<iu 
 
 # 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 •^ 1^ III 2.2 
 
 " ■:& IIIIIM 
 
 11.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 /] 
 
 4^W 
 
 
 
 // 
 
 -iS^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 / 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 4 
 
 V 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 i\ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 23 >,«T *!N SrMIT 
 
 WUSTIR,^ >' 14510 
 
 (71*) •72-4S03 
 
 4^ 
 
 4!^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICIViH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 Tl 
 tc 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagAe 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculAe 
 
 r~~| Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 r~n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou da la 
 distortion le long de la marge intirieura 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans le texte, 
 mais, Horsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas Ati filmAes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6td possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restauries et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 r~7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 n 
 
 Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualiti inigale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materia 
 Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~7| Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 r~| Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 r~~| Only edition available/ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont it(b film^es A nouveau de faqon A 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 o 
 fi 
 
 O 
 b( 
 th 
 si 
 ot 
 fii 
 si( 
 or 
 
 Tl 
 sh 
 
 n 
 
 w 
 
 M 
 dli 
 en 
 be 
 
 rifl 
 re( 
 m< 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 1IX 
 
 »x 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
ils 
 
 lu 
 
 iifier 
 
 ne 
 
 age 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are lilmed 
 beginning with the front cover and endinq on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated mpres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right end top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire fiim6 fut reproduit grdce A la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont fiim6s en comnsenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivant*^ apparaltra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon ie 
 cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 filmis d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, 11 est fiimd A partir 
 de I'angle supArleur gauche, de gauche h droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 lllustrent la mAthode. 
 
 ta 
 
 ure, 
 
 ] 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 4 
 
 » 
 
 ■ - 
 
 • 
 
?■' 
 
 :*';'■ .' . ^ .■ 
 
 liiji- 
 
 ^. • 
 
 Aii AUTHENTIC 
 
 ACCOUNT 
 
 or T H t 
 
 R 
 
 TAKEN BY THB LATB 
 
 feARL OF CHATHAM 
 
 f N A 
 
 TRANSACTION 
 
 Which paiTed in the Beginning of the Year 1778. 
 
 THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 YRINTID FOR I. ALMON, OPPOSITE BURLINOTOM- 
 HOUSS, PICCADILtY. MDCCLXXVUI. 
 
 £Pncc Oat Shilling.] 
 
 Ta 
 
 %-^. 
 
AH AUTHENTIC 
 
 ACCOUNT, ^c. 
 
 m II 
 
 (N. E. The letters (a) (h), 6ff. refer to the 
 fame letters in the Appendix which is fub- 
 JQmd to (his ac^pMQt*] 
 
 VARIOUS faife reports having been indur. 
 triouQ/ propagatedf concerning a negocia* 
 tion, (if it may be fo called) faid to have been 
 carried on between the Earl of Bute and the late 
 Earl of Chatham, it has been thought indifpen- 
 (ibly ncceifary to draw up u diftind and au- 
 thentic af.count, from papers now in pofleflion 
 of the Earl of Chatham's family* of what did 
 pafs relative to thar affair, that it may appear, 
 whether the tranfadtion did, or did not, origi- 
 nate from Lord Chatham ; and that it may be 
 clearly afcertained, what were his fcntiments and 
 difpofiuon with regard to it. 
 
 A z ■ ... 
 
wamm 
 
 f 4 ] 
 
 It appears, f^) that various convcrfation h^4 
 paflTed between Sir James Wright and Dr. Adr 
 Sington, relative to Lord Bute and Lord Ghatr 
 ham, previous to the third of February, 1778, 
 but that Lord Chatham yras in no vvife ^pprifc^ 
 of this, till the above-mentioned day, on which 
 Dr. Addington went to Hayes, and read to Lord 
 Chatham the following extrat^t of a letter, which 
 the Doftor informed him, he had that morning 
 received from Sir James Wright ; 
 
 No. I. — ExtraSf of a Utter from Sir James fFrigbf 
 tfiDr, Mdington, ^ 3^ ^^ v? ■ 
 
 f| 
 
 •• As I immediately, on my return from Lord 
 • Bute's, took down in fhort hand the principa) 
 '< heads of it, I think I fhall not deviate mate- 
 ** rially from the very words of the converfa- 
 •* tion, at ieaft if the fpirit of his Lordlhip^s 
 ** language is debilitated, the eiichtial matter of 
 l^ it is the fame, 
 
 '* I told Lord Bute, that a friend of mine, 
 •• whofc honour and fincerity I could rely upon, 
 " had hinted to me (t that he thought Lord 
 ^* Chatham had a high opinion of his Lordfbip'^ 
 
 • The truth of this part is expreftly denied by Dr. Ad* 
 Kington in his Narrativt, in which the DoAor declares, 
 that to the beft of his remembrance, Lord Chathaqi had 
 jievcr once named X^rd ^ute to him. (ij (b) 
 
 " honouf 
 
 !!i 
 
I i 3 
 
 ff honour, as ^ell a$ his fincere good wiihes for 
 ?.* the public fafecy). He enquired who my 
 ?* friend wa$ ? I told hin) it was you. He rer 
 M plied, I know he is much Lord Chatham's 
 *5 friend *, I know alfo, that he is an honeft man, 
 ^* and a man of fenfet I related to him the con- 
 ^* verfation that had paflfed between yourfelf and 
 f* me, at our laft meeting. He faid. Lord Chat- 
 f* ham was one of the very few he had ever 
 f* a6led with in Admiqiftration, who had Ihewn 
 " great honefty and generofiiy of fentiment, 
 " with a finpcre condud, and intention for the 
 ■*' King's anfi the public welfi»re, 
 
 " That as for himfetf, he faid, he had no 
 " conneftipn with any oqe in Adminiftration j 
 ** that he had nop the leaft diftant friendlhip 
 «* witji Lord North, , pr he fliould certainly ad- 
 *' vife him, by all means, to aim at gaining 
 «* Lord Chatham over to the King's fervice and 
 «• confidence ; and, faid he, you mgy tell your 
 ** friend. Dr. Addington, to aflure Lord Chatr 
 ** han?, that if he fhould think proper to take 
 •' ari a£tive part in Admin|itra.ion, he Ihall 
 *« have my moft hearty concvJrrcnce, and fincere 
 ** good \vi(he$ j and you havp qiy full leave to 
 •* communicate ^11 my Tci^timents on this fubjeft 
 <* to your friend. He continued faying many 
 ** very rcfpeftful things of Lord Chatham, add- 
 f* ing, had we not unfortunately difagreed abouc 
 ?* the laft peace, I am fure he and I fliould have 
 f* continued fuch fteadv friends, that this coun- 
 f* try never would have experienced her prc- 
 \l (cpt fcycrc misfortunes. He alfo laid, the 
 
 " prior 
 
 C( 
 
t « ] 
 
