Peacebuilding Online: Dialogue and

Enabling Positive Peace

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/peacebuilding-online-dialogue-and-enabling-positive-
peace/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Contemporary Peacemaking: Peace Processes,

Peacebuilding and Conflict Roger Mac Ginty

https://ebookmass.com/product/contemporary-peacemaking-peace-
processes-peacebuilding-and-conflict-roger-mac-ginty/

The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Peace Katerina

Standish

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-positive-
peace-katerina-standish/

Confronting Peace: Local Peacebuilding in the Wake of a

National Peace Agreement 1st Edition Susan H. Allen

https://ebookmass.com/product/confronting-peace-local-
peacebuilding-in-the-wake-of-a-national-peace-agreement-1st-
edition-susan-h-allen/

The Interaction Between Local and International

Peacebuilding Actors : Partners for Peace 1st Edition
Sara Hellmüller (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-interaction-between-local-and-
international-peacebuilding-actors-partners-for-peace-1st-
edition-sara-hellmuller-auth/
Peace and Resistance in Youth Cultures: Reading the
Politics of Peacebuilding from Harry Potter to The
Hunger Games 1st Edition Siobhan Mcevoy-Levy (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/peace-and-resistance-in-youth-
cultures-reading-the-politics-of-peacebuilding-from-harry-potter-
to-the-hunger-games-1st-edition-siobhan-mcevoy-levy-auth/

Social Media as a Space for Peace Education: The

Pedagogic Potential of Online Networks M. Ayaz Naseem

https://ebookmass.com/product/social-media-as-a-space-for-peace-
education-the-pedagogic-potential-of-online-networks-m-ayaz-
naseem/

Smart Grid and Enabling Technologies (Wiley - IEEE) 1st

Edition Omar Ellabban

https://ebookmass.com/product/smart-grid-and-enabling-
technologies-wiley-ieee-1st-edition-omar-ellabban/

Greek Dialogue in Antiquity Katarzyna Ja■d■ewska

https://ebookmass.com/product/greek-dialogue-in-antiquity-
katarzyna-jazdzewska/

Peacebuilding and the Arts 1st ed. 2020 Edition Jolyon

Mitchell

https://ebookmass.com/product/peacebuilding-and-the-arts-1st-
ed-2020-edition-jolyon-mitchell/
Peacebuilding
Online
Dialogue and Enabling Positive Peace

Rachel Nolte-Laird
Peacebuilding Online
 Rachel Nolte-Laird

Peacebuilding Online
Dialogue and Enabling Positive Peace
Rachel Nolte-Laird
National Centre for Peace & Conflict
Studies
University of Otago
Dunedin, New Zealand

ISBN 978-981-16-6012-2 ISBN 978-981-16-6013-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6013-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 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 informa-
tion 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.

Cover illustration: @Orbon Alija/GettyImages

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
 Preface

I first drafted the final pages of this book during the early days of the
global COVID-19 pandemic, when many of us were experiencing “lock-
down” situations, isolated and disjointed from normalcy. Since writing
that first draft, there has arisen an international reckoning with racial
injustices driven by the Black Lives Matter movement in the United
States, a movement Ta-Nehisi Coates refers to as a “Great Fire” (Coates,
2020). In my own country of Canada, we are being (rightly) confronted
with, and held to account for, our racist and genocidal policies and treat-
ment of Indigenous peoples, such as the residential school system (Truth
and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). I am aware of the
potential resonance this work may have with the present experiences
of many around the world. In this time where people are experiencing
extreme isolation in the face of a common yet invisible “enemy,” and
when there are global demands for transformed perceptions of those
historically viewed as other, it feels exceptionally timely to be discussing
how we can utilize the connective properties of the internet to encounter
each other in ways that create humanized relations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has surfaced issues of inequality and
“uncovered social and political fractures within communities…dispro-
portionately affecting marginalised groups” (Devakumar et al., 2020).
I do not know what the world will look like when we eventually move
past this global crisis; there will most likely be increases in inequality,
with soaring unemployment rates, crippling medical debt, and business

v
vi PREFACE

closures. The economic fallout is potentially catastrophic and will impact

those already economically fragile, first and most profoundly. I would like
to imagine that the response will be one of solidarity, full of emboldened
acts of courageous love in order to address these issues; however, looking
to the past shows us that, historically, “infectious diseases have been
associated with othering” (Devakumar et al., 2020). With the knowledge
that this global experience could entrench fear and deepen divides, it
becomes imperative for those working towards positive peace to harness
all the means available to us that will engender collective solidarity against
systemic oppression—oppression, which intensifies the vulnerability of
already marginalized groups.
We need to call upon all of our tools, online and offline, which bring
opportunities for humanizing encounters, and use this moment as a cata-
lyst for emergence from the previously “dense, enveloping reality or a
tormenting blind alley” (Freire, 2000, p. 109)—to remind one another
of our common humanity, while surfacing how systemic power imbal-
ances will result in this experience uplifting some and oppressing countless
more. If it is within our capacity, we must do what we can to weave
together a more durable and more inclusive fabric of society. I believe that
online connections—opportunities for dialogue and meaningful encoun-
ters—are an essential tool in this cause.
I hope that this book provides a thoughtful contribution to an
unfolding understanding of what constitutes dialogue as theory and prac-
tice, how they can inter-relate and inform one another, and how we apply
both theory and practice within online settings. And even more than all of
that, I hope that this work can offer even the slightest glimpse into how
we might use this present, historical moment in the pursuit of creating
positive peace.

Dunedin, New Zealand Rachel Nolte-Laird

References
Coates, T. (2020, August 24). Editor’s letter. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from:
https://www.vanityfair.com.
Devakumar, D., Shannon, G., Bhopal, S. S., & Abubakar, I. (2020). Racism
and discrimination in COVID-19 responses. The Lancet, 395(10231), 1194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30792-3.
 PREFACE vii

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.) (M. B. Ramos,
Trans). Continuum.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the truth,
reconciling for the future: Summary of the final report of the Truth and Recon-
ciliation Commission of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.trc.ca/assets/
pdf/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf.
 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to many individuals for their support and encouragement

in completing this book. First, to the 24 individuals who so graciously
participated in my research, thank you for your insights and vulnera-
bility, without which this book would not have been possible. To Dr.
Katerina Standish (who first planted the idea of writing this book) and
Dr. Heather Devere for your wisdom and insights. My colleagues at the
National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, particularly Dr. Alejandra
Del Pilar, for your faithful encouragement. The publication of this book
was made possible by The University of Otago Postgraduate Publishing
Bursary (Doctoral). Finally, to my family; Flannery, Dave, forthcoming
W., Penny, and Larry. At the end of this particular journey, I am standing
here in no small part because of your steadfast belief in me and willingness
to up-end your own lives to make this dream possible.

