^{page 73 note 1} When a Russian is in the least mortified or embarrassed with his situation he immediately pretends to be taken ill, and shuts himself up. Russian Memoranda, Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 74 note 1} Keith describes Münnich's return to St. Petersburg in January 1762, when he appeared to be in good health and with all his faculties intact. He showed himself not ungrateful to the master who recalled him from exile, and would have saved Peter if he could have been saved. When Catherine saw him after the Revolution, she said: ‘Vous avez voulu combattre contre moi?’ ‘Oui, madame,’ answered the Field Marshal; ‘pouvais-je moins faire pour celui qui m'a délivré de ma captivité?’ Catherine had greatness of mind enough not to resent his fidelity, and showed him great favour. She was accustomed to say: ‘Si Münnich n'est pas un des enfants de Russie, il en est un des pères.’ But she allowed him no influence in the Government, and he employed the leisure hours of his last years in writing his Memoirs, which were at his death consigned to the Imperial archives, and have never seen the light. He died in 1767. See Halem's ‘Vie du Comte de Münnich,’ Nouvelle Biographie générale, &c. See also Introduction, p. 12, and note.

^{page 74 note 2} One of the many Germans in the service of Russia. He had been Bussian envoy to Copenhagen. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 75 note 1} The Czartoryski, an illustrious family of Poland, were rich and powerful enough to be able to raise at their own cost an army of 5,000 men. The two brothers, Michael, Grand Chancellor of Lithuania, and Augustus Alexander, were the heads of the House; their nephews were Prince Adam and Stanislas Poniatowski, a son of their sister. The family had recently had a deadly feud with Prince Badzivill, and, despairing to obtain justice from Augustus III., who favoured their enemy, appealed for help to Catherine II. It was at their request that a Russian army had entered Poland. St. Priest, Études Diplomatiques, p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} Augustus III., Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, 1733–1763.

^{page 76 note 1} George Hobart, afterwards third Earl of Buckinghamshire.

^{page 77 note 1} His step-mother.

^{page 77 note 2} Woronzow. See p. 94, note.

^{page 78 note 1} Flassan, , vi. 352; Histoire de la Diplomatie Française.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 2} Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 182.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 3} Le Secret du Boi, par le Due de Broglie, ii. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Recueildes Instructions; Russie, ii. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} See ‘Le Comte de Choiseul au Baron de Bretenil,’ 08 9, 1762Google Scholar; ‘Louis XV. à M. de Breteuil,’ 09 10, 1762Google Scholar. Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 197Google Scholaret seq.

^{page 80 note 2} See pages 108–110.

^{page 80 note 3} After the usual congratulation the ambassador was directed to assure Catherine ‘of the King of England's affectionate esteem for those eminent qualities which adorn her, and of his determined resolution to omit nothing which may tend to cultivate that harmony and confidential friendship which appear to him so essentially necessary to the mutual interests and well-being of the two nations.’

^{page 81 note 1} The Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, mother of George III.

^{page 83 note 1} See Report of the Russia Company to the Board of Trade, November 24, 1762, Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 83 note 2} Catherine had won the confidence of her orthodox subjects by the most scrupulous observance of religious ordinances at a time when Peter III. was alienating them by the grossest disrespect to the clergy, and even by playing fantastic tricks in the churches. ‘Il tira la langue, plaisir qu'il se donnait visà-vis des prêtres dans l'église,’ writes the Princess Dashkow. See Mémoires de la Princesse Dashkow, i. 41, 54.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} The Austrian ambassador at London at the time of the outbreak of the Seven Years' War. At the beginning of the hostilities in April 1757 the Empress Queen endeavoured to engage the King of England to a convention of neutrality; and Coleredo went so far as to claim from the Elector of Hanover permission for the Imperial and French troops to pass through Hanover, on the ground that Frederic was infringing the laws of the Empire. The convention was refused by George II., who was already bound by the treaty of 1756 to the King of Prussia. This was the occasion of Colorado's recall. Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, vi. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} This was still Baron Goltz, ‘a good, genteel young man,’ as Keith describes him. His successor was not to show such a friendly disposition to England.

^{page 85 note 2} See p. 96 and note.

^{page 87 note 1} Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, who succeeded the Duke of Cumberland, in 1758, in command of the English army upon the Continent.

^{page 87 note 2} It should be noted that none of the occupied places in other parts of the world were to be immediately evacuated. Three months is in most instances the term agreed upon. See Annual Register for 1762, p. 241.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} Münnich, and others of the older frequenters of Catherine's Court, must have been able to remember the time when Peter the Great had enforced by law the holding of social meetings in private houses, where men and women were obliged to meet. This was one of the methods by which Peter aimed at overcoming the Oriental habits of the Russian nobility.

