in
Poland, less easily in France. So it came about that the principle which
Pitt invoked for the greater security of the smaller States, became in
the hands of Catharine and her powerful neighbours a pretext for
schemes of aggrandisement and pillage.
Thus fell to pieces the “federative system,” whereby Pitt hoped to
group the weaker States around England and Prussia. The scheme was
due in the first instance to Ewart. Pitt adopted it when he believed the
time to be ripe; but he postponed action too long. Had he pushed his
plans forward in the autumn of 1790, as soon as the dispute with
Spain was settled, and maintained the naval armaments at their full
strength, he would probably have gained a peaceful triumph over
Catharine. In that case the accession of Poland, Sweden, and Turkey
to the Triple Alliance would naturally have followed. There would then
have been no invasion of France by Austria and Prussia; still less would
there have been any spoliation of Poland. The practical manner in
which the Poles reformed their commonwealth opened up vast
possibilities for the east of Europe; and the crushing of those hopes
under the heel of a remorseless militarism is probably the severest loss
which the national principle has sustained in modern times.
Nevertheless, though Pitt showed a lack of nerve at the crisis, yet,
in view of the duplicity of Prussia, the doubtful attitude of Leopold and
Gustavus, the marvellous resourcefulness of Catharine, and the
factious opposition of the Whigs, he cannot be blamed. At times, new
and subtle influences warp the efforts of statesmen. This was so in the
year 1791. Pitt was striving to build on the basis of the Balance of
Power. But that well-trodden ground now began to heave under the
impact of forces mightier than those wielded by monarchs and
chancellors. Democracy sent out its thrills from Paris as a centre, and
the gaze of statesmen was turned from the East to the West.
Thenceforth the instinct of self-preservation or of greed marshalled the
continental chanceries against the two reforming States. The
“Zeitgeist” breathed against the plans of Pitt, and they were not. In
their place there came others of a far different kind, inspired by hopes
of territorial gains in Poland and the overthrow of liberty in France.
 FOOTNOTES
1
Baines, “Hist. of Cotton Manufacture,” 226, 232–4. See Mr.
G. P. Gooch’s “Politics and Culture,” for other coincidences.
2
The first trustworthy statistics of population were obtained in
the census of 1801; but those given above are probably not
very wide of the mark. The estimates are those of Rickman,
quoted by Porter, “Progress of the Nation,” 13. The estimate
of the “Statistical Journal” (xliii, 462), quoted by Dr.
Cunningham, “Eng. Industry and Commerce,” 699, is
7,953,000 for the year 1780.
3
See Walter’s “Origin of Commerce,” iv, 401, for a full
statement of this juggling with the nation’s finance.
4
“Diary of a Journey to England (1761–62),” by Count F. von
Kielmansegge, 237.
5
“The Coltness Collections,” 116, quoted by J. H. Jesse;
“Memoirs of the Reign of George III,” i, 29.
6
“Mems. of Queen Charlotte,” by J. Watkins, 1819, pt. i, ch. x.
The Duchess of Devonshire had flaunted a head-plume of an
ell and three inches.
7
See an excellent study, “Personal and Party Government
(1760–1766),” by Mr. D. A. Winstanley, 1910.
8
“Corresp. of George III with Lord North,” ii, 323; Wraxall, i,
347.
9
“F. O.,” Prussia, 15, Carmarthen to Ewart, 6th January 1789.
10
For the influence exerted by George III on elections see
Porritt, “The Unreformed House of Commons,” i, 409–15.
11
Pitt MSS., 195, pt. ii.
12
B. M. Add. MSS., 28062. Pitt’s answer is not among these
papers. But Dr. Jackson did not gain the bishopric.
13
Lecky, v, 26.
14
Montesquieu, “Esprit des Lois,” bk. viii, ch. v.
15
See Sidney and Beatrice Webb, “The Parish and the County,”
bk. i, ch. iv; bk. ii, ch. ii; Boutmy, “The Eng. Constitution”
(Eng. edit.), pt. iii, sect. 3.
16
Howell, State Trials, xxiii, 231.
17
Delavoye, “Life of T. Graham,” 87.
18
“Letters from Lady Jane Coke to her friend, Mrs. Eyre, at
Derby (1747–58).”
19
C. P. Moritz, “Travels in England in 1782”; W. Wales, “Inquiry
into the ... Population of England” (1781), estimated the
number of houses in London at 100,000, and the population
at 650,000.