 *• prior part of Lord Chatham's laft fpecch, ?vai 
 ^ manly and conftitutional, and could not l^ut 
 *' induce every one, a well-wiflier to his coun- 
 ** try, to vf'ifti to fee him again take a part in 
 ** the government of the King's afi^irs, which 
 ** would be a happinefs for the whole empire, 
 f* He continued faying, perhaps wc have men 
 *' of abilities in the Houfe of Lords, but thofc in 
 •* Adminiftration (cKcept I ord Suffolk, who is 
 V ufually ili haU the ytar) are none of them 
 fufficiently ferious, or attentive enough to the 
 bufinefs of the nation, which is now of fo 
 much confequence, as not to be negle^ed in 
 the lead degree, He therefore could not fay 
 he had a good opinion of their condudt. He 
 alfo faid, in the courfc of the converfation, 
 that nothing but the moft imminent danger 
 to this country, ihould induce him to take 
 a part in the Government of it, unlefs in 
 conjun£lion with an uprigh!t and able A^nii* 
 ^ niftration, 
 
 «( 
 
 c< 
 
 C( 
 
 
 t< 
 
 «* Much more was faid, but of lefs moment j 
 however, all tended to convince me, that 
 there are not two other men in • the kingdom 
 more faithfully inclined to the good and fafetjr 
 of our prefent diilraded nation, than our twQ 
 ** noble friends." 
 
 « 
 
 «( 
 
 C( 
 
 *t 
 
 i 
 
 [This letter was dated January 2, it {boul4 
 have been February 2, having been received by 
 Pr, Addington on February g.] 
 
 Lord 
 
r 7 J 
 
 Lord Ciiatham didated the follO\Ving meflagtf 
 in anfwcrv which was taken down in writing by 
 Dr. Addington, a copy of which was delivered 
 by him to Sir James Wright: 
 
 No. 11. — Copy of a note gh'en hy BoSior Mdingtott 
 to Sir James Wright, 
 
 !■: 
 
 ft( 
 
 C( 
 
 «( 
 
 • *• Lord Chatham heard with particular fatis- 
 •* fadtion, the favourable fentiments on his fub- 
 jeft of the noble Lord, with whom you had 
 talked with regard to the impending ruin of 
 the kingdom. He fears all hope is precluded, 
 ** but adds, that zeal, duty, and obedience, may 
 •' outlive hope •, that if any thing can prevent 
 ** the confummation of public ruin, it can only 
 <* be new CounfelSy and new CounfelhrSt without 
 *' farther lofs of time •, a real change from a 
 •* fincere conviftion of paft errors, and not a 
 ** mere palliation, which muft prove fruitlcfs." 
 
 It appears from Dr. Addington*s Narrative, 
 (c) that the Dodtor then proceeded to inform 
 Lord Chatham of the fubftance of thofc parts of 
 the converfaiion which had paficd between him 
 and Sir James Wright, which are not recited in 
 Sir James's letter of Feb. 2d, No. I. 
 
 The account of this, as well as what paflTed at 
 that time, in converfation between Lord Chatham 
 
 and 
 
t 8 J 
 
 and JDt. Addington,'arid particularly Lord Cha'f-' 
 ham*s declaration, " that it was impolTible for 
 •• him to fcrve the King and Country with cither 
 «* Lord Bute or Lord North'* is contained in 
 Dr. Addington's Narrative, (c) 
 
 Oh the 7th of February, Dr, Addington fcnt 
 the following letter to Hayes : 
 
 i 
 
 ^'^ 
 
 
 Vi 
 
 I. . J 
 
 No. HI.— C^ of a letter from Ut, Jddirigtorii 
 to the Earl of Chatham, dated fVi^more-ftreei^ 
 Saturday two o\loch 
 
 •* My good Lord, 
 " Sir James Wright took a corrcft copy of 
 •* the valuable writing entrufted to my car^, 
 " between twelve and one yefterday. At one 
 *^ he waited on his friend, and I was to call in 
 «* Brook-ftreet for his anfwer at half paft twb^ 
 «• I was puniflual to the time •, Sir James had 
 •* been at home, but a few minutes before my 
 ** arrival had been called back to his friend. I 
 ** waitod half an hour, and then left a letter, 
 " requeuing the favour of a line from Sif 
 «• James, before he went out of town. At five, 
 «« I received a ftiort note, faying that his ftaty 
 •* in town could be of no fervice, and that he 
 «* would give me an account by the poft this day 
 " of his convcrfation with -r— . Perhaps more 
 
 perfons 
 
 «( 
 

 t 9 ] 
 
 peffons than one were to be canfulred bcfbre 
 an account could be given. A&fiu' as: icDotd 
 learn, all parties would be pleafed with your 
 Lordfhip and Lord Camden, and that no ob- 
 jeftion was likely to be rtiade to more tharj 
 one of your Lordfhip's firiertdiB. Sir James 
 Wright afked what was meant by the words 
 real change," I thought they wanted no ex- 
 planation. He thought they included his 
 friend, as well as thus Miaiftry, and wi(bed 
 that your LordlBip and his friend could have 
 an interview, but gave me no commifllion to 
 mention his wifbes. He only added, that be 
 really believed it was io t\xc power of your 
 Lordlhip and his friend to fave the nation •, I 
 only added that I befieted the King and your 
 Lordfhip could fave the nation, and that his 
 friend might be inftrumentat to its falvation* 
 by turning the Royal mind from paft errors. 
 I hope your Lordfhip and Lady Chatham go 
 on well, and that I ffiall have the happinefs 
 of paying my refpeds to you both in Harlcy- 
 ftreet, on Monday. I moft heartily congra- 
 tulate my Lady and your Lordibip on the fafe 
 ** arrival of Mr. James Pitt. 
 
 •• I am evcr> my dear and good Lord, ; 
 *' your moft faithful, and 
 .' *' obliged ;.*Mnble Servant, 
 
 , ' " A. ADDINGTON.*' 
 
 Wtgmtrejlreeti two e* clock, Saturday, 
 
 The fame nigbt Lord Chatham wrote with h'rs 
 own hand the followrng note, in anfwcr to Dr. 
 
 B Addington 
 
 it 
 «c 
 
 it 
 <( 
 
 ii 
 
 4% 
 «( 
 «c 
 <t 
 «( 
 «c 
 <c 
 «* 
 
 «Y 
 C* 
 «( 
 «( 
 «( 
 
 w 
 
 4( 
 «C 
 
 c* 
 at 
 tt 
 
 I 
 
f 10 ]- 
 
 Addington, which was rcGcivcd by the Doftor 
 the next morning : 
 
 No. W.-^Copy of a note from the Earl of Chatham 
 to Dr. Addington, 
 
 :/ 
 
 Hayes, Fek 7. 
 '* The converfations which a cercait) gentle^ 
 ** man has found means to have with you, are 
 ** on his part of a nai;ure too infidious, and to 
 *' my feelings too ofFenfive, to be continued, or 
 ** wtrejeffed. What can this officious emilTary 
 ** mean, by all the nonfenfe he has at times 
 •* throfwri but to you ? The next attempt he 
 •* makes to furprize friendly integrity by courtly 
 ** infmuation, let him know that his great pa- 
 •* tron and your village friend differ in this *, 
 ** one has brought the King and Kingdom to 
 ** ruin, the other would fincerely endeavour to 
 " fave it." 
 