^{page 90 note 1} His appointment as Secretary of State.

^{page 91 note 1} This declaration of Catherine's neutrality assured peace to Europe. Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} ‘If the Empress did not fear as well as love, if she did not think the Orlows' dependence upon her favour necessary to her safety, and did not at the same time fear their resolution if they were disobliged, as she finds herself entirely surrounded by their creatures, she might perhaps shake off a yoke of which at times she feels the whole weight.’ Russian Memoranda, Buckinghamshire Pagers.

^{page 93 note 2} See Note, p. 59.

^{page 93 note 3} See p. 91.

^{page 94 note 1} The treaty of 1726 between Austria and Russia was renewed in 1746, 1756, and 1757, and, by the accession of Russia to the Treaty of Versailles, between France and Austria in 1756 and 1760. A direct alliance of friendship and defence was also concluded in 1760. See Koch, , Histoire des Traités, ii., iii.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 2} Prince Henry of Prussia, brother to Frederic the Great, had won a brilliant victory at Freiberg on October 29. Frederick the Great, vi. 317Google Scholaret seq.

^{page 94 note 3} Buckinghamshire Papers. The ‘Memoranda’ occur as disconnected notes, and are undated, though they bear evidence of having been written during the ambassador's return voyage. They therefore will occasionally be found to anticipate events.

^{page 94 note 4} Count Michael Ilarionovitch Woronzow, Grand Chancellor (1714–1767), had risen to eminence by the favour of the Czarina Elizabeth, having been her Chamberlain, and one of the first in the plot which brought her to the throne. When Bestucheff became Grand Chancellor in 1744, Woronzow was made Vice-Chancellor, and enjoyed, it is said, more of the confidence of Elizabeth than did Bestueheff, whose foreign policy was not in accordance with the real sympathies of Elizabeth. Woronzow was, like Elizabeth, a friend to France, and he strongly opposed the alliance with England in 1755. During the ascendency of Bestucheff Woronzow lost credit with the Empress, and in 1758 he plotted with the French ambassador to overthrow him. He then became Grand Chancellor in his stead, which office he retained under Peter III. He held himself aloof from the intrigues which gave so much notoriety to his niece Elizabeth, and consequently preserved the favour of Catherine II., who, however, though she left him his office, gave him but little of her confidence. See Archives Woronzow; Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii.; Biographie Universelle. ‘Le chancelier de Woronzow,’ writes the Comte de Choiseul to M. Breteuil, ‘est si faible qu'il ne faut pas esperer qu'il ait jamais le courage de combattre les caprices de son maitre.’

^{page 95 note 1} See Keith, to Grenville, , 07 12, 1762, p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} Countess Strogonow.

^{page 95 note 3} Alexandra Mikhailovitch Galitzin (1723–1807). He held the office of Vice-Chancellor without much authority or consideration until 1775, becoming at last a mere instrument in the hands of Catherine and Panin. The French Government, while fully aware of his incapacity, considered him as favourable to their interests at St. Petersburg, and an advocate for a French alliance, provided it was combined with that of Austria. ‘II a,’ writes the Due de Choiseul, ‘pour le roi de Prusse une véritable haine.’ Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 191 and 212Google Scholar, etc. See also pp. 52 and 62, note 3 and 1.

^{page 96 note 1} See p. 8.

^{page 96 note 2} Compare Frederic the Great's opinion in Polit. Correspondenz Friedrich's des Zweiten, Vol. xxii. p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 3} Nikita Ivanovitch Panin (1718–1783) was the son of one of Peter the Great's companions, of Italian origin. He served for some time as ambassador both at Copenhagen and Stockholm, and in Sweden seems to have imbibed aristocratic and even republican ideas of government which, on his accession to power, put him at times in opposition to the policy of Catherine. In 1760 he was appointed Governor to the Grand Duke Paul. He was concerned in the conspiracy which brought Catherine to the throne, and almost immediately assumed the direction of foreign affairs, with the simple title of Premier Membre du Collige des Affaires Etrangères, whilst the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor had but little of the power which should have attached to those offices. It is supposed that his influence upon Catherine arose in part from the fear that she had lest he should espouse the cause of his pupil as opposed to her own. He seems very early to have been in the pay of the King of Prussia, and was consequently strongly Prussian in his political sympathies. The French Court also believed him to be in their favour. ‘Le comte de Panin est honnête et désintéressé,’ ran the instructions to the French ambassador in 1764. ‘Il veut le bien de son pays et d'ailleurs est assez bien porté pour la France.’