20
See, too, Wroth’s “London Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth
Century.”
21
See ch. xx of this volume for details; also T. Clarkson’s “Hist.
of the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” especially chs. xvii, xviii;
and Prof. Ramsay Muir’s “Hist. of Liverpool,” ch. xii.
22
“Hamlet,” i, sc. 4.
23
“Wealth of Nations,” bk. iv, ch. iii, pt. 2.
24
H. Twiss, “Life of Lord Eldon,” vol. i, ch. ii.
25
H. Walpole, “Letters,” viii, 395.
26
“Mems. of Queen Charlotte,” 203.
27
See the new letter of Hugh Elliot to Pitt from Brighthelmstone,
17th Oct. 1785, quoted in ch. xvii, as to the danger of the
Prince losing his life if he did not amend his ways.
28
“Mems. of Queen Charlotte,” 187.
29
“Travels in England in 1782,” by C. P. Moritz (Eng. trans.,
1895), 53.
30
Rousseau, “Social Contract,” bk. iii, ch. xv.
31
Dr. Cunningham, “Eng. Industry and Commerce,” pt. ii, 546,
698.
32
Quoted by Baines, “History of the Cotton Manufacture,” 334.
33
W. Wales, op. cit., 5.
34
“Origin of Power-loom Weaving,” by W. Radcliffe, 59 et seq.
35
In Pitt MSS., 221, is a petition signed by many persons
connected with the navy in favour of granting a pension to
Mr. Cort, who had made “malleable iron with raw pit-coal, and
manufactured the same by means of grooved rollers, by a
process of his own invention.” The petitioners state that
though the invention had brought no benefit to Cort, but
rather the reverse, yet it had proved to be of national
importance.
36
W. Wales, op. cit., 44 et seq., enumerates several cases
where the rural population declined, but he attributed that
fact not to the enclosures (for he states that the enclosures of
wastes, which were more numerous than those of the open
 fields, increased employment), but rather to the refusal of
landlords to build cottages, though they charged higher rents
than before. For the question of enclosures, however, see Dr.
Gilbert Slater’s recent work on the subject (Constable and
Co., 1907).
37
See Dr. von Ruville’s work, “William Pitt, Earl of Chatham”
(Eng. ed., 3 vols. 1907), for a full account of these forbears.
38
Ruville, i, 343–6.
39
Ibid., 345. Pitt finally bought about 100 acres, and further
strained his resources by extensive building at Hayes.
40
“Pitt, some Chapters of his Life and Times,” by Lord
Ashbourne, 161–6.
41
“The Life of William Wilberforce,” by his Sons, i, 304.
42
Pitt MSS., 11 and 13.
43
Stanhope, ii, 125.
44
“Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham,” iii, 27.
45
Notes by Bishop Tomline in the Pretyman MSS., Orwell Park.
46
Lord Fitzmaurice, “Life of Shelburne,” i, 72. See also two
articles on the early life of the elder Pitt in the “Edinburgh
Review” for 1910.
47
“Chatham Corresp.,” iii, 65.
48
“Chatham Corresp.,” iv, 538.
49
Pitt MSS., 11.
50
“Chatham Corresp.,” iv, 363.
51
Pitt MSS., 101. The disuse of past participles was a
characteristic of that age. To write “rode” for “ridden” after
 the auxiliary verb was no more noticeable a defect than to
walk unsteadily after dinner. One other early letter of Pitt’s
bears date 1772 at Lyme Regis, and refers to some fun which
he and his brothers and sisters had had on a cutter yacht.
Another letter undated, but in Pitt’s round schoolboy hand, to
a gentleman of Somerset, refers to sporting matters such as
the lack of hares and the inability of his brother to catch
those which he does start (Pitt MSS., 102).
52
From Mr. A. M. Broadley’s MSS.
53
By the kindness of the Countess Stanhope I was allowed to
peruse this most interesting MS., which is preserved, along
with many other Pitt treasures, at Chevening.
54
Pellew, “Sidmouth,” i, 28.
55
Ashbourne, op. cit., 7–8.
56
“Diary of Thomas Moore,” vol. v.
57
Pitt MSS., 11.
58
Ibid.
59
One remembers here the terrifying remark of Lord Acton that
the mass of documents which the modern historian must
consult inevitably tells against style.