 Dr. Addington, on the 8th of February, fcnt 
 to Lord Chatham at Hayes the following letter, 
 (enclofing one which he had received that day 
 from Sir James Wright, foon after the receipt of 
 the above note from Lord Chatham :) 
 
 ■( 
 
 * Sir James had told the Doflor, and the Do£lor had toM 
 Lord Chatham, that Lord Chatham and Lord Bute did not 
 differ in political fentiments, which, the Do£tor thinks might 
 occailou the M fentence in Lord Chatham's note 
 
 No; 
 
[ " I 
 
 No. Y.'-^opy of a letter from Dr, Adiington t$ 
 the Earl of Chatham^ 
 
 (( 
 
 I am infinitely obliged to you, my dear 
 '* Lord,' for your kind and friendly caution 
 againfl: furprife and inlinuation. It mall never 
 be forgotten, and when I fee the gentleman 
 next ( which perhaps may be to-morrow) your 
 V' Lordfliip's-wife and noble commands (hall be 
 •* literally obeyedi The enclofed letter, which 
 •' was promifed to come yefterday by the poft, 
 ** arrived this morning, by a fpecial meflfenger. 
 ** It needs no comment of min$ } I am lure 
 *' your Lordfhip will vinderftand the language 
 *^ and drift of it, much better than I can, or 
 ** any body elfe, I am impatient to fee your 
 ^' Lordfhip in town, and pray a few minutes 
 •' with you to-morrow. The time is come for 
 *' you and you only to fave a King and King- 
 ^' dom. Your Lordfhip knows that I am ever 
 " Your mofl faithful,' apd rnofl 
 " affci^iopate humble Servant, 
 feh, 8, 1778, !« A. ADDINGTON" 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 No. 
 
 No. YL-^Copy of a letter from Sir James Pf^Hgbt 
 to Dr, Addittgton» 
 
 Ray-Houfet Feb. 7, 1778. 
 
 " My dear Doflor, 
 *' I communicated our converfation of yeflcr- 
 ^ day tp my friend, foon after I left you, and 
 
 ^ % r thcii 
 
i:: 
 
 ** then (hewed him a copy of the paper yog, aj- ' 
 '* lowci^ mc to tranferibc. You will cafil^' re- 
 •* colleft, on my iiril reading it over with yoii, . 
 •• the obfcrvatfon 1 ftiade on the particular cx- 
 ** prefTion in it, " A nW change, and npt a mere 
 ** palliation •," namely, that your noble friend 
 *• ftill thonght that Lord Bute had inftuenqe in 
 «» the mealures of Adminiftration. In the very 
 ** fame light he alfo conftrued this exprefllon .; 
 '« he therefore defined nie to inform you, for 
 " the inftrudlion of your fViend, that the ill 
 « health he had long been fubjeft to, united with 
 *' the diilrcffes of his f^rnily, had aCcuftomea 
 « him to a perfedt retired life, which he hoped, 
 •* as long a.s he lived, lleadily to adhere to ; he 
 ** added, that his long abfence from all fort of 
 •* public bufinefs, and the many years which 
 " nad intervened fince he Taw the King, pre- 
 ** eluded him from forming any idea of mea- 
 ** fures paft or to come, but what he gathers 
 «» from very general converfatioh, or the news- 
 papers i and this total ignorance, he faid, 
 renders the qpiriion given of the prefent dan- 
 gerous criTis more alarming to him than it 
 " would otherwile be and much more painful, 
 as, "^otwithftanding his zeal for the country, 
 love tor the Kiqg, and very high opinion of 
 Lord Chatham,, he has it not in his power to 
 ** be of thw* leaft ufe in ths dangerous emcr- 
 *' gcncy ; and that from his heart he wilhed 
 " Lord Chaihatx every imaginable fucccfs in 
 ** the reftoration of the public welfare. 
 
 " I think, my dear Dbftor, this was almoft 
 •* verbatim my friend's convcrfation j at lead I 
 
 ** am 
 
 «( 
 
 Cl 
 
 
({ 
 
 <« 
 
 . ' - [ .3 ] 
 
 ^ tm ronfidont it is a fac-fimile of his real len- 
 ** timents ; and you fee how very dtftant thejr 
 ^* are from the leaft inclination ever to interfere 
 ^' in the prefenc or any future Adminiftration, 
 ^* whi^h ypur npble friend feemed to apprehend^ 
 ** Nfay he extend the powers of his pwn great 
 f* and honefl abilities^ to heal the dreadful 
 ** wounds, which this poor country has receive^ 
 ** from what he very wifely calls pafi errors, 
 ^' Without his head, ^s well as heart, i fear all 
 is loll, 1 rempmbpr poor Lord Northingtoni 
 faying to me more than once, not long before 
 ^' his de^th, that ''as 1 was a young man, I 
 " (hould probably live to fee (if \ furvived Lord 
 •• Chatham and a few other great men) that this 
 ^* country would not only want abilities but 
 ** hearts, and that our ftate would then be 
 ** really piteous, where both knowledge ^nd in- 
 •* tegrity were wanting to proteift us." Pray 
 ** (jpd your noble friend may ftrp forth before 
 •* this fprrowful %pocha arrives, and Item the 
 " dreadful tide of profligacy, inattention to bu- 
 ** llnefs, and barefaced immorality, which daily 
 ** encreafe in every department of life, and mufb 
 bring do\yn ruin, ^nd the diiTolution of our 
 country. * '; •' ' ' 
 
 ** That firft quality of knowledge^ which Lor4 
 Northington lamented the cxtindion of in 
 ** this country, 1 (hall never prcfume to be en- 
 '• titled to ; but that of integrity I dare aflcrt 
 " my claim to •, and in that particular I hold 
 ** myfeif inferior to no man : 1 only wifh it wa^ 
 ** m my power to give your great and invalu- 
 
 »* able 
 
 (« 
 
 4( 
 
■II 
 
 CI 
 
 «c 
 
 «( 
 
 [ I' J 
 
 **" able friend the moft convincing proofs of this 
 •* aflertion, as well as of my profound vcnera- 
 •* tion for him. You have known me long 
 enough to be perfuaded that nothing can di- 
 vert me from the love of my country, and 
 the paths of an honeft condud j therefore 
 ever command, with the utmoft freedom, my 
 •^ dear Doftor, 
 
 " Your moft faithful and fincere friend, 
 
 ** JAMES WRIGHT." 
 
 " P. S. I (hall be in town on Tuefday about 
 ^ three o'clock, and ftay till the following day." 
 