Panin acknowledged to Harris in 1778 that he was the author of the ‘Northern System,’ from which the English were practically excluded by the influence of Prussia. This Northern League of Russia, Prussia, Sweden, and Denmark showed in 1781 its jealousy of English maritime superiority by the declaration of an ‘Armed Neutrality’ (see p. 46).

Mme. D'Ashkow thus describes M. Panin at the era of the Revolution: ‘Il faut s'imaginer un pâle valétudinaire, ayant dépassé grandement l'âge moyen, n'aimant que ses aises, ayant toujours vécu dans les cours, très soigneux de sa raise, portant une perruque volumineuse avec trois nattes bien poudrées qui tombaient sur ses épaules: en un mot, une fine fleur de courtisan du temps de Louis XIV.’ See Diaries of the Earl of Malmesbury, vol. i. 171Google Scholar; Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 219, 236, etc.Google Scholar; Biographie Universelle, etc.; Mémoires de la Princesse Dashkoff, ed. by Mrs. Bradford.

^{page 97 note 1} This was the cause of the long-standing feud between the Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp and the Royal Family of Denmark, who were of the older branch of the House of Holstein.

^{page 98 note 1} With the Empress herself. The Chancellor Woronzow, Panin, and Razoumouski strongly opposed this marriage, rumours of which caused also an émeute in Moscow, when Ivan's name was proclaimed. See Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} The Princess herself ascribes these accusations to the calumnies of the Orlows. (See Mémoires de la Princesse Dashkoff, Vol. i.Google Scholar) It is certain that Catherine very early resented the rumours which ascribed to so young a woman a conspicuous share in her accession, and even requested M. de Breteuil to deny their truth to Voltaire, the newsvendor of Europe. (See St. Priest, Etudes Diplomatiques, p. 38.)Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 1} The Princess D'Ashkow's Memoirs give a far pleasanter impression of her character. She there rejects with horror the calumny as to her connection with Panin, and claims to have been in complete ignorance of the contemplated murder of Peter III., dating from that event the enmity of the Orlows towards her and her own alienation from them. Her evidence also is in favour of Catherine's own ignorance of the crime. She was convinced of this by the sight of a letter written by Alexis Orlow, immediately after the murder, in which he solicited pardon in the most abject manner and in a style which showed that he was a prey to intoxication and to terror. This letter was carefully preserved by Catherine, and on her death her son found it and read it with the exclamation: ‘Dieu soit loué ! Les quelques doutes que j'avais sur ce sujet relativement à ma mère sont dissipés !’ This last fact, however, M^me D'Ashkow relates only by hearsay, for she was banished on Paul's accession. She had returned to St. Petersburg in 1782, after her long wanderings, and was then made by Catherine Director of the Academy of Arts and Sciences. Her English biographer, who knew her in her old age, speaks of her as of a being of another sphere, ‘sincere, loving, and of so gay and contented a temper as could only have resulted from a life of innocence and kindness'—a subject of calumny only because she was herself a pure and disinterested soul in the midst of a corrupt Court. She died in 1810. See Mémoires de la Princesse Dashkoff, ed. by Mrs. Bradford.

^{page 102 note 1} This is probably Dmitri Vassiliévitch Wolkow (1718–1785), secretary to the Conference under Elizabeth and afterwards private secretary to Peter III. He had been devoted to the interests of Austria, but was considered open to bribery from any quarter. Of him, Lord Buckinghamshire writes: ‘Wolkow, born with great abilities, and bred up in business from his youth, is, perhaps, the best informed of what relates to the interior of the country; but the notorious profligacy of his character will ever prevent his rising to that distinguished situation to which in other respects he is fully qualified to pretend. It is scarcely doubted by anybody that he betrayed the late Emperor, to whom he owed the greatest obligations. Neither he nor Wilganow were strangers to the Revolution, three days before it took place. They contributed to prevent any spirited resolutions being taken at Peterhof, and were rewarded.’ Russian Memoranda. See also Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 180.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 1} This sketch was, no doubt, written towards the end of Lord Buckinghamshire's mission.

^{page 105 note 1} The cultivation of tobacco was just now a favourite project with the Russian Government. In 1762 a monopoly of it, which had been granted to Count Shouvalow in 1759, was abolished, and shortly afterwards the Government distributed seeds, granted premiums, and published the best methods of cultivation, with the result that its production was greatly increased, and from this time carried on at a profit. In 1783, however, the imports still more than doubled the exports. Tooke, 's Russian Empire, iii. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} Louise Ulrique, sister to Frederic the Great. Her husband was Adolphus Frederic, Bishop of Lübeck, of the House of Holstein-Gottorp. He was elected King of Sweden (1751–1771) by the influence of Russia, who granted to the Swedes more favourable conditions at the Treaty of Abo (1743) on condition of his election. Catherine II. was his niece. The King and Queen were thus in a manner doubly pledged to the Russian alliance. See Koch, , Histoire des Traitis, xiii. 347Google Scholaret seq.; see also pp. 14, 15.