ix
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Why Online? 4
1.3 Research Design 5
1.4 Reflexivity & Cogitatio 6
1.5 Book Structure 7
References 9
2 Positive Peace and Dialogue: A Theoretical Framework 13
2.1 Positive Peace 13
2.2 Dialogue Theory 15
Martin Buber 16
Paulo Freire 18
2.3 Qualities of Dialogue 20
Dialogic Moments and the Sphere of Between 20
Presentness 21
Awareness 22
Authenticity 22
Mutuality 22
2.4 Dialogue as Humanization 23
2.5 Dialogue as Transformation 24
Conscientization 25
2.6 Critiques 27
Positive Peace Theory 28

xi
xii CONTENTS

Dialogue Theory 28
2.7 Summary 31
References 32
3 Community-Based Dialogue and Online Peacebuilding
Practice 37
3.1 Dialogue in Peacebuilding Practice 37
Characteristics of Dialogue in Community
Peacebuilding 40
Outcomes of Dialogue in Community Peacebuilding 45
Critiques & Limitations of Dialogue in Community
Peacebuilding 46
3.2 Online Dialogue-Based Peacebuilding 49
Online Peacebuilding Models 50
Critiques of Online Dialogue for Peacebuilding 54
3.3 Gaps 58
3.4 Summary 59
References 59
4 Bringing Into 69
4.1 Introducing the Participants 70
4.2 “Journey to Soliya” 73
“A Marriage Between Two Worlds” 73
“Try Something New with Different People” 76
“An Experience Issue” 77
“Was Not Voluntary for Me” 80
“Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Little Constructive, Positive
Thing” 80
4.3 “I Expected To…” 81
“The Muslims, the Americans, and Us” 81
“Disagreement Is Natural” 82
4.4 “The Source of My Knowledge” 85
“Of Course, the Media” 85
“Like a Taboo” 86
4.5 Cogitatio 88
4.6 Summary 89
References 89
 CONTENTS xiii

5 The Setting 91
5.1 Connect Program and Characteristics of Dialogue
in Community Peacebuilding 93
Encountering Other and Exploring Identity 93
Safe Space 95
Examination of ‘Truth’ 96
Relational Movement 96
5.2 Program Design: Influencing Factors 97
The Facilitator 97
The Curriculum 100
5.3 ‘The Water’ 102
“We Thought the Group is Stuck” 102
“An Expression of International Power Dynamics” 104
5.4 Benefits 110
“There Are No Barriers of Borders, or Religion,
or Anything.” 111
“You Can Make It a Very Inclusive Environment” 112
“I Think That This Makes People Brave to Speak” 114
5.5 Limitations 115
“Technology Tends to Fail Us” 115
“We’re in the Car!” 116
“There Is a Kind of Spirit that You Miss” 117
5.6 ‘The Setting’ and Positive Peace 119
5.7 Cogitatio 120
‘Insider’ 120
Power 122
5.8 Summary 123
References 124
6 The Encounter 127
6.1 Individual in Encounter 127
Distinctiveness 128
“Think About My Identity and My Values and Beliefs” 130
6.2 The Sphere of Between 133
Presentness 134
Awareness 136
Authenticity 139
Mutuality 141
6.3 Cogitatio 146
6.4 Summary 148
References 148
xiv CONTENTS

7 Potentialities 151
7.1 “New and Beautiful Friends” 152
“Not Friends in Reality.” 156
7.2 “To See Something Different” 157
“I Never Thought of Myself as…” 157
“These People Are Not Monsters.” 160
7.3 How’s the Water? 165
“The Circumstances and the Situation
and the Differences.” 166
“I Won’t Hold My Tongue.” 169
7.4 “I Don’t Change Easily” 173
7.5 Cogitatio 174
7.6 Summary 175
References 176
8 The Conditions of Positive Peace 177
8.1 Positive Peace: The Conditions 179
Condition: Friendship 179
Findings: Friendships & Changed Perceptions 183
Condition: Love 186
Findings: Emergence & Intervention 189
8.2 Critiques of the Findings 191
Dialogue Without Emergence 191
Emergence Without Intervention 192
Friendships Without Emergence or Intervention 193
Ideal Setting 194
Variations in Potentialities 195
8.3 Can Online Dialogue Enable Positive Peace? 195
8.4 Summary 197
References 198
9 Conclusion 203
9.1 Contributions to Knowledge 205
9.2 Recommendations & Future Directions 207
Practice & Policy 207
Future Research Directions 208
References 209

Index 211
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Represents the narrative of the findings 8

Fig. 2.1 Visual representation of the “triangular syndrome
of peace” (Galtung, 1990, p. 302) 15
Fig. 4.1 Location of Chapter 4 in overarching narrative &
the content of each findings chapter 70
Fig. 5.1 Location of Chapter 5 in overarching findings narrative 92
Fig. 6.1 Location of Chapter 6 in overarching findings narrative 128
Fig. 7.1 Location of Chapter 7 in overarching findings narrative 152
Fig. 8.1 Representation of humanization in relation to friendship 181
Fig. 8.2 Actions related to the dimensions of positive peace,
described by Hansen (2016) 187
Fig. 8.3 Relationship between conscientization and love as action
with transformation 189

xv
 List of Tables

Table 4.1 Summary of research participants 72

Table 8.1 Tiers of positive peace, adapted from Galtung (2012,
p. 58; 2015, p. 1) 178

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This book explores the intersection of online dialogue and peacebuilding

practices. This inquiry began forming in my mind in 2014 while working
with a dialogue-based peacebuilding organization in the Middle East.
Over that summer, the 2014 Gaza war occurred, and the organization
had to abruptly cancel a summit they had been planning between youth
participants from the West Bank and Israel. This group had been meeting
regularly over several years, and each summit was significant for the
program and the youth. This type of disruption, of course, is a regular
occurrence for anyone working in peacebuilding in a situation of ongoing
conflict or violence. I began to explore the opportunities, platforms, and
models for meeting online. As I delved in, it was quickly apparent how
minimal the resources or knowledge were in both practice and literature.
Organizational priorities shifted, as they often do, and I moved off to
other projects after a short time, but the question stayed with me. Years
later, I returned to the subject through the qualitative inquiry presented
within this book.
In a radio interview, just months before his passing, the Irish poet,
author, and theologian John O’Donohue (2008) spoke of the obstacles
to authentic human connection as he reflected:

I mean when you think about language and you think about consciousness,
it’s just incredible to think that we can make any sounds that can reach
over [and] across to each other at all. …I think the beauty of being human

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

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
R. Nolte-Laird, Peacebuilding Online,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6013-9_1
2 R. NOLTE-LAIRD

is that we are incredibly, intimately near each other, we know about each
other, but yet we do not know or never can know what it’s like inside
another person. (para. 15)

His comments resonate when considering the experience of dialogic

encounters with other. There are the inherent barriers to reaching
“over [and] across to each other” (para. 15), often involving language,
geographic distance, historical injustices, modern inequalities, and myriad
other obstacles. And yet, in entering into dialogue, there becomes
the opportunity to be “incredibly, intimately near” to the other. While
we “never can know what it’s like inside another person,” dialogue
enables individuals to reveal themselves to each other, and in doing so,
encounter other in ways that facilitate humanization and transformation.
This book explores the experience of dialogic encounters within online
environments and the connection between those experiences and positive
peace—presented here as humanization and transformation.

1.1 Background
Peace practices, particularly indigenous peace practices, have occurred in
myriad forms throughout history. For example, in Aotearoa New Zealand,
the Moriori people of Rēkohu recommitted each generation to a peace
covenant, abandoning “warfare and killing” (Devere et al., 2017, p. 55).
Close (2017) describes the Indigenous East Timorese peacebuilding prac-
tices of tarabandu, nahe biti, juramentu, matak-malarin, and halerik
as “complex…systems [which] are continuous, non-linear and multidi-
mensional…connect[ing] multiple generations, lineages and clans, land,
customary houses, the future, and the ancestors” (p. 134). These are just
two examples of unique Indigenous peace practices and cultures. While
peace practices have a diverse and long tradition, the articulation of the
present-day peacebuilding concept can be attributed to Galtung in 1976
(Paffenholz, 2013; Ryan, 2013). Although this modern concept of peace-
building originated with Galtung in the 1970s, it did not become part
of mainstream political discourse until the publication of An Agenda for
Peace in 1992 by the UN Secretary-General (Boutros-Ghali, 1992). An
Agenda for Peace set out an ethos for liberal peacebuilding, primarily
focused on structural over individual and community changes.
Towards the end of the Cold War, there was a turn towards including
social-psychological approaches within peacebuilding practices. In tandem
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

with this move towards social-psychological methods was a transition to

viewing peacebuilding as requiring both work at the top, elite levels,
regarding policy and structural changes, as well as grassroots transfor-
mation to alter “social attitudes and perceptions at the societal levels”
(Steinberg, 2013, p. 43). Paffenholz (2013) identifies the sustainable
peacebuilding model as the impetus for this multi-level approach to
peacebuilding:

The discourse on sustainable peacebuilding dates back to the emergence

of the conflict-resolution school…it was further developed and conceptu-
alized by John Paul Lederach’s conflict-transformation school (Lederach,
1997). Both schools aim at addressing the underlying causes of conflict and
rebuilding the destroyed relationships between parties and society, thereby
supporting sustainable reconciliation. (p. 349)

Nested within this focus on underlying causes of conflict, and the

focus on grassroots, are people-to-people (P2P) initiatives. P2P initia-
tives focus on creating integrative bonds amongst individuals in situations
of conflict. These programs may include cooperative activities “focused
on the social or economic realm and/or centered on scientific or tech-
nical issues” (Gawerc, 2006, p. 446), while other programs generate
opportunities to share culture and art. These people-to-people programs
are primarily predicated on Gordon Allport’s Contact Hypothesis. The
Contact Hypothesis was developed in the field of psychology in 1954
and posited that, under specific conditions, contact between out-groups
could reduce prejudice between members of distinct identity groups
(Allport, 1954). From this foundation of the Contact Hypothesis evolved
peacebuilding practices that assumed:

the existence of a common foundation based on shared human values.

Contact theory, dialogue, cross-cultural communications and interaction,
as well as forgiveness, reconciliation, and even quasi-legal arguments (or at
least legal discourse) are among the main dimensions used in this approach,
from which mutual understanding and compromise are expected to flow.
(Steinberg, 2013, pp. 36–37)

As signalled by Steinberg, dialogue models are one of the people-to-

people initiatives developed from the intersection of grassroots peace-
building and the Contact Hypothesis. While dialogue as a peacebuilding
practice does not have a universal, agreed-upon model, this book explores
4 R. NOLTE-LAIRD

dialogue as a sustained and intentional encounter amongst individuals at

a community or grassroots level—these practices are presented in further
detail in Chapter 3.
As peacebuilding has grown to incorporate a focus on dialogue as a
grassroots initiative, it has also become increasingly committed to inte-
grating technology into relevant practices (Kahl & Puig Larrauri, 2013).
Despite this imperative to explore the application of technology within
peacebuilding practice, little is found in the existing literature regarding
dialogue models in online environments. While technology encompasses
a wide swath of subject matter and fields of inquiry, this book is inter-
ested in the connective properties of the internet that allow for individuals
to interact and connect with those who are other to them—specifically
through online dialogue. As peacebuilding initiatives are frequently situ-
ated in conflict scenarios or in situations where face-to-face meetings are
challenging, costly, and potentially dangerous, the internet offers an alter-
native platform for community dialogue practices to be held to mitigate
these barriers.

1.2 Why Online?

Attention is often given to the use of the internet for divisive means,
such as the proliferation of online bullying (Lumsden & Harmer, 2019;
Sylwander, 2019), political and ideological polarization through social
media (Bryson, 2020), and the use of online platforms to promote
terrorism and violent extremism (Littler & Lee, 2020; Weimann, 2016).
However, the same technology used for divisive means and to create echo
chambers that amplify existing ideas of other, self-identity, and narratives
can also contribute towards more pro-social ends of building new rela-
tionships, reshaping notions of other, and creating a path forward towards
positive peace.
While dialogue in peacebuilding is well-established as a field of study
and practice, it is also evident that face-to-face encounters can be fraught
and challenging. As such, online dialogue is poised to become a valu-
able addition within peacebuilding practice. Additionally, there is broad
consensus that technology and the connective tissue of the internet
have not been thoroughly examined for the benefits and contributions
it can offer to the field of peacebuilding (Amichai-Hamburger et al.,
2015; White et al., 2015). This book addresses this evident gap by
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