 The next day the following anfwer, written 
 by the Countefs of Chatham, was fent to Dr. 
 Addington ; 
 
 w 
 
 No. VII. — Copy of a letter from Lady Chatham 
 to Dr» Addinpofii dated Feb, 9, » 
 
 •c 
 cc 
 
 C( 
 
 «i 
 
 ct 
 (( 
 it 
 
 •* I write, my dear Sir, from my Lord's bedt 
 fide, who has had much pain all lad night 
 from gout in his left hand and wrift. The 
 pulfe indicates more pain to come. He de- 
 fines me to exprefs for him the true fcnfe he 
 has of all your very friendly attention in this 
 very delicate and critical fituation. The 
 gentleman's letter which you tranfmit is 
 handfomely written, and fu^cicntly explicit* 
 
 At 
 
 «i 
 
¥ 
 
 •* At the fame time, it is impofTiblc not to fe- 
 ** mark, how widely it differs from the tenor of 
 " ibmeof the intimations conveyed in for^r 
 ** ftrange converfations to you. The letter now 
 •* before him is written alfo with much good 
 •• fenfe and candour, as coming from a heirt 
 •* touched with the extreme dangers impending 
 *' over the King and Kingdom. Thofe dangers 
 ** are indeed extreme, and feem to preclude aU 
 " hope." 
 Hayes, quarter before one, Feb. 9, 1778." 
 
 From this unambiguous and authentic ac- 
 •' count, founded upon indifputable evidence, 
 every impartial perfon will determine whether 
 the following propofition is not fiilly eftablilhed : 
 viz. ■ ' ■■•■'■■';!: 
 
 C( 
 
 ** That the late Earl of Chatham not bn!jr 
 " did not court a political negotiation with the 
 " Earl of Bute, but without hefitation, pei-emp- 
 torily rejedted every idea of ading with his 
 Lordfhip in Adminiftration.*; • ['/ [ •' ;' 
 
 ;"; . rr !; j : ]j..!; -'ifj ,r;:;i 
 •' • ' .'■ • f 7' t<. hn\A 'jHi Jcri *j,o ri-.tjl 
 
 
 * f.'ff 
 
 
 
 Tliic'j.. 
 
 ■ ) 
 
 
 AtPENPIX. 
 
■. .,■■■••» 
 
 A P P E N D I 3tr 
 
 Dr/aDDING TON'S Narrative. 
 
 ¥^ 
 
 Confaining his Account of what pajfed rektive. P4 
 this TranfaHioHi 
 
 W 'T^HE firft time Sir James Wright talked 
 X with Dr. Addington refpefting Lord 
 Bute and Lord Chatham was about the begin- 
 ning of January, 177^* Sir James began with 
 lamenting the Htuation of this country, and 
 gave it as his opinion, that the only method of 
 iaving it was for Lord Bute and Lord Chatham 
 to unite Hrmi^if together, but remarking, that they 
 were two of the men the King hated iwoft. After 
 various ronverfations on this matter. Sir James 
 faid Lord Bute thought Lord Chatham had a 
 difrcfpeft for him. Dr. Addington replied, {b) 
 that, to the beft of his remembrance. Lord 
 Chatham had never once named Lord Bute to 
 him, but that he thought Lord Chatham had 
 no difrefpeft for Lord Bute*, adding, that 
 though ihey might differ in politics. Lord Chat- 
 ham was not the kind of man to have difrefped, 
 or bear ill will to any man. Sir James added, 
 he was fure Lord Bute had the higheft refped 
 tor Lord Chatham *, that he had heard Lord 
 Bute bertow great commendations on his whole 
 
 fpccch 
 
X, 
 
 I «,7 ] 
 
 ipttch at the beginning of the feffion, except 
 that part which regarded the recall of the troop'?, 
 and that the Do^or might teh Lord Chatham to 
 if he pleafed ; but he never mentioned k till the 
 3d of February, 
 
 l>Jothing more pafled till the 2d of February, 
 ^hen Sir James alked the Dodlor, whether he 
 had mentioned their former converfation to 
 Lord Chatham. He faid he had hot ; Sir James 
 then faid, that fince that converfation he haid 
 feen Lord Bute, and was certain he had the 
 fame earned delire with Lord Chatham to fave 
 the country s and was alfo certain, that nobody 
 could fave it, but Lord Chatham, with the af- 
 fijdance of Lord Bute : that Lord Bute was 
 ready to alTift him, and wou)d be Secretary of 
 State in the room of Lord Weymouth : the 
 Dodor underftood that Lord Bute had told Sjr 
 James fo ', and he has afked Sir James once or 
 twice Hnce, whether Lord Bute would have been 
 Secretary of State in Lord Weymouth's room ? 
 and he anfwered, Yes, he would, or would nor, 
 as Lord Chatham pleafed. When Sir James 
 had mentioned Lord Bute*s readinefs to aiTifl: 
 Lord Chfitham, and to be Secretary of State, he 
 cxpreflcd a w.i(h that the whole which had paffcd 
 might be communicated to Lord Chathanii. 
 The Poftor on this refolved to go to Hayes the 
 next morning for that purpofe, looking upon it 
 as a matter of very great moment. But he dc- 
 fired to have in writing, before he went, the 
 fubftancc of what had pafifed between Lord 
 Bute and Sir James. Sir James faid he had not 
 
 C time 
 
t i'8 1 
 
 * 
 
 time t6 write then, as he was in a hurry t6 go 
 to Ray Houfe, but would write in the evening, 
 and fend his letter to town by nine the next 
 ftiorning. The Doiflor, notwitbftanding, was 
 permitted to acquaint Lord Chatham with Lord 
 Bute's willingnefs to be Secret v of State, and, 
 as he underftood, with every tuing elfe he has 
 depofed, which is not exprefled in the Icccer. 
 (Vide No. I. in the preceding account.) The 
 letter is dated the 2d of January, 1778: it 
 fhould have been dated February 2d : The 
 Dodor received it February 3d before nine in 
 the morning, and fet out direftly for Hayes. 
 He read the letter to Lord Chatham, who was 
 very attentive, and in a few minutes afterwards 
 diftated this anfwer. (Vide No. II. in the pre- 
 ceding account.) (c) As foon as Dr. Addington 
 had writ ;^nd read to Lord Chatham the above 
 anfwer, he communicated to Lord Chatham 
 what Sir James W^right had told him of the 
 readinefs of Lord Bute to be Secretary of State 
 in the place of Lord Weymouth. He feemed 
 to think it ftrange. " Indeed," faid he, " did 
 Sir James Wright tell you fo ?** " He certainly 
 told me fo." — After this, he alked Lord Chat- 
 ham, whether he had any objection to coming 
 in with Lord Bute or Lord North ? He lifted 
 up his hands, and faid, " It was impoffible for 
 " him to fervc the King and Country with 
 *' either of them; and if any one aOcs you about 
 ** it, I defire you to bear witnefs that you heard 
 •• me fay fo." He repeated the fame words 
 juft as the Doctor was leaving him. 
 