^{page 106 note 1} See p. 110.

^{page 106 note 2} That is, the claim of a fresh réversale from Catherine acknowledging that the Imperial title involved no change of ceremonial. See p. 108.

^{page 106 note 3} See p. 107.

^{page 107 note 1} This answer of the ambassador was by no means approved by his Government. See Lord Halifax's despatch of January 19, 1763.

^{page 108 note 1} See despatch of December 2, 1762.

^{page 108 note 2} Koch, , Histoire des Traités, xiii. 313Google Scholar. He adds that Russian historians quote a letter of the Emperor Maximilian, addressed to the Grand Duke Vasili Ivanovitch, in which the term is used.

^{page 108 note 3} Great Britain, however, stipulated that the ‘recognition should involve no claim to pre-eminence on the part of Russia,’ or of change in the ceremonial. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 109 note 1} St. Priest, Etudes Diplomatiques, p. 375.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} See p. 110.

^{page 109 note 3} Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 233.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 4} St. Priest, Etudes Diplomatiques, p. 369Google Scholaret seq. Lettre du Duc de Choiseul au Comte Panin, June 18, 1767. Réponse du Comte Panin, August 27, 1767.

^{page 109 note 5} Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 286Google Scholaret seq. Flassan, vi. 530Google Scholaret seq.

^{page 110 note 1} St. Priest observes that the firm tone of this declaration belies the opinion, that has been sometimes expressed, that Catherine on first coming to the throne was ‘uncertain in all her views.’ On the contrary, she faced the perils of her situation with indomitable pride, and refused to submit to conditions which the Czarina Elizabeth had accepted. Etudes Diplomatiques, p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} Catherine was, as afterwards transpired, in close communication with the Queen of Sweden. See despatch of January 27, 1763.

^{page 111 note 2} Of January 12, 1762. See pp. 47 and 51.

^{page 112 note 1} See page 87

^{page 113 note 1} ‘Mr. John Elton formed the project to deliver Persian products, viâ St. Petersburg, to the English from the first hand, and consequently cheaper than by getting them of the mercenary Armenians over Smyrna. He promised himself a great vent for English commodities, with the protection of the Shah; and having persuaded the English factory at St. Petersburg, then the Russia Company in London, and the Russian Court itself, to concur in this project, in the year 1742, he built a ship at Kazan, freighted it with a cargo obtained from St. Petersburg, and sailed to Astrakhan. The profits which arose from the sale of his first cargo gave him hopes of making a large fortune. The new commerce struck root, but Elton himself spoilt all by suffering himself to be caught in the snare laid for him by the envious Armenians, who had hitherto vainly attempted to prevent his success.

‘Nadir Shah found Elton a fit instrument for putting in execution one of his darling schemes. He made him an admiral, caused a ship of twenty guns to be built, the command of which he gave to Elton, with orders to hoist the Persian flag and to oblige all the Russian vessels to strike sail to it, as paramount over the whole extent of the Caspian Sea. In vain did the factory send him letters of recall; in vain did they offer him riches and promotion from the British Court; he remained in Persia, where he outlived Nadir Shah; after whose death he soon fell a victim, as his favourite, to the rage and resentment of the oppressed subjects.

‘Elton, by undertaking the bold plan of his new sovereign, must necessarily have excited the indignation of the Russian Court. If it had before approved and encouraged the specious enterprise on the score of benefits to arise from it to the Russian Empire, it now prohibited the English from the further prosecution of this trade—not from jealousy or envy, but for very just and solid reasons. The nation now carries on this lucrative commerce itself.’ See Tooke, 's Russian Empire, iii. 380.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} Afterwards British envoy to Stockholm, 1765. See Memorial B, p. 157.

^{page 114 note 2} This suspicion was not entirely without foundation. It is true that France had, in dread of the growing power of Prussia, sided with her ancient enemy in the Seven Years' War, but her more pressing fears were still directed against Russia. The Due de Choiseul marked this attitude of the French Government with unmistakable emphasis in the early months of 1763, when Catherine II. sent an Ambassador Extraordinary to the Court of Versailles to propose an accommodation on the subject of the approaching election to the throne of Poland. The Duke believed that Catherine had already made her choice, and that the proposal was a snare to draw from France a confession of her weakness, and to compromise her with her Polish friends. He rejected the overture with almost open disdain, and the occasion drew from the Duc de Praslin an important memorial presented to the King in Council on May 8, 1763, in which the following words occur:— ‘Quel est, depuis le traité de Versailles, le pivot de la politique française ? L'Autriche. Ce qui fait le contrepoids à cette Puissance doit nous occuper exclusivement. Autrefois cet équilibre était en Suède, maintenant en Prusse. L'affermissement de ce royaume ne peut pas nous faire ombrage. Il ne peut effrayer que la Russie, intérêt que n'étant pas le nôtre ne pourrait nous toucher directement.’ See Le Secret du Roi, par le Due de Broglie, ii. 72 et seq.