exploring how online environments can be utilized for dialogic peace-

building practice. The existing literature indicates positive outcomes from
online encounters between out-groups (White et al., 2018), and there is
some research examining unstructured dialogue practices (Chaitin, 2012;
Mor et al., 2016). In this book, I marry these two bodies of knowl-
edge and examine if structured dialogic encounters online can produce
outcomes at an individual level that enable the conditions for positive
peace.
Lederach (2005) argues that peacebuilding is about the “quality
of relational spaces, intersections, and interactions that affect a social
process” (p. 100). Suppose the quality of space, intersection, and inter-
actions for dialogue-based peacebuilding can be successfully implemented
within an online environment. In that case, there is immense potential
for both scope and scale to create the conditions for positive peace. The
increasing accessibility of the internet and immersive technologies allow
people to encounter each other in ways previously unimaginable. With
the diversification of tools that connect and transform people and their
relationships comes the increased opportunity for positive peace to be
realized by broadening access to participation of individuals at the grass-
roots level. By providing more opportunity for transformative encounters,
there can be movement beyond the suspension of violence in conflict and
into a reality where people can become morally inclusive of those who
were previously other (Opotow, 2012). The wellbeing and flourishing of
broader society can become something, not in the abstract, but within
the capacity of everyday people to envision and actively work towards.

1.3 Research Design

The research discussed within this book explores sustained dialogue—the
intentional encounters between individuals that occur over a period of
time—in online environments. Specifically, I examine the individual expe-
rience within a dialogic encounter, including reflections on how notions
of identity and perceptions of other shift through the encounter and
if those experiences relate to changes for the individual that support
the possibility for positive peace. The central research question explored
within the pages of this book is, “can engaging other through dialogic
encounters within an online environment enable conditions for positive
peace?”.
6 R. NOLTE-LAIRD

I conducted this research utilizing online ethnography, a method that,

similar to offline ethnographies, relies on observation—the researcher
undertakes sustained engagement in the shared online space to capture
in writing a deep and nuanced description of the online environment and
interactions (Kozinets, 2010). Online ethnography allows immersion in
the participant experience and the ability to capture the nuance of each
online setting and encounter (Markham, 1998).
For this research, I partnered with Soliya, an organization special-
izing in facilitated virtual dialogues through their ‘Connect’ programs.
Soliya seeks to combine technology, peacebuilding, and global educa-
tion to “empower young people to establish more effective, cooperative,
and compassionate relations within and between their societies” (“About
Us,” 2018). Soliya provided the opportunity to explore dialogue within
a well-established program conducted by experienced practitioners and
with consistent participation numbers in a defined setting over a sustained
period. During the period in which I completed data collection, there
were two streams of Connect programs, the flagship Connect Global,
which ran for eight-weeks, and the Connect Express program, which
was over a four-week period. I took on the facilitator role in the Spring
2019 Connect program to support observations during data collection.
Acting as a facilitator allowed for deep immersion into the program,
including familiarity with the setting, the platform, and program design,
affording additional insights and perspectives that may otherwise have
been unavailable as a pure observer.
In addition to facilitator-observations, this research also incorporated
semi-structured interviews with participants. Twenty-four individuals
were involved in this research project, 13 facilitators and 11 participants,
from geographic locations across the Middle East, North Africa, Europe,
and North America.