 Sir 
 
[19] 
 
 Sir James continued at Ray Houfe till Fe- 
 bruary 5th or 6th, He called on the Doftor in 
 the morning of the 6th, and took a correct 
 copy of Lord Chatham's anfwer, dated Fe- 
 bruary 3d. Upon reading it, he aflied what 
 was meant by the words, " real change." It 
 looks, faid he, as if they included Lord Bute 
 as well as the Miniflry, and as if Lord Chatham 
 thought Lord Bute was concerned in public af- 
 fairs. I can aflfure you, he has nothing to do 
 with them, and has not feen the King thefe 
 two years. If Lord Chatham has a mind to 
 undertake the direction of public affairs, there 
 ivill be no objedion to his having the aflifliance 
 of Lord Camden i but there are fome he might 
 chufe who could not be admitted. Sir James 
 faid, he was to wait on Lord Bute at one that 
 day, and would fend the Do6tor an anfwer to 
 LordChatham's paper between two and three, if 
 Lord Byte fhould chufe to give any. But 9. 
 misfortune happening in Lord Bute's family, no 
 anfwer was fent till February 8th in the. morn- 
 ing. On the 7th of February, a fervant of 
 Lord Chatham's came to town, by whom Dr. 
 Addington fent a letter to Hayes at two o'clock, 
 giving Lrrd Chatham an Recount of the above- 
 jnentioned convcrfatlon with Sjr J^mes Wright 
 on the 6th. On the evening of the 7th, his 
 Lordlhip wrote the following anfwer, which the 
 Podor received the next morning, (Vide No, 
 III. and No. IV, infertcd in the preceding ac- 
 «oun^) 
 
 C z 
 
 On 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 dn the 8th of PAi^aiV, *o<^n ^^tw Lor4 
 Chatham's letter arrived, the Dodor received 
 that letter from Sir James, which had been ex- 
 Defied from February 6th. (Vide No. VI. ir^ 
 the preceding account. It is dated February 
 7th, and contains Loird Bute's ani\ver to Lord 
 Chatham's paper of February 3d. The Doftbr 
 lent it immediately to Hayes, and had the next 
 morning the /ollowing anfwer written by Lady 
 Chatham, dated' February 9th. (Vide No. VII, 
 in the preceding accduflt.) The D0(5i:or com- 
 municated to Sir James 'Wright this letter fron^ 
 Lady Chatham, and alfo thelatter part of that 
 from Lord Chatham as fodn as he could, knd ib 
 the affair ended. 
 
 (h) P.S. In Sir Jatiies Wright's Jetter of 
 February 2d, there are ilhe following words: 
 «* 1 told Lord Bute that a friend of mine had 
 ^** hinted to me, that he thought Lord Chatham 
 •* had a high opinion of his Lordftiip's honour, 
 ** as well as his fmcere good wlfhes for the 
 *' public fafety." After reading thefe words to 
 Lord Chatham, the Dodor could hot but take 
 notice that Sir James had mlftaken him, for idl 
 he laid was, that he tiiotight Lord Chatham had 
 lio difrelpedt for Lord Bute, &c; as is ftatcd 
 above. 
 
 V The 
 
 21 » ■ t. 
 
[ " ] 
 
 ■*^:* The following Letters having been 
 V^fitten fmce the original Publication of 
 the preceding Authentic Account, they arc 
 iadjded to this Edition, by defire, , 
 
 Hilljireet^ Off. 23. 
 
 THE publication which appeared about the 
 middle of this month, and faid to be taken 
 from a copy handed about by the friends of the 
 late Earl of Chatham, makes it neceflfary for 
 me to give an anfwer, iign«d with my name; 
 
 The firft paragraph of that publication ob- 
 fcrvcs very truly, that various falfe reports had 
 been induftriouQy propagated concerning a ne- 
 gotiation faid to have been carried on between 
 the Earl of Bute and the late Earl of Chatham. 
 No Icfs than three feveral reports of negotiations 
 between thofe two noble Lords, reached me ii> 
 the cburfe of lad fpring, each differing from the 
 other two in circumlUnces, and all from one; 
 another in the fubftitutes named as having been 
 employed in the tranfaftions 5 and I took fome 
 ^ains to fearch into the origin of thefe ftories 5 
 jiot to fatisfy any doubt of mine as to their falfe- 
 hood, (for I believed none of them) but to con- 
 vince fome of my acquaintance who difagreed, 
 and others who might difagree with me in opi- 
 nion upon the fubjeft. • 
 
 In confequencc of thefe enquiries, the perfons 
 mentioned as agents, or mcflage-bearcrs, in two 
 
 "■•■■•■■■■■■"■■ ■■■ ^ ■■' ^ 
 
 ,1 
 
 if 
 
 1 3 
 
 !'! 
 
 I, 
 
 J : 
 
 J- 
 J" 
 
t " ] 
 
 of the three reports, very readily difclaimcd all 
 (hare in, or knowledge of the tranfadions 
 afcribed to them. With rcfpciSl: to the third, 
 there was more pretence of foundation, fincc 
 meflages certainly pa (Ted fas appears by your 
 publication of the 15th of Oftobcr) between the 
 late Earl of Chatham and my father, by means 
 of Sir James Wright and Dr. Addington. 
 
 The reprefentation I had heard of fome par- 
 ticulars in the fubjed matter of that intercourfe 
 furprized me fo much, that I requefted the fla- 
 vour of an explanation from Dr. Addington, 
 who obligingly allowed me to write from his 
 mouth fuch an account as he thought fit to give 
 me, and approved my ftate of it when written. 
 This was put into Sir James Wright's hands, 
 who in a Ihort time produced an anfwer con* 
 tradiding it in all the material articles of their 
 converfations, on which Dr. Addington*,s re- 
 ports to Lord Chatham had been founded. I 
 read over the anfwer to Dr. Addington, who 
 perfifted in maintaining the truth of his relation 5 
 but faid, he would re-confider the matter at lei- 
 fure, and put his thoughts into writing. Ac- 
 cordingly he afterwards fent me a paper, the 
 fame with that referred to in your publication, 
 and fipce printed under the title of Dr. Adding- 
 ton's Narrative, 
 
 The relations given by thefe two gentlemen 
 being thus inconfiftent, it was thought proper 
 that a full abftraft fhould be prepared of their 
 rcfpeftive papers and others which my enquiries 
 had produced, including my father's own a(;- 
 
 , count 
 
II 
 
 i 
 
 [ 23 1 
 
 count of his part in Sir James Wright's tranf- 
 adion, digcftcd into feme method •, to be fliewra 
 CO fuch as might defire to fee it, but not allowed 
 to be copied. This abftraS or digcft was exe- 
 cuted by a friend, at my requeft, in a fair ftate 
 of the allegations on both fides between Sir 
 James and the Doctor ; with a preliminary de- 
 tail or introduftory narrative of the fcveral ftcps 
 I had taken in the inquiries above- mentioned : 
 and my friend's compilation hath been read by 
 a few people } but no copy, as I am informed, 
 hath been delivered out of my family, except 
 one, which had been intended for a very near 
 relation, and was fent to Lady Chatham, with 
 copies of Sir James Wright's papers, at her 
 Ladyfhip's own dcfirc. To thefe communica- 
 tions, I underftand, it is immediately owing, 
 that the authentic account publilhed was judged 
 indifpenfably necefTary to be drawn up and 
 circulated ; of which Lady Chatham was fa 
 good as to furnifh my father with a copy thirteen 
 or fourteen days before it appeared in print ; 
 fo that I, who confider myfelf as being, in fome 
 degree, the caufe of the publication, am for 
 this reafon called upon to take a public notice 
 of it, if my connexion, and the nature of the 
 occafion, did not afford me fufficicnt induce- 
 ment and excufe for fo doing. 
 