^{page 116 note 1} Of Pontainebleau, November 3, 1762.

^{page 117 note 1} Victor Friedrich, Graf von Solms.

^{page 117 note 2} The French Government was also convinced that the Court of Vienna was likely to resume its old ascendency at St. Petersburg, and, conscious of Catherine's attitude of enmity to France, showed an uneasy jealousy of any return to the ancient alliance between Russia and Austria. Le Comte de Choiseul et le Comte de Broglie au Baron de Breteuil, August 1762, Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 200, 206.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 1} As related in the despatch of October 25, 1762.

^{page 118 note 2} See despatches of November 9 and December 20, 1762.

^{page 118 note 3} See Grenville to Keith, July 14, 1762, Buckinghamshire Papers. The correspondence and documents which follow are here given together, that the points in controversy may be made clear. See Introduction, p. 47 et seq.

^{page 120 note 1} This, with the propositions of France (see p. 118), were enclosed in the following letter to Mr. Mitchell of July 14, and also to Mr. Keith at St. Petersburg.

^{page 121 note 1} To the effect that the Empress Queen was prepared to send plenipotentiaries to Augsburg to discuss terms of peace, and to offer as a preliminary a suspension of arms in statu quo. This offer was communicated to the King of Prussia through the English Court, the English minister at the same time remarking that the proposal would scarcely be accepted by Frederic. ‘Hitherto the King had listened with great attention,’ writes Mitchell in describing the interview in which these papers were to be communicated, ‘but the moment I mentioned Vienna, he said with some impatience, “I expect nothing good from that quarter,” and immediately turned the conversation upon indifferent matters,’ so that Mitchell was unable to give him at the moment the other papers with which he was charged. Mitchell to Grenville, August 6, 1762. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 122 note 1} These are the negotiations in relation to Westphalia (see pp. 118, 119, 120).

^{page 123 note 1} The Emperor's deposition was not then known in London.

^{page 123 note 2} Of May 1762.

^{page 123 note 3} Of May 5. As to that of alliance of June 18, the King of Prussia said, in answer to Mitchell's inquiry, ‘that that was not to be expected.’

^{page 123 note 4} Mitchell to Grenville, August 6, 1762. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 124 note 1} Schweidnitz fell on October 9, 1762.

^{page 124 note 2} Mitchell to Grenville, Aug. 6, 1762. See Bisset's Memoirs of Sir A. Mitchell.

^{page 124 note 3} Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 125 note 1} This included the suggestion of the Due de Choiseul that the Empress should send troops to occupy the places upon their evacuation, though this should not expressly be stipulated. Frederic was therefore forewarned of that danger.

^{page 125 note 2} This letter is printed in Frederic's Political Correspondence (vol. xxii. p. 135), with a postscript, intended only for Mitchell, pointing out that the French offer of the evacuation of Hesse was practically worth nothing, as they were about to be forced to evacuate it by the successes of Ferdinand of Brunswick, whilst the evacuation by the French of the possessions of Brunswick and Hanover was not comparable in value to the evacuation of Westphalia, which was demanded in return.

^{page 126 note 1} Enclosed with Lord Halifax's to the Earl of Buckinghamshire, November 26, 1762.

^{page 127 note 1} On this point Burke writes: ‘The demand of the evacuation of Wesel, Cleves, and Guelders which had been made in the first negotiation (of 1761) was then justly excepted to, because we refused to put an end to the German War. In the last, the French agreed to it, with reason, because we agreed, in common with them, to be neutral in the disputes of the Empire.’ Annual Register, 1762, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 1} This refers to a letter of July 14, 1762. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 129 note 1} That of Hamburg, between Prussia and Sweden, May 22, 1762

^{page 130 note 1} Forwarded to Lord Buckinghamshire in Lord Halifax's of November 26, 1762.

^{page 131 note 1} See p. 126.

^{page 132 note 1} See pp. 118–120.

^{page 133 note 1} See p. 127.

^{page 135 note 1} See p. 121, note 1.