1.4 Reflexivity & Cogitatio

Within the qualitative tradition, there is the recognition that the
researcher brings their own experiences and perspectives into their inter-
pretation of the data. Ethnography moves beyond recognition of these
influences and asks the researcher to be reflexive in their work to bring
further depth and value to the project (Hammersly & Atkinson, 2007)—
“in reflexive ethnography, the ethnographer becomes part of the inquiry”
(Behar et al., 2011).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 “Amer. Hist. Rev.,” vol. vi, for proofs of the dealings of Pitt with
Miranda at that time. On 12th September 1791 Pitt wrote to
him stating that he could not grant him the pension he asked
for, or the sum of £1,000: £500 must suffice for the expenses
incurred during his stay in London (Pitt MSS., 102).
925
“F. O.,” Spain, 17.
926
“Travaux de Mirabeau” (1792), iii, 319.
927
W. Legg, “Select Documents on the Fr. Rev.,” i, 226 and F.
Masson, “Département des Affaires étrangères,” 79, 80.
928
B.M. Add. MSS., 29475.
929
Pretyman MSS.
930
“F. O.,” Spain, 17.
931
“Dropmore P.,” i, 585, 588. Auckland to Grenville, 15th May
and 8th June 1790. On 22nd May Kaunitz, the Austrian
Chancellor, assured Keith, our ambassador, that he heartily
wished for the settlement of the Nootka Sound dispute. He
blamed Floridablanca as rash (“F. O.,” Austria, 20).
932
“F. O.,” Spain, 17. Fitzherbert to Leeds, 16th June 1790. Earl
Camden, a valued member of the Cabinet, wrote on 29th
June to Pitt expressing grave concern at this answer from the
Spanish Court. He added these words: “War, as I always
thought, was inevitable, and to temporize impossible. The
jealousy of that Court gave the first provocation, and their
pride refuses satisfaction. The consequence is evident. We
have no choice, for the outrage at Nouska [sic] cannot be a
subject of discussion. I trust in the spirit of the Kingdom and
your own wisdom and good fortune, and have no doubt this
will terminate to your honour” (Pitt MSS., 119).
933
“F. O.,” Spain, 18. Leeds to Fitzherbert, 5th July.
934
“F. O.,” Spain, 18. Despatch of 5th July to Fitzherbert. Of
course, this does not imply that Pitt would never admit
arbitration, but only that he judged it inadmissible in the
present case.
935
Ibid. Fitzherbert to Leeds, 12th July.
936
Ibid. Leeds to Fitzherbert, 17th August.
937
Manning, 405, 406; “Dropmore P.,” i, 603, 606.
938
“Despatches of Earl Gower (1790–1792),” 23, edited by Mr.
Oscar Browning. Gower succeeded Dorset as ambassador at
Paris on 20th June 1790.
939
“Travaux de Mirabeau,” iv, 24–49, which shows that this was
not the work of the Assembly, but the proposal of Mirabeau.
W. A. Miles reported (“Corresp.,” i, 255), that Mirabeau
received from the Spanish ambassador one thousand louis
d’or for carrying this proposal.
940
“F. O.,” Spain, 18. Fitzherbert to Leeds, 17th August.
941
“Gower’s Despatches,” 29; “Corresp. of W.A. Miles,” i, 162,
163.
942
Ibid., i, 41–8, 150.
943
In the Pitt MSS. there is a packet (No. 159) of Miles’s letters
to Pitt, beginning with 1785. On 13th May 1790 Miles wrote to
Pitt that George Rose had informed him he could not see how
Pitt could employ him. Miles begged Pitt for a pension as a
literary man. There is no other letter to Pitt until 10th
December 1790, dated Paris:—“My attachment to your
interest and a sincere desire to give every possible support to
your Administration induced me to engage without difficulty in
the enterprise proposed by Mr. Rose, and to accept of a
salary inadequate to the expenses of the most frugal
establishment,” viz., £400 a year. He adds that he has
trenched on his private property, and concludes by asking for
the consulate at Ostend.
944
“Corresp. of W. A. Miles,” i, 171, 172, 199.
945
“Beaufort P.,” etc. (Hist. MSS. Comm.), 368.
946
Pitt MSS., 335.
947
Ibid., 139. See, too, “Gower’s Despatches,” 38, 39, with note.
948
Pitt MSS., 139.
949
Stanhope, ii, 60, 61.
950
Pitt MSS., 139.
951
F. Masson, “Département des Affaires étrangères,” 86 et seq.
In the Pretyman MSS. is an undated letter of Elliot to Pitt
(probably of November 1790) referring to his interview with
Pitt that morning, and explaining that his phrase to the
Diplomatic Committee, “the glorious Revolution,” was meant
only for Frenchmen!
952
“Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 907.
953
“F. O.,” Spain, 19.
954
Machiavelli, “The Prince,” ch. iii.
955
McDonald’s affidavit of 25th September 1790. On this case
Bland Burges wrote to Auckland on 30th September (B.M.
Add. MSS., 34433) that he was convinced of its authenticity,
and that Spain was clearly seeking a quarrel with us. He
referred to the signature of the Reichenbach Convention as
strengthening our position. On 21st September he wrote to
Auckland of the “intolerable suspense” of the Spanish affair,
and hinted that Spanish gold had probably bought the recent
peace between Sweden and Russia. The position of Bland
Burges as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office gives
weight to these remarks.
956
“F. O.,” Spain, 19. Despatch of 8th October. For details see
Manning, op. cit., chs. xi-xiii. I cannot, however, agree with Dr.
Manning’s assertion (p. 440) that it looks as if Pitt and Leeds
desired war. The terms of Fitzherbert’s despatch of 16th
September, which Dr. Manning does not notice, surely
convinced Pitt that Spain would on no account use the French
alliance on Mirabeau’s conditions.
957
Pretyman MSS.
958
“F. O.,” Spain, 49 (Drafts of Lord Grenville), shows that the
sum of £50,000 was finally demanded from Spain as
 compensation. For the Convention of 28th October 1790 see
“Parl. Hist.,” xxviii, 916–18, and Martens, iv, 492–9.
959
“Auckland Journals,” ii, 374.
960
For this see Hertz, “British Imperialism in the XVIIIth Century.”
961
Stanhope, ii, 63; Lecky, v, 209; Lord Rosebery, “Pitt,” 102; Mr.
C. Whibley, “Pitt,” 129.
962
“F. O.,” Russia, 20. Trade Report of the Baltic ports for 1790.
963
“Mems. of Sir R. M. Keith,” ii, 355–74; Sybel, bk. ii, ch. vi. The
Congress of Sistova was adjourned on 10th February for
some weeks.
964
Vivenot, 5.
965
Ibid., 9, 10; Beer, “Die orientalische Politik Oesterreichs,” App.
I.
966
“F. O.,” Russia, 20. “The Emperor still continues,
notwithstanding his professions, to flatter the Empress that he
may yet enter the lists in her favour” (Whitworth to Leeds,
18th January 1791). See Keith’s letters from Sistova, showing
the resolve of Austria to evade the Reichenbach terms, and
wring Orsova from the Turks (“Mems. of Sir R. M. Keith,” ii,
365 et seq.).
967
B.M. Add. MSS., 34435.
968
“F. O.,” Sweden, 11.
969
R. Nisbet Bain, “Gustavus III,” ii, 120–3. See, too, Geffroy,
“Gustave III et la Cour de France.”
970
Pitt MSS., 332.
971
“F. O.,” Poland, 4. Hailes to Leeds, 12th June 1790.
972
The Prussians forced the Danzig trade to Elbing. Dembinski, i,
101.
973
“Mems. de Michel Oginski,” i, 92–9.
974
“F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes’s despatches of January 1791.
975
“F. O.,” Poland, 4. Hailes to Leeds, 1st and 11th December
1790.
976
Dembinski, i, 103, 104. Alopeus to Ostermann, 6th December
1790 (N.S.). The British archives show that Hertzberg
continued to smile on our efforts to coerce Russia, and
encouraged the Turks to do their utmost against her. Jackson
to Leeds, 4th January 1791 (“F. O.,” Prussia, 20).
977
Dembinski, i, 108–10. Ostermann to Alopeus, 1st January
1791 (N.S.).
978
“F. O.,” Russia, 20. Whitworth to Leeds, 8th January 1790.
979
Pitt MSS., 332. Ewart to Pitt, 16th November 1790.
980
“F. O.,” Poland, 5. Leeds to Hailes, 8th January 1791. This
evidence and the facts stated later on, in my judgement refute
the statement of Lecky (v, 287) that the political security of
Poland did not enter into the motives of Pitt’s policy.
981
“F. O.,” Prussia, 20. Leeds to Jackson, 8th January 1791.
982
Ibid. Jackson’s despatches of 23rd January, 12th, 17th, 26th
February, 1st March; “F. O.,” Russia, 20. Whitworth’s
despatches of 14th, 18th, 25th January (on the “defection” of
Spain from Russia); “F. O.,” Sweden, 20, Liston to Leeds,
17th February. For the fears of Marie Antoinette and the
French Court that British armaments were aimed at France,
see Sorel, ii, 181, 182.
983
Vivenot, op. cit., 78, 79.
984
Ibid., 98 et seq. Cobenzl to Kaunitz, 4th March 1791; Beer,
“Leopold II, Franz I, und Catharina,” 39 et seq.
985
I differ from Dr. Salomon (“Pitt,” 514) as to the motives which
impelled the Prussian King at this time.
986
On 29th July 1791 Auckland wrote to Grenville about Ewart’s
“misconceived energy and violence” (B.M. Add. MSS.,
34438). See, too, “Auckland Journals,” ii, 392–3.
987
B.M. Add. MSS., 34436. Ewart must somehow have seen this