 The account is avowed exnrefsly to be drawn 
 up from papers in poiTefllon of the Earl of 
 Chatham's family, in order to Ihew whether 
 the fuppofed negotiation did or did not originate 
 from his Lordlhip: fo that the papers are con- 
 fcffcdly furnifticU by the Earl's family for the 
 
 purpolc 
 
 1' 
 
 
 I 
 
 r. 
 
 < I. y- 
 
 . A" 
 
 m 
 
 % 
 
I 
 
 (Hi 
 
 Jjufpofe of compofing this account, which there- 
 fore bears the ftamp of that family's authority, 
 whether printed by their dire6tion or not. 
 
 The account ciofes with the following obfer. 
 Vation, viz. '•* frcm this unambiguous and authek' 
 tic account^ founded on indifputable evidence, every 
 impartial per f.ri will determine whether fhe follow" 
 ing propofition is not fully ejiablifhed^ viz. that 
 the late Earl of Chatham not only did not court a 
 political negociation with the Earl of Bute, but 
 without hejttation peremptorily rejected every idea 
 cf a£ling with his Lordjhip in Adminijiration.'' 
 
 The prcpofuion here put, it muft be oh- 
 ferved, does not only concern Lord Chatham's 
 rejcdion of every idea, &c. but involves in if a 
 Itrong implication, as if Lord Bute had defircd 
 and propofed to take a part in Adminiltration 
 with his Lordlliip. Now 1 do not at all enter 
 into the queftion whether Lord Chathiun, did 
 or did not court a negotiation with the Earl of 
 Bute: but when 1 confider the exprcfUon i.. bis '• 
 Lordfliip's di(5tated anfwerto Sir James Wright's 
 ictter, that he heard with particular fattsfaSiion 
 the favourable fertiments on his fubje^ of the noble 
 Lord {viz. Lord Pute) with whom Sir James 
 Upright had talked, and the following words of 
 tlie I'entencf , that zeal^ duty, and obedience might 
 ■cutlive hope, even under the impending ruin of 
 tlie kingdom, it appears to me, that wharever 
 •ideas his Lordlhip might rejeft, he had not then 
 rcfolvcd to rejcft all ideas of negociation with 
 my lather, conceiving perhaps from his afliir- 
 ancc of hearty concurrence and finccre good . 
 
 wiQics 
 
 i^ 
 
t is ] 
 
 Wirties conveyed iri Sir James Wright's letter, 
 fomc expcdtation of having the door of the 
 cabinet opened to him by that hand, which, 
 according to his notions^ had always kept the 
 key. I may proceed a ftep further: it leems 
 probable that Lord Chatham, at the beginning 
 of the prefent year, was lookinpr out for a negOr 
 tiation with my father: for Mr. Dagge, who 
 was faid in one of the above-mentioned reports 
 to be concerned in tranfafting a negotiation be- 
 tween the two noble Lords, and who is an ac- 
 quaintance of Lord Bute, happening to fay in 
 common converfation with a friend of Lord 
 Chatham, that he had heard my father fpeak 
 refpeiftfully of Lord Chatham, and give his opi- 
 nion that Lord Chatham's fervices muft of 
 courfe be called for in the prefent crifis j and 
 this being reported to Lord Chatham by his 
 friend, who heard it from Mr. Dagge, his 
 Lordlhip inftantly concluded, the words to be 
 meant as a meflage to him from my father ; but 
 luckily his friend undeceived him in time ; of 
 which I alfo have my indifputable evidence 
 from a paper of that friend, >^ ho obliged me 
 with it at my own defire, but who cannot be 
 fufpefted of wanting partiality for Lord Chat- 
 ham. — It is faid in the Authentic Account, from 
 the evidence of Dr. Adcl'ngton's Narrative, 
 that Lord Chatham held a converfation with 
 the Doctor at Hayes, in which the former de- 
 clef.red it was impojjtbk for him to ferve the public 
 with either Lord Bute or Lo*-d North \ but I 
 believe nob dy would difccrn, in this part of 
 their converfation at Haves,, the fliadow of a 
 proof that my father offered to ferve the public 
 
 D in 
 
 w 
 
 I 
 
 'J I ! 
 
 I 
 
 fit ■ 
 
 <N! 
 
[ »6 ] 
 
 in a Miniftry with his Lordfliip, unlefs Dr.' 
 Addington had added this circumftance in his 
 Narrative as gathered from Sir James Wright*s 
 difcourfe with him : fo that at lad the indilput- 
 able evidenec of this fa6t, fo far as regards my 
 father, refts wholly upon Dr. Addington's Nar- 
 rative, which hath been flatly contradicted in 
 that point, again and again, by Sir James 
 "Wright. Undoubtedly the Doftor an<i Sir 
 James would have been fufficient witneffes of 
 the mcflage intended to be conveyed through 
 them, if their accounts had agreed -, but they 
 differ fo widely and efTentially, that no evidence 
 feems to have lefs claim to be called indifput- 
 able. What other evidence then can be rc- 
 forted to in this cafe, but Lord Bute's relation 
 of his own proceedings ? This I am at liberty 
 to give you in the tollowing cxtradl from hi^. 
 letter to Lady Chatham of the i6th of Auguft 
 lafl, dated from Lucon Park. 
 
 ** Madam, 
 ** I am happy in the opportunity your Lady- 
 Ihip gives me of relating to you all I know 
 concerning a tranfadlion, in which both Lord 
 Chatham and I have been flrangely mifre- 
 preiented to each other, and concerning 
 which fo many falihoods have been indu^ 
 trioufly propagated. When Sir James 
 Wright communicated to me the very flat- 
 tering language in which he declared Lord 
 Chatham had cxprefTed himfelf concerning 
 me, I was naturally led to mention my re- 
 gard for his Lordfhip, and the high opinion 
 1 entertained of his fuperior taitiits, hoping 
 
 , ** from 
 
 cc 
 «c 
 <c 
 «c 
 
 •( 
 <( 
 
 «( 
 «( 
 <i 
 
 (C 
 
 cc 
 « 
 <t 
 4( 
 
 C( 
 
 cc 
 «( 
 cc 
 
 C( 
 
 cc 
 
 C( 
 
 cc 
 
 C( 
 
 c,c 
 cc 
 cc 
 (( 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 C( 
 
 C( 
 
 CC 
 
 «^ 
 
 c,c 
 
 cc 
 
 fr 
 
 
 
 C( 
 

 [ «7 I 
 
 from what was then publicly talked of, to 
 fee them once more employed in the minifle- 
 rial line ; and collecting from Sir James that 
 the knowledge of my fentiments would not 
 on this occafion be difpleafing, I did n^: he- 
 fitate to exprefs my hearty wiflies, that this 
 important event might foon take place. 
 Some time after this I was extremely fur- 
 prifed with a converfation Sir James faid Dr. 
 Addington wifhed to be reported to me : it 
 was in fubilance Lord Chatham's opinion of 
 the alarming fituation we were in, and the 
 neceffary meafures to be immediately taken 
 upon it. As fuch a communication to a per- 
 fon in qiy retired fituation Teemed only made 
 on a fuppofition that I had &'i\\ fome (hare in 
 public Councils, it appeared neceflary for 
 me to didate to Sir James my anfwer •, in 
 which, after lamenting the dangerous fitua* 
 tion of affairs, unknown to me in fuch an 
 extent, I added, that this affedled me the 
 more, as my long illnefs, and total feclufion 
 from all public bufmefs, put it out of my 
 power to be of the lealt fervice. — This, 
 Madum* is the whole I was privy to in this 
 affair, and all that p^Ii'ed between Sir James 
 and me upon it," .i . » ., 
 
 M 
 
 if! 
 