^{page 136 note 1} It is difficult to reconcile these expressions with the insinuation of Frederic that ‘poor Mitchell has had a stroke of paralysis on hearing of the continued treachery of MM. les Anglais’ (Frederic to the Duohess of Saxe-Gotha, December 6, 1762). See for Mitchell's opinion, his letters to Lord Buckinghamshire, February 25, 1764. Keith also, whilst criticising ‘the want of good sense and good politics of the English Ministry,’ speaks of ‘the peevishness, the spite, and the obstinate spirit of vengeance which Frederic had shown on this occasion as little reconcilable with his extensive genius and extraordinary vigour of mind.’ See Keith to Mitchell, August 23, 1762, British Museum Add. MS. 6, 825.

^{page 137 note 1} The order to compose this memorial was sent to Finckenstein, September 18, 1762. On the same day Frederic wrote to his Minister Michel in London that as soon as he should receive the memorial it was to be shown to all his friends in England, in order to contradict the malignant insinuations made against him by the English Ministers. He adds: ‘Though I see very well that this will scarcely console me for all the harm which Bute will do me, I flatter myself I shall have the satisfaction in time of seeing Bute overthrown by this means.’ This memorial is not printed among Frederic's correspondence. See Polit. Corresp. Friedrichs des II^ten, Vol. xxii. pp. 221, 222.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} The treaty was signed on June 19, 1762, without any communication on the matter to Keith. See Keith's despatch of June 22, p. 51. As to the treaty of peace of May 5, the Prussian ambassador had shown the same reserve, until April 23, when it was too late to communicate with home on the matter. See Keith's despatches of March 30 and April 23, 1762, British Museum Add. MS. 6,825.

^{page 140 note 1} Sweden was, however, subsidised three times by France during the Seven Years' War, and in 1757 she concluded with France and Austria a treaty of alliance against Prussia. The Due de Choiseul's main object in renewing this treaty in 1759 was to engage the help of Sweden in (1) a descent upon England; (2) the invasion of Hanover. Flassan, vi. 146Google Scholaret seq. See also Recueil des Instructions: Suède, p. xcvi.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Yet Frederic writes to Michel, on the same day that the order to compose this memorial was despatched, that he now finds it impossible to confide his interests to the English Ministers or to accept of the King of England's Mediation (September 18, 1762).

^{page 142 note 2} Yet see the French declaration of March 18, 1756: ‘La guerre n'avait éclaté en Allemagne que par le parti que sa Majesté Prussienne avait pris d'envahir la Saxe pour attaquer le royaume de Bohême.’ See for this Flassan, vi. 75 et seq.

^{page 146 note 1} Yet see, inter alia, Frederic to Kniphausen and Michel, Sept. 10, 1762, where he enjoins upon his Ministers in London a complete system of warfare against Bute's Government, by pamphlets, satirical prints, and by attempts to get various cities to present addresses to the King to remove Bute. See Polit. Corresp. Friedrich's, xxii. 207.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} Yet the charge of treachery as to these negotiations is repeated with every term of abhorrence in Frederic's Memoirs. See pp. 48 and 49, Memoirs, ii. 227Google Scholar: ‘Libéral des provinces prussiennes, Bute offrait ses dépouilles à l'impératrice,’ he writes, after having been shown Bute's instructions in text. See Appendix B.

^{page 147 note 1} These expressions had been emphatically disclaimed by Bute. See p. 170.

^{page 148 note 1} Halifax to Mitchell, November 26, 1762.

^{page 148 note 2} It does not appear to have ever been printed, nor, so far as I am aware, was the Prussian memorial. Yet Michel had orders from Frederic II. to print the latter, so as to give it greater publicity. See Frederic to Finckenstein, September 19, 1762. Polit. Corresp. Friedrich's, xxii. 229.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} Halifax to Buckinghamshire, November 26, 1762. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 149 note 1} Buckinghamshire Papers (enclosed in Lord Halifax's despatch of November 26).

^{page 149 note 2} See Mémoire A, p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} Finckenstein to Mitchell, October 1, 1762. Buckinghamshire Papers.

^{page 150 note 1} Mitchell to the King of Prussia, September 18, 1762. See p. 131.

^{page 151 note 1} See Keith, to Mitchell, , 09 19, 1758Google Scholar, and Keith, to Holderness, , 11 13, 1759Google Scholar, Add. MS. 6,825, British Museum.

^{page 154 note 1} When Mitchell complained of this silence to Frederic he acknowledged that it was by his own instructions, attributing them to the intelligence he had received of the insinuations made to Galitzin. Mitchell to Bute, May 3, 1762.

^{page 157 note 1} Sir John Goodrioke. See p. 114.

^{page 157 note 2} See p. 44.