letter, for he quoted some of its phrases in his letter of 11th
February to Pitt (Pitt MSS., 332). See, too, his letters of 8th
February and 5th March to Lord Grenville in “Dropmore P.,” ii,
31, 38.
988
B.M. Add. MSS., 34436.
989
Ibid.
990
“Auckland Journals,” ii, 382.
991
B.M. Add. MSS., 34436. Auckland to Leeds, 15th March
1791; also in “F. O.,” Holland, 34 (received on 19th March).
992
Pitt MSS., 337.
993
B.M. Add. MSS., 34436.
994
“Mems. of Sir R. M. Keith,” ii, 367–70, 379.
995
“F. O.,” Prussia, 20. Jackson to Leeds, 9th March. See
Heidrich, “Preussen im Kampfe gegen die Franz. Revolution”
(1908), ch. i, for the causes of the double face worn by
Prussian policy at this time.
996
“F. O.,” Prussia, 20. Jackson to Leeds, 11th March 1791
(received 19th March).
997
“Leeds Mem.,” 150–2.
998
Leeds to Jackson, 27th March 1791. Russia then was seeking
to form an alliance with Sweden and Denmark with a view to
declaring the Baltic a mare clausum (“F. O.,” Russia, 20.
Whitworth to Leeds, 25th March 1791).
999
“F. O.,” Russia, 20. Leeds to Whitworth, 27th March 1791.
1000
“F. O.,” Holland, 34. Pitt to Auckland, 27th March.
1001
Contrast with this the admission of Storer: “Our taxes have
proved this year beyond example productive” (“Auckland
Journals,” ii, 389).
1002
See Burke’s “Correspondence,” iii, 268, where he calls Ewart
“a little, busy, meddling man, little heard of till lately.”
1003
“Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 33–79.
1004
Earl Stanhope (ii, 115) does not give the last figures, which
show that the Ministry regained ground on 15th April.
1005
“Auckland Journals,” ii, 388.
1006
Pitt to Ewart, 24th May 1791; Stanhope, ii, 116; Tomline, iii,
260.
1007
“F. O.,” Holland, 34.
1008
“F. O.,” Denmark, 13. Drake to Leeds, 12th March.
In B.M. Add. MSS., 34436, I have found proofs that
Auckland on 19th March forwarded by special packet
duplicates of the proposals described above, adding his own
comments to them, of course in a favourable sense. They
probably reached Whitehall about 24th March, but by that
time the Cabinet’s bellicose decision had gone to Windsor
and received the King’s assent.
1009
“Leeds Mem.,” 157, 158; also despatch of 31st March to
Jackson, in “F. O.,” Prussia, 20.
1010
From Major-General Sir Spencer Ewart’s MSS.
1011
From Major-General Sir Spencer Ewart’s MSS.
1012
“Keith Mems.,” ii, 219, 228.
1013
“Dropmore P.,” ii, 54–6; Dr. Hunt, “Pol. Hist. of England,” x,
328.
1014
“F. O.,” Prussia, 21. Grenville to Ewart, 20th April 1791. The
details given above refute Sorel’s statement (ii, 208) that Pitt
changed front brusquement, and charged Fawkener to say
that he would give way about Oczakoff.
1015
Dembinski, i, 449.
1016
Vivenot, i, 126–37, 172–6; Clapham “Causes of the War of
1792,” ch. iv; “Keith’s Mems.,” ii, 436–41, 448. So, too,
Whitworth to Leeds, 22nd April 1791: “Count Cobenzl
continues buoying them [the Russians] up with the hopes of
his Court taking a part in the war” (“F. O.,” Russia, 20).
1017
B.M. Add. MSS., 34438. The despatches printed in Vivenot (i,
172–81) show that the arrival of Bischoffswerder at Milan on
11th June helped to thwart the efforts of Lord Elgin. Elgin
suggested to Pitt on 15th June that, if war broke out, he could
convict the Emperor of hindering the pacification (Pitt MSS.,
132).
1018
“F. O.,” Prussia, 21. Ewart to Grenville, 13th May.
1019
“F. O.,” Russia, 21. Grenville to Fawkener, 6th May; “F. O.,”
Poland, 5. Hailes to Grenville, 19th May. Yet as late as 6th
July Grenville informed Ewart that in the last resort England
would fight on behalf of Prussia, though Ewart was to work
hard to avert war (“Dropmore P.,” ii, 124).
1020
“Dropmore P.,” ii, 93, 94. Ewart to Grenville, 8th June.
Hertzberg’s influence was lessened by the addition of
 Schulenberg and Alvensleben to the Foreign Department at
Berlin early in May.
1021
B.M. Add. MSS., 34437. Liston to Grenville, 27th May 1791.
1022
“F. O.,” Russia, 21. Fawkener and Whitworth to Grenville,
19th, 27th, 31st May, 18th and 21st June. So, too, Ewart
wrote to Grenville, on 18th June (after receiving news from St.
Petersburg): “No answer will be given (by the Russian
Ministers) to the Allies till after the return of the last
messenger to London, for the purpose of knowing if they
might rely with certainty on the English Government being
unable to take active measures in any case” (“F. O.,” Prussia,
21).
1023
“Memorials of Fox,” ii, 383–7.
1024
Pitt MSS., 337; Tomline, iii, 308–12.
1025
“Auckland Journals,” ii, 388.
1026
“F. O.,” Russia, 20. 2nd May. “I have long thought Woronzow
decidedly and personally hostile to the present Government in
England, and am persuaded that he suggested the idea of
employing Mr. Adair as an envoy from Mr. Fox to the
Empress.” Grenville to Auckland, 1st August 1791. (B.M. Add.
MSS., 34439.)
1027
B.M. Add. MSS., 34438.
1028
“F. O.,” Russia, 22. Whitworth to Grenville, 5th August.
1029
B.M. Add. MSS., 34438. Wraxall (i, 202; ii, 34) thought Fox
deserved impeachment for sending Adair.
1030
“Parl. Hist.,” xxix, 849–1000. Whitbread’s motion was finally
negatived by 244 to 116 (1st March 1792).
1031
Vivenot, i, 547; Martens, v, 244–9.
1032
B.M. Add. MSS., 34438.
1033
“F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes to Grenville, 5th May, along with a
letter by a Polish deputy.
1034
Burke, “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.” Burke did not
see that by fighting Russia’s battle in Parliament, he was
helping to undermine the liberties of Poland.
1035
“F. O.,” Poland, 5. Grenville to Hailes, 25th May.
1036
“Keith Mems.,” ii, 448, 449.
1037
Dembinski, i, 451. Hertzberg to Lucchesini, 7th May 1791.
1038
“F. O.,” Prussia, 21. Ewart to Grenville, 25th June. For
Bischofffswerder’s second mission to Vienna see Sybel, bk. ii,
ch. vi.
1039
Martens, v, 262–71.
1040
I am indebted to Major-General Sir Spencer Ewart for these
particulars and for permission to copy and publish these
letters of Pitt. The poison story first became current in one of
Fox’s letters published in the “Mems. of Fox.” For letters of Dr.
Ewart at Bath on his brother’s affairs see “Dropmore P.,” ii,
181, 253, 256.
1041
Pitt MSS., 102.
1042
“F. O.,” Poland, 5. Hailes to Grenville, 21st August 1791.
1043
Herrmann, “Geschichte Russlands,” vi, 445.
INDEX
Abdul Hamid I, Sultan of Turkey, his death, 506.
Abingdon, Lord, 474.
Abolitionist Society, the, 456–8, 473.
Adair, Sir Robert, his mission to St. Petersburg, 622–4.
Adams, John, United States Ambassador in London, 444.
Addington, Dr. Anthony, 50, 283, 284;
called in to see the King, 411, 412.
Addington, Henry, 283;
his friendship with Pitt, 284;
enters Parliament, 284, 285;
made Speaker, 464, 469.
Africa, proposed convict settlements in, 435, 437;
the Slave Trade in, 456, 457, 470, 473, 474.
Agriculture, development of, in Midlands and South of England,
31, 32.
Ainslie, Sir Robert, British Ambassador at Constantinople, 326,
486, 487, 489, 494, 506 n., 524.
Alaska, 563.
Algoa Bay, 435.
Alopeus, Russian envoy at Berlin, 597.
Althorpe, Lord, 90.
Alvanley, Lord. See Arden, Richard Pepper.
Alvensleben, Count von, special Prussian envoy at Paris, 345,
380, 388, 621 n.
America, Spanish claims on the north-west coast, 565, 568,
573–5, 585–8;
discontent in Spanish America, 568.
American Colonies, Declaration of Independence, 2, 3.
See United States.
American War of Independence, 2, 9, 21, 28, 78, 79, 100;
proposals for conciliation, 57, 61, 83, 101–4, 112;
conclusion of peace, 114.
Amiens Peace of 305
Amiens, Peace of, 305.
Amsterdam, captured by the Prussians, 378, 379.
Anapa, capture of, 625.
Angra Pequeña, 435.
Ankerström, Jakob Johan, murders Gustavus III, 532.
Anne, Princess, 306.
Anstey, Mr., sent to the United States to settle the claims of the
Loyalists, 444.
Antwerp, 298, 306.
Apsley, Lord, 90.
Arbitration, international, suggested by Pulteney, 340;
not admitted by Pitt between Spain and England, 574, 575.
Arcot, Nabob of, disposes of several seats in Parliament, 108,
109.
Arden, Richard Pepper (Lord Alvanley), 58, 72, 91;
Solicitor-General, 157, 158;
Attorney-General, 234, 235, 267, 283, 437;
made Lord Alvanley, 283.
Arkwright, Sir Richard, his spinning-frame, 2, 29.
Armaments, limitation of, 341.
Armed Neutrality, the, group of politicians so-called, 429.
Armed Neutrality League, 299.
Armfelt, Baron, 532.
Armstead, Mrs., 80, 409.
Artois, Comte d’, 546, 550.
Ashburton, Lord (John Dunning), 70;
made Chancellor of the Duchy, 105.
Auckland, Lord. See Eden, William.
Australia. See New South Wales.
Austria, alliance with France, 297, 300, 314, 375;
alliance with Russia, 299, 375;
British overtures repulsed, 300;
joins Russia in the war with Turkey, 384, 385, 481, 482, 490,
491, 527;
 , ;