60
See an interesting fragment, “Bishop Tomline’s Estimate of
Pitt,” by the Earl of Rosebery (London, 1903), also in the
“Monthly Review” for August 1903.
61
Dr. Pretyman was chaplain to George III, and later on Bishop
of Lincoln and Dean of St. Paul’s.
62
Pitt MSS., 196. The notes and diagrams refer to the
movement of bodies considered dynamically: there are also
some problems in algebra. More numerous are the notes on
 English History, especially on the parliamentary crises of the
years 1603–27, where, unfortunately, they break off. I have
also found notes on Plutarch, and translations of the speech
of Germanicus in Tacitus (“Annals,” Bk. I), and of parts of the
Second Philippic.
63
His books went in large measure to Bishop Pretyman
(Tomline), and many of them are in the library of Orwell Park.
64
“Chatham Corresp.,” iv, 289.
65
Chevening MSS.
66
Pretyman MSS., quoted by Lord Ashbourne, op. cit., 31, note.
67
“Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 65.
68
“Chatham Corresp.” iv, 376, 377.
69
Macaulay, “Miscellaneous Writings” (Essay on William Pitt).
70
Macaulay, “Miscellaneous Writings” (Essay on William Pitt), iv,
510.
71
“Corresp. of George III with Lord North,” ii, 154 (17th March
1778).
72
“Corresp. of George III with Lord North,” ii, 184.
73
Pitt MSS., 12.
74
Ashbourne, op. cit., 161, 162.
75
See Porritt, “The Unreformed House of Commons,” i, ch. ix,
on the exclusion of poor men from Parliament.
76
Letter of 3rd July 1779. Stanhope, i, 31.
77
Chevening MSS.
78
Pitt MSS., 182.
79
“The Black Book of Lincoln’s Inn,” iv, Preface.
80
“Life of Burke,” by R. Bissett (1800), ii, 55–66.
81
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 67–72.
82
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 83.
83
“Black Book of Lincoln’s Inn,” iv, Preface; “Bland Burges
Papers,” 58.
84
“Bland Burges Papers,” 60, 61.
85
“Life of William Pitt,” by Henry Cleland (1807).
86
As a rule, Lowther exacted strict obedience from his
nominees. In 1788 he compelled them to vote against Pitt on
the Regency Question.
87
Hansard, cliii, 1056, 1057.
88
Porritt, i, 315–7.
89
Burke, “Thoughts on the present Discontents” (1770).
90
For details of bribery see May, “Constitutional History,” i, 313–
27; Porritt, i, 414–20.
91
“Life of Romilly,” i, 141.
92
“Memorials of Fox,” ii, 37, 38.
93
Selwyn, p. 140.
94
“Reminiscences of Charles Butler,” i, 172.
95
Wraxall, “Memoirs,” ii, 62; G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 28.
96
Lecky, “Hist. of England in the XVIIIth Cent.,” iv, 228–34, does
not absolve Shelburne of the charge of duplicity in the matter
of the negotiations for peace; but Sir G. C. Lewis,
 “Administrations of Great Britain,” 31–48, minimizes the
importance of the point at issue.
97
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 118–21.
98
“Private Papers of W. Wilberforce,” 79.
99
Cartwright, “Take your Choice” (1776). In 1780 Cartwright
founded “The Society for promoting Constitutional
Information,” the first of the modern clubs that was purely
political.
100
“The Speeches of William Pitt” (4 vols., 1806), i, 1–7.
101
“George Selwyn: his Letters and his Life,” p. 132 (Storer to
Lord Carlisle, Feb. 28, 1781). He adds that Woodfall reported
the debates “almost always faithfully.” I therefore see no
reason for refraining, as Earl Stanhope did, from citing many
passages of his speeches, on the ground that they were very
imperfectly reported.
102
Ibid., p. 143.
103
These images are curiously like those used by Lord Shelburne
on 25th January 1781. See Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 120.
104
Both letters are among the Chevening MSS.
105
“Life of Wilberforce,” i, 17.
106
Ibid., v, 292.
107
Ashbourne, p. 159.
108
“Private Papers of Wilberforce,” 68.
109
Lord Waldegrave’s “Memoirs,” p. 63.
110
Pitt MSS., 103.
111
Nicholl, “Recollections of George III,” i, 389.
112
Porritt, i, 409–15.