 I* I ■ 
 
 ' If any further explanation can be neceffary 
 from my father, refpedling either the defign 
 or purport of his meffage, he allows me to fay, 
 ip his name, that he did (perhaps erroneouily) 
 confider Dr. Addington*s reprefentations of 
 i^ord j^hatham'^ manner of fpcaklng of him, 
 • . P ? ^s 
 
 i • 
 
 - i 
 
 .* 
 
 5>^ 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 M reported at the time by Sir James Wright, 
 to be intimations thrown out by his Lordfhip, 
 in order to know his (my father's) fentiments 
 upon the fubjeft of his coming then into Ad- 
 miniftration : for which reafon my father did 
 not fcruple to fend a meffage by the perform 
 from whom he derived his information, fignify- 
 ing, that if Lord Chatham was appointed to 
 Adminiftration, the hearty concurrence of his 
 judgment and fincere wilhes of fucccfs would 
 follow that appointment. He avers at the fame 
 time, that he did not conceive a thought of 
 propofing himfelf to his Lordfliip for any office, 
 or of accepting any office with him, his own in- 
 clination having never prompted him» nor his 
 Hate of health admitted him, to engage in pub- 
 lic bufinefs, except on very few occafions in the 
 Houfe of Lords, from the tirtie of his quitting 
 the Treafury in 1763 •, neither did he entertain 
 an idea of fuggelting to Lord Chatham any ar- 
 rangement of an Adminiftration, his wilhes, and 
 the communication of them through Sir James 
 Wright, having Iblely regarded Lord Chatham. 
 There is another paffgc in your publication, 
 which appears to me more material ftill with 
 ref])ed to my father, than whai I have already 
 mennoncd. This is the copy of a note froiti 
 Lord Ciiiiiham in his own hand- writing to Dr. 
 Addington favi/.g, the ntxt cttemft hi (Sir 
 James W'irhi^ makes to furprife friendly mtepity 
 ixjtth courtly tnfimuition let him khciv that hi$ 
 great patron and your village friend differ in this j 
 one has bfou^ht tie King and Kingdom to ryin^ 
 the other would fwcerely endeawur to faw it. »«• ♦ 
 , - . , Here 
 
 ,■ 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 Here is a ktter under the Earl of Chatham'* 
 hand, vouched to be fuch by the authority of 
 his family, imputing to Lord Bute thoie counr 
 fcls, which Lord Chatham fays (whether juftly 
 or erroneouAy, is aot the prefent queftion) have 
 ruined the King and king(k>m. Every reader' 
 will at once have underftood this imputation to 
 be founded on Lord Chatham's opinion of 
 Lord Bute's fecret influence (as it is called) by 
 which he has been imagined to dictate or con* 
 troul the meafures of the Cabinet ever fmce the 
 Earl of Chatham Ijcft it. Lord Bute has not 
 been ignorant of the long prevalence of that 
 error, having fecn himfelf mofl injurioufl/ 
 treated in confequence of it, for many years 
 paft, by writers of pamphlets, news-paper ef- 
 fays, and political paragraphs.*, all which ho 
 
 EafTed over in filent indignation and contempt : 
 ut when he fees the fame cruel miflakes ad- 
 vanced and countenanced by fuch an authority 
 gs the Earl of Chatham, he thinks he fhould be 
 wanting to himfelf if he did not encounter it 
 with the bed evidence t}iat c^n be fuppofed to lie 
 within his reach; 
 
 There arc but two perfons in the kingdom 
 iwho are capable of knowing the negative of 
 that opinion with abfoiute certainty. One of 
 them is of a rank too high to be appealed to, 
 or even mentioned on this occafion i the other 
 is himfelf. He docs therefore authorize me to 
 fay, that he declares upon his iblemn word of 
 honour, he has not had the honour of waiting 
 pp his ^lajefly l^ut ^C his levee or drawing-room, 
 
 nor 
 
 14 
 
 1 ! '' 
 
 I 
 
[ 3® 1 
 
 nor has he prefumed to offer an advice or opi- 
 nion concerning the difpofition of offices, or 
 the conduft of meafures, cither direftly or inr 
 dircdly, by himfelf or any other, from the time 
 when the late Duke of Cumberland was con- 
 fohed in the arrangement of a Minillry in 
 1765 to the prefent hour. 
 
 Before I conclude, I muft apprize your rea- 
 ders that I do not intend to fet up for a news- 
 paper author, or to anfwer queftions, objections 
 or obfervations, or to engage in printed alter- 
 cation with any body. 
 
 I am, &p. 
 
 MOUNTSTUART, 
 
 Harteyjlreet^ Thurfday^ OH. 29, 177B, 
 
 A Letter appeared in the papers of Odober 
 26, figned by Lord Mountftuart, of 
 which I think it incumbent upon me to take 
 public notice, and I Ihould have done fo fooncr, 
 if I had not been at that time, at feme diftancc 
 from London. His Lordfhip*s letter contains 
 fome palTages which I think injurious to my fa- 
 ther's memory, as well as obfervations on an 
 Authentic Account, &c. (which lately appeared 
 in print) which feem to require an anfwer from 
 Lord Chatham's family. I wifh it had fallen 
 to fome other hand to difcharge this debt to my 
 
 faihcr*^ 
 
M 
 
 * i 
 
 ( > 
 
 [ 31 ] 
 
 father's memory •, at the fame time, my impa- 
 tience to vindicate his conduct, and to free this 
 fubjcft from mifconftruftion cannot, I am per- 
 fuaded, ftand in need of any excufe, either to- 
 wards Lord Mountftuart, or towards the public. 
 
 Lord Mountftuart in the beginning of his let- 
 ter, fays that no lefs than three reports of ne- 
 gotiations between my father and Lord Bute 
 reached him in the courfe of lall fpring. One 
 of them appears to have arifen from the trant^ 
 aftion between Sir James Wright and Doctor 
 Addington, of which the public have heard fo 
 much already. — Another from that affair in 
 which Mr. Dagge was concerned, which I ihall 
 have occafion to mention hereafter. — And the 
 third report, which Lord Mountftuart alludes 
 to, I fuppofe to be the fame with that mentioned 
 in a paper drawn up at Lord MountH-uart's re- 
 queft by Mr. Martyn. If it is, I can only fay, 
 thar I have been alTured by my brother-in-law. 
 Lord Mahon, that my father himfclf told him,, 
 that Lord Bute's name was not mentioned in 
 the affair which has occafioned that report. 
 