^{page 158 note 1} See p. 125.

^{page 159 note 1} On December 31, 1761, war was declared against Spain, and the defence of Portugal against Spanish forces undertaken by England.

^{page 159 note 2} Mitchell had written in 1760, that ‘if England could not find some means of detaching France from the coalition, the King must be irretrievably lost.’ (Despatoh of Jan. 16.)

^{page 161 note 1} See pp. 124 and 125, with note.

^{page 162 note 1} This seems unanswerable; for as England was not negotiating with Austria she could not undertake that that Power should abstain from seizing upon Westphalia, seeing that she was still at war with the King of Prussia, nor could France be reasonably expected to force her ally to abstain from seizing upon such advantages as might fall to her.

^{page 163 note 1} See p. 126.

^{page 163 note 2} See Mitchell to the King of Prussia (Apostille), September 18, 1762, p. 133.

^{page 163 note 3} See for this Knyphausen to Frederic, April 25, 1755, and Frederic, to Knyphausen, , 05 5 and 07 29, 1755. Vol. xiGoogle Scholar. Pol. Corresp.

^{page 165 note 1} See p. 84, note 1.

^{page 165 note 2} See the Declaration of France to this effect at the Diet of Ratisbon, March 1759. Flassan, vi. 75 et seq.

^{page 167 note 1} The Duke of Cumberland was completely defeated by the French at Hastenbeck, owing to his own defective strategy, and no doubt some reproach is here implied as to the desertion of the Prussian troops before the battle

^{page 168 note 1} See pp. 53 and 134.

^{page 169 note 1} See pp. 47, 51, and Appendix B.

^{page 170 note 1} See p. 52.

^{page 170 note 2} See also Buckinghamshire's despatch of December 30, 1762 (p. 177), and the note verbally communicated to Lord Buckinghamshire by the Russian Ministers, p. 193.

^{page 171 note 1} See Keith's despatches of March 13 and July 23, 1761, &c. See also p. 55.

^{page 172 note 1} See Bute to Knyphausen and Michel, February 26, 1762, and George III. to Frederic II. March 30, 1762. Adolphus, 's History of England, Vol. iGoogle Scholar. Appendix.

^{page 174 note 1} These are repetitions of that to Mr. Mitchell, which follows. Sir Joseph Yorke was British ambassador to The Hague.

^{page 176 note 1} Monthly payments.

^{page 177 note 1} The Memorials A and B, with accompanying letters.

^{page 178 note 1} Lord Buckinghamshire's somewhat colourless remark on the invasion of Saxony offers a curious comment on Frederic's suspicions of the action of England in relation to himself. On December 15 he writes to Knyphausen that he has every reason to believe that the English ambassador in Russia has received strict orders to persuade the Russian Court to force him to make peace and to evacuate Saxony on the most ignominious conditions. No trace of such instructions is to be found in Lord Halifax's despatches to St. Petersburg. On the other hand, Frederic, in one of the first letters which he wrote to Catherine (December 22, 1762), did not fail to point out that ‘the Britannic ministry had, in defiance of all treaties and alliance, determined that he should sacrifice his interests to theirs, and had immolated him for their own advantage in their peace with France.’ See Polit. Corresp. Friedrich's, xxii. pp. 395 and 409.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 1} In Lord Halifax's of January 7, 1763.

^{page 183 note 1} See p. 179.

^{page 190 note 1} First Minister of Augustus III. of Saxony and Poland.

^{page 190 note 2} See page 75, note.

^{page 191 note 1} Courland was a fief of Poland, but had long been under Russian influence. Peter I. had not been able to conquer it, but he had prepared the way for its union with Russia by the marriage of his niece Anna Ivanowna with its Duke. When Anna became Czarina she procured from Augustus III. of Poland the investiture of the Duchy for her favourite, Biren, and when Biren was exiled the King of Poland obtained permission from Elizabeth to appoint his own son, Charles Christian, as Duke of Courland and Sémigalle. Biren, however, was recalled from exile by Peter III., and Catherine designed to reinstate him in Courland as a part of the policy by which she had determined to rid Poland of the rule of the House of Saxony. The election of its Duke rested nominally with the States of Courland, subject to a congé d'élire from the Diet of Poland; and Catherine, claiming that Ernest John de Biren was in truth the legally elected Duke, was now proceeding to eject Charles of Saxony. See St. Priest, Etudes Diplomatigues, p. 65Google Scholar. Rambaud, , Histoire de Russie, pp. 404, 459Google Scholar See also p. 12 of this work

^{page 193 note 1} To be distinguished from Prince Alexander Galitzin, the Vice-Chancellor.