British policy towards, 489;

entente with Prussia, 523;
British proposals, 523–6;
weakness of her position, 527;
agrees to the Convention of Reichenbach, 528–30;
favours Russian claims, 600, 606;
peace with Turkey, 625.
See Joseph II and Leopold II.
Austrian Netherlands. See Belgic Provinces.

Babington, Thomas, 473.

Bahamas, the, 116.
Baker, Sir George, chief physician to George III, 407, 410.
Bankes, Henry, his friendship with Pitt, 58, 91, 137;
opposes Pitt’s Reform Bill (1785), 202, 203;
his independence, 293, 294.
Banks, Sir Joseph, 436.
Barbary States, 329.
Barnave, Antoine, 560, 624.
Barré, Colonel, proposes reform of public accounts, 87;
debate on his pension, 111;
accepts the Clerkship of the Pells, 159.
Barrier Treaty (1715), 298.
Bathurst, Earl, 79.
Bavaria, the Electorate of, proposal for exchange, 298, 304,
311, 353, 482.
Beauchamp, Lord, 434, 438.
Beauchamp, Lady, works on behalf of Fox, 172.
Beaufoy, Henry, 191;
supports the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, 214,
215 n.
Belgic Provinces (of Austria), proposal for exchange, 298, 304,
311, 353, 482;
revolution in, 511, 513–15, 547;
F hi ti i 513 516
 French intrigues in, 513, 516;
Joseph II deposed, 515;
ancient constitution guaranteed by the Congress of
Reichenbach, 530.
Bentinck, Count, 372.
Beresford, John, Irish Chief Commissioner of the Revenue, 248,
251, 255, 266, 337.
Berlin, Treaty of (1788), 389.
Bernstorff, Count, Danish Minister, 496, 497, 500, 615, 618.
Bible Society, founded, 473, 474.
Bischoffswerder, Baron von, Prussian diplomatist, 600;
his first mission to Vienna, 601, 609;
at Milan, 620 n.;
his second mission to Vienna, 628 n., 629.
Bolton, Lord. See Orde.
Boswell, James, his description of Wilberforce’s speech at York,
170.
Botany Bay, convict settlement at, 437–43.
Bouillé, General de, 356.
Brabant. See Belgic Provinces.
Bradford, Lord (Sir Henry Bridgeman), 90.
Bridgeman, Sir Henry. See Bradford, Lord.
Brissot, Jean Pierre, supports abolition of the Slave Trade, 458.
Bristol, opposes abolition of the Slave Trade, 463.
British Columbia, 570, 588, 589.
Brooks’s Club, 85, 90, 167, 168, 393, 408, 413, 421.
Browne, Governor, his report on slavery in Bermuda, 459.
Brunswick, Charles, Duke of, commands the Prussian troops
against Holland, 374, 376;
at the Conference of Reichenbach, 529.
Brunswick, Lewis, Duke of, guardian of the Stadholder, William
V, 306.
Brussels, revolt of, 515.
Buckingham, Marquis of. See Temple, George Grenville, Earl.
 g , q p , g ,

Bulgakoff, his mission to Constantinople, 486–8.