113
See May’s “Const. History,” i, 315 et seq. for the increase of
the Secret Service Fund under George III.
114
Malmesbury Diaries, iii, 8.
115
Wraxall, ii, 434–5 (3rd edit.).
116
“Letters of George III to Lord North,” ii, 336.
117
“Life of Romilly,” i, 135.
118
Stanhope, i, 67.
119
May, “Const. History,” i, 458.
120
Rockingham, “Memoirs,” ii, 452–3.
121
Speech of 7th February 1782 (“Parl. Hist.,” xxii, p. 987).
122
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 136.
123
“Dropmore P.,” i, 163; Lecky, iv ad fin.
124
Hood, Rodney’s second in command, asserted that if Rodney
had fought and pursued vigorously he would have taken not
five but twenty French ships of the line. See “Rodney’s Letters
and Despatches,” ed. by D. Hannay for the Navy Records
Society, p. 103.
125
“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 1.
126
“Life of Romilly,” i, 162. Romilly, who was present, quotes a
sentence of the speech, which did not appear in the official
report: “This House is not the representative of the people of
Great Britain; it is the representative of nominal boroughs, of
ruined and exterminated towns, of noble families, of wealthy
individuals, of foreign potentates.”
127
“Speeches of Lord Erskine” (edit. of 1880), p. 293; “The
Papers of Christopher Wyvil,” i, 424–5; State Trials, xxii, 492–
4.
128
See Mahon, “Hist. of England,” vii, 17; Porritt, i, 217.
129
“Buckingham Papers,” i, 50.
130
“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 163.
131
“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 175; “Life of Romilly,” i, 173. Fox had
announced to the Cabinet his intention of resigning a few
days before Rockingham’s death. See the “Memorials of Fox,”
i, 435 et seq.
132
Sir G. C. Lewis, “Administrations of Great Britain,” pp. 31–48.
133
Lecky, iv, 239. The original Cabinet numbered five
Rockingham Whigs and five Shelburne Whigs.
134
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” vol. iii, chs. iv-vi.
135
“Buckingham Papers,” i, 76.
136
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 305; Stanhope, “Pitt,” i, 86.
137
“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 265.
138
Keppel resigned on the question of the terms of peace; the
Duke of Richmond disapproved them; Grafton was lukewarm.
See their speeches, 17th February 1783 (“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii,
392–6). W. W. Grenville refused to move the resolution in the
Commons in favour of the peace, as Pitt urged him to do
(“Dropmore P.,” i, 194).
139
“Memorials of Fox,” ii, 33.
140
“Memorials of Fox,” ii, 37, 38; “Auckland Journals,” i, 40–5.
Lord John Townshend, Adam, Eden, Lord Loughborough, and
George North helped to bring about the Coalition. Burke
 favoured the plan, also Sheridan, though later on he
vehemently declared the contrary (ibid., pp. 21–4).
141
Mr. Le B. Hammond, “Life of Fox,” pp. 57, 58.
142
“My friendships are eternal, my hatreds can be appeased.”
143
“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 541.
144
Fox’s friends, Mr. Powys and Sir Cecil Wray, had reprobated
his present action.
145
“Parl. Hist.,” xxiii, 543–50. I may here note that after the
resignation of Shelburne, Pitt framed a Bill for regulating in
friendly terms commerce with the United States. It was
sharply criticized and much altered in committee; but his Bill
as well as the words quoted above prove the depth of his
conviction as to the need of winning back if possible the
goodwill of those young communities.
146
Horace, “Odes,” bk. iii, 29. From modesty he omitted the
words “et mea Virtute me involvo.” (“If she [Fortune] abides,
I commend her. If her fleet wings quiver for flight, I resign
her gifts—and hail honest, dowerless poverty as mine.”)
147
Wraxall, iii, 15.
148
Chevening MSS. Yet on 25th February, Dundas wrote of the
plan as “my project” (Stanhope, i, 105).
149
Fitzmaurice, “Shelburne,” iii, 369–70; Stanhope, i, 104–9;
“Memorials of Fox,” ii, 40–2. The King’s letter to Shelburne
refutes Horace Walpole’s statement that the King made the
offer very drily and ungraciously: also that Pitt’s vanity was at
first “staggered” by the offer.
150
“Buckingham P.,” i, 170.
151
“Buckingham P.,” i, 194.