^{page 193 note 2} Lord Bute held this office from March 1761 til May 1762, when he became First Lord of the Treasury.

^{page 194 note 1} Forwarded to England in Lord Buckinghamshire's despatch of Jan, 19,1763.

^{page 195 note 1} English Envoy Resident at Warsaw. See p. 55.

^{page 196 note 1} Courland.

^{page 196 note 2} Paul, afterwards Czar (1796), b. Sept. 20 (N.S.), 1754.

^{page 199 note 1} See p. 191.

^{page 200 note 1} See pp. 106 and 107.

^{page 201 note 1} See p. 123.

^{page 201 note 2} The supposed letter was as follows: ‘Voilà le pauvre Empereur de Russie détrôné par son épouse. On sày attendait. L'Impératrice a infiniment d'esprit, aucune religion et les inclinations de la défunte (Impératrice), mais elle oontrefait la dévote en même temps. C'est le second tome de Zéno, empereur gree, de son épouse, Ariadne, et de la Catherine de Médicis. Le ci-devant chancelier Bestusheff était le grand favori de cette princesse, et, comme il était entièrement attaché aux guinées, je me flatte que les attachements d'à présent subsisteront. Le pauvre Empereur voulait imiter Pierre I, mais il n'en avait pas le génie.’ This ‘gross imposture,’ as Frederic calls it, had been invented, he writes to Finckenstein, by his enemies in England in order to embroil him with Russia! December 8, 1762; see vol. xxii. of the Polit. Corresp. Friedrich's des Grossen, p. 378.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} See p. 61, note 1.

^{page 207 note 1} See note, p. 174.

^{page 213 note 1} See, for the condition of affairs in Sweden, p. 16. See also p. 140, note. Sweden was still in straits for money, and France at that time was behindhand with her subsidies. A strong party was now anxious to renew diplomatic relations with England. See Wilkinson's (otherwise Gedda's) despatches, January 1762 to November 29, 1763 (R.O. Sweden, Vol. cxxvii.Google Scholar), and Ramsey's letter, October 6, 1761, ibid.

^{page 214 note 1} See pp. 196 and 199, note.

^{page 214 note 2} John Ernest, Duke Biren, made public entrance into Mittau January 22, 1763.

^{page 216 note 1} Frederic accepted the double neutrality of his estates in Westphalia and of the Austrian Netherlands as a measure which ensured the restitution of the disputed territories, and as a mark of the renewal of the ancient friendship between England and Prussia. See Frederic to Knyphausen and Michel, January 26, 1763, Polit. Corresp. Friedrich's des II^ten. Vol. xxii.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} Prince Lubomirski had been despatched in the autumn of 1762 to St. Petersburg to persuade the Czarina to take active measures to oblige the King of Prussia, as well as the Austrians, to evacuate Saxony. See Frederic to Benoît at Warsaw, September 20, 1762, with note, Polit. Corresp. Friedrich's des II^ten. Vol. xxii.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} Johann Moritz Prass, or Prasse, Saxon Resident at St. Petersburg.

^{page 219 note 1} See p. 90.

^{page 219 note 2} See p. 113, note.

^{page 220 note 1} See p. 224.

^{page 225 note 1} M. de Breteuil was the agent for Louis XV.'s secret diplomacy, and Poland was the special object of that diplomacy. See p. 41; see also Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} See p. 96. The French Government had at this time some idea of obtaining influence in Russia through Panin. See Recueil des Instructions: Russie, ii. 236Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} See for the condition of trade between England and Russia in this year, note c, appendix, p. 254.

^{page 228 note 1} See pp. 107 and 200.

^{page 228 note 2} See note 2, pp. 21 and 35.

^{page 231 note 1} See p. 59, note.

^{page 232 note 1} That of 1734.

^{page 232 note 2} See p. 233 et seq.

^{page 233 note 1} See the 16th Article of the Treaty of 1734.

^{page 234 note 1} The ‘Russia Company’ had received their charter in the first year of Philip and Mary. It was Sebastian Cabot who first inspired the ‘Merchant Adventurers’ to explore the Northern Ocean, where the expedition, under Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor, penetrated to the Harbour of the Archangel Michael in 1553, and thence Chancellor opened up the overland route to Moscow. See Seymour's London, ii. 426.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} For this earlier memorial, see p. 82.

^{page 235 note 1} See for this treaty, concluded by Lord Forbes on behalf of the English Government, ‘Notes on the Diplomatic Correspondence between England and Russia in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century,’ in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. xivGoogle Scholar. N. S.

^{page 238 note 1} See p. 193.

^{page 238 note 2} The Peace of Hubertsburg was signed Febuary 15, 1763.