Burges, Bland, permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, 72;
his anecdote of Pitt and Gibbon, 72, 73;
quoted, 236, 531 n., 583 n.
Burke, Edmund, his proposals for Economic Reform, 68, 69, 84;
his failure in Parliament, 81;
on Lord Shelburne, 82;
praises Pitt’s maiden speech, 85;
opposes Reform, 109, 201, 203;
resigns, 111;
draws a retort from Pitt, 115;
made Paymaster of the Forces, 129;
opposes Pitt’s proposals for retrenchment, 132;
speech in support of the India Bill, 146;
his diatribe against Pitt’s India Amending Act, 221, 222;
reasons for his hostility to Hastings, 226;
his motions against Hastings, 227–32, 239;
opposes Pitt’s Irish Resolutions, 262;
opposes the French Commercial Treaty, 342;
epigram on Pitt, 404;
in the Regency crisis, 414, 416, 421, 423;
protests against transportation, 434, 435, 438;
rupture with Fox, 451, 558;
on the Slave Trade, 457, 462;
on the revolt in Belgium, 547;
his “Reflections on the French Revolution,” 467, 553–7;
influence of the book in England, 557;
his “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,” 558, 560, 627 n.;
his “Thoughts on French Affairs,” 559, 560;
contrasted with Pitt, 552–61;
opposes the Russian War, 613;
his opinion of Ewart, 613 n.;
on the Polish Revolution, 627.
Burke, Richard, at Coblentz, 557, 613.
Burney, Fanny, quoted, 228, 402, 408, 409, 557.
Burton Pynsent Chatham’s home 39 41 43 47
Burton Pynsent, Chatham s home, 39, 41, 43, 47.
Butler’s “Analogy,” Pitt on, 292.
Buxton, Sir T. F., 455.

Caffraria, suggested settlement on coast of, 435, 438.

Calonne, Charles Alexandre de, French Minister of Finance, and
the treaty with England, 334, 338, 343–5;
his prodigality, 346–8, 358, 540;
his visits to England, 545, 550.
Cambridge Debt Bill, 290.
Camden, Earl (Charles Pratt), Lord Chief Justice, declines office
under Pitt, 155;
President of the Council, 156, 384, 439, 560, 574 n., 616.
Camden, Marquis. See Pratt, John Jeffreys.
Camelford, Lord. See Pitt, Thomas.
Campbell, Lord, his “Lives of the Lord Chancellors” quoted, 235.
Canada, settlement of American Loyalists in, 440, 441, 443,
446, 447;
request of settlers for representative institutions and English
laws, 447, 448;
preponderance of the French, 447, 448;
Canada Bill (1791), 449–53;
success of Pitt’s policy, 453;
the future of, 588.
Canning, George, 281, 283;
on the Slave Trade, 477.
Canterbury, Archbishop of. See Moore, John.
Cape of Good Hope, 317 n., 356, 370;
question of convict settlement near, 435.
Carlisle, Earl of, Lord Privy Seal, 79, 129;
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 245, 333, 611.
Carlisle, Countess of, works on behalf of Fox, 172.
Carmarthen, Marquis of (afterwards Duke of Leeds), Foreign
Secretary, 9, 10, 13, 156, 160 n.;
correspondence with Harris, 275, 301, 302, 309, 314, 327,
335 355 360 362 493
 335, 355, 360, 362, 493;
his plays, 309, 311;
negotiations with Russia, 315–17, 489;
his suspicions of France in the matter of the Commercial
Treaty, 306, 328–30, 332, 334, 335, 343, 344, 347;
letter to the King on Dutch policy, 357;
strained relations with Pitt, 357, 358;
negotiations leading to the Triple Alliance, 365, 368, 370, 373,
374, 377, 381, 383, 384, 386, 387, 490;
a witty retort by, 424;
situation in the Baltic, 495–7;
commends Elliot, 500, 501;
becomes Duke of Leeds, 501, 502, 510;
the revolution in Belgium, 513, 516, 520;
the French Revolution, 546;
interviews with the Duke of Orleans, 547, 548;
the Nootka Sound dispute, 566, 569, 572, 576, 582;
the Eastern Question, 582, 590, 599, 605, 606, 608;
disagreement with Pitt, 616;
resigns, 618.
Carrington, Lord (Robert Smith), 91, 201, 285;
overhauls Pitt’s affairs, 287, 288.
Carteret, Lord (Henry Thynne), 159.
Cartwright, Rev. Edmund, his power loom, 3, 30.
Cartwright, Major John, 83, 204, 429;
his “Society for Promoting Constitutional Information,” 109,
206.
Catharine II, Czarina, 136, 140, 298;
alliance with Joseph II, 299, 353, 483;
repartee to Diderot, 299, 300;
repels British overtures, 300–4, 348, 488;
her schemes against Turkey, 304, 314, 315, 348, 353, 390,
481–3, 582;
makes a commercial treaty with France, 348, 485, 488;
war with Turkey, 375, 385, 487, 488, 502, 590, 591;
state progress to the Crimea, 480, 481, 483;
meeting with Joseph II, 480–3;
 g p , ;
her career and character, 483, 484;
agreement with the King of Poland, 485, 486;
her anger against England, 488, 489, 494;
war with Sweden, 491, 493, 494, 502, 520, 521;
makes overtures to Fox, 504;
refuses British offer of mediation, 526;
makes peace with Gustavus III, 531, 532, 582, 592, 593;
her promises to him, 532, 533;
approached by Leopold II, 592;
Hertzberg’s treacherous proposals to, 597;
rejects Pitt’s demands for the status quo, 592, 598;
anxious for a peaceful settlement, 615, 618;
Pitt’s new proposals, 620, 621;
makes peace with Turkey, 626;
alliance with Sweden, 628, 629.
Cavendish, Lord G., 90.
Cavendish, Lord John, Chancellor of the Exchequer, resigns,
111;
moves a vote of censure against the Government, 120;
again Chancellor of the Exchequer, 129;
Pitt exposes the weak points of his Budget, 132;
forms a revenue committee, 185.
Cazalès, Jacques Antoine Marie de, 572.
Chambers, Sir Robert, anecdote of, 213.
Channing, Professor E., on the action of the United States to the
Loyalists, 444 n.
Charles III of Spain, 568.
Charles IV of Spain, 568, 575, 577, 583, 584.
Charlotte, Queen, her virtue and unpopularity, 8;
her simple tastes, 24;
receives the wife of Warren Hastings, 226, 228;
her parsimony, 392, 393;
relations with the Prince of Wales, 393, 397, 402;
the King’s illness, 407, 408, 411, 414, 415, 420, 422, 426,
430.