 Lord Mountftuart afterwards alludes to the 
 abftradl: or digeft drawn up by his friend on the 
 fubjeft of the negotiations between my father 
 and Lord Bute. 1 think it right to declare that 
 that paper, which was fent to my mother, at 
 her requeft, by Lord Bute, together with the 
 declarations of Sir James Wright and other 
 concurring reports, tended, in the opinion of 
 the family, to bring imputations on my father's 
 
 chara(5ler. 
 
 '1 !''' 
 
 'i ' ii. 
 
 i 
 
 
"i 32 J 
 
 charader, which they could not fufFcr to pits 
 unnoticed. The perfons therefore who com- 
 piled thofe papers fent to Lady Chatham, or 
 who propagated fuch injurious reports, were in 
 fatSt, the caufes of the Authentic Account be- . 
 ing drawn up and circulated. . * 
 
 I fliall now proceed to take notice of the re- 
 marks made by Lord Mountftuart on the con- 
 cluding propofition of the Authentic Account, 
 which is, " That the late Earl of Chatham not 
 •' only did not court a political negotiation with 
 •* the Earl of Bute, hut without hejitation, pe- 
 ** remptorily reje£led every idea of aSiing with his 
 ** Lordjhip in Jdminijlration." His Lordlhip 
 fays, " that the propofition docs not only con- 
 cern Lord Chatham*.* rtjcftion of every idea, 
 &c. but involves in it a ftrong implication, 
 as if Lord Bute had defired and propofed to 
 " take a part in Adminiftration with him.'* 
 To this 1 fay, that the propofition as quoted 
 above, does not neceffarily involve fuch an im- 
 plication, nor is it any where afferted in the 
 Authentic Account, that Lord Bute did make 
 any fuch propofal. The propofition only im- 
 plies (what I think the Authentic Account fully 
 proves^ that what was reported to Lord Chat- 
 ham by Dr. Aldington, was brought to him as 
 doming from Lord Bute. Whether the ideas 
 thus conveyed to Lord Chatham originated en- 
 tirely with Sir James Wright — whether they 
 arofe from mifapprehcnfions of Dr. Addington, 
 or whether they proceeded from Lord Bute him- 
 fclf, it is equally incontelliblc, in every one of 
 — ' thefe 
 
 «c 
 
 <t 
 
 C( 
 
 , 
 

 t li I 
 
 ; 
 
 ^efecafe^, that they came to Lord Chatham iil 
 the manner ftated in the Authentic Account, 
 Lord Chatham could confider thofe ideas only 
 in the fhape in which they came to him, and 
 dis mefTages in confequence are fufficient to (hew- 
 his determination on this fubje^t, without our 
 enquiring how far the advances made to him 
 were or were not authorized by Lord Bute. 
 The fole motive of drawing up the Authentic 
 Account^ was the defire of vindicating my fa- 
 ther's memory, and not any wifh to a(fe^ the 
 character of Lord Bute. If any one by reading 
 the Authentic Account, is led to form any opi- 
 nion relative to Lord Bute, it mull be from the 
 nature of the papers contained in it (which were 
 ncceflary to be produced for my father's jufti- 
 fication) and not from any aflertion made or 
 implied m any part of the account. Whoever 
 has read it, muft have obferved, that it confifts 
 of written and indifputable evidence, and does 
 not contain a fingle word beyond that evidence, 
 excepting only the few introduftory lines, — the 
 allufion to various conrerfation which had paffed 
 between Sir James Wright and Dodtor Additig- 
 ton, previous to the 3d of February, which cir- 
 cumftance, I am perfuaded, cannot be called in 
 qucftion,— the mention of Lord Chatham's con- 
 yerfation with Dr< Addington, and his declara- 
 tion relative to Lord Bute and North, which no 
 one can pretend to controvert — and finally, the 
 concluding propoficion, of the truth oi which 
 the public nuift judge, by confidering the tadts 
 from which it is deduced. With rcfpedt to Dr. 
 Addington's Narrative, ic was, by his permif- 
 
 A lion, 
 
 -V!.'-. 
 
 ;i! 
 
 
[ 34 1 
 
 fion, added in the Appendix, in order to throw 
 light upon fomc part of the tranfadlions. If Sir 
 James Wright contefts any thing advanced in the 
 Doctor's Narrative, the public judemcnt will 
 finally reft on the comparative degree of credit due 
 to thofe two gentlemen, and upon the probability 
 or improbability of their refpedtive alTertions. 
 
 Lord Mountftuart alfo fays, " that he does 
 ** not at all enter into the queftion, whether 
 •* Lord Chatham did or did not court a nego- 
 ** tiation with the Earl of Bute." If his Lord- 
 ihip had ftrifily adhered to this intention through 
 the remainder of his letter, thefe remarks would 
 have been Icfs ncccflary. 
 
 His Lordftiip then endeavours to prove, 
 ** That my father at the time of dilating his 
 ** anfwer to Sir James Wright's firft letter, had 
 " not refolved to rejed all ideas of negotiation 
 *' with Lord Bute.'* Now, if Lord Mount- 
 iluart means by this, that Lord Chatham would 
 not, from any perfonal objection to Lord Bute, ^ 
 have refufed to liften to fuch propofals, as might 
 be periedlly confident with his honour and his 
 principles, and which he might have accepted 
 with the profpeft of being ferviceable to his 
 country, merely becaufe they came through his 
 Lordjhip \ Lord Mountftuart can deduce from 
 this nothing that in any way affeds the prefent 
 queftion. — If, on the other hand, he means 
 that Lord Chatham had not refolved to rejed a 
 negotiation of any other defcription, or that 
 there was any time when he would not have re« 
 '1 jeftcd 
 
T 
 
 [ 3S ] 
 
 jefted every idea of afting with Lord Bute in 
 Adminiftration ; this opinion is utterly without 
 foundation, and no argument has been pro* 
 duced in fupport of it. 
 
 The expreffions which Lord Mountftuart 
 quotes from my father's note arc thefc : that 
 ** Lord Chatham beard with particular fatis- 
 •' fa^ion the favourable fentiments of his fub- 
 •' jeSf on the noble Lord with whom Sir James 
 ** fVright had talker., and that " zeal, duty, and 
 " obedience might outlive hopCy* (even, under the 
 impending ruin of the kingdom). Now what 
 does the firft of thefe expreflions amount to, 
 but that Lord Chatham heard with much fatis- 
 faC ion, thofe high expreflTions of approbation^ 
 and explicit offers of concurrence, from one who 
 was generally thought (no matter how truly) to 
 have fo much influence in the Government of 
 this country, whic.'. were conveyed in Sir James 
 "V/ right's firft letter, with the exprefs defire that 
 they might be communicated through Dr. Ad» 
 dington to Lord Chatham ? — And what is the 
 meaning of the fccond exprefllon, but that 
 Lord Chatham, however delperate he thought 
 the fituation of public affairs, would ft ill per* 
 form the duties of a good (ubjeft, in endeavour- 
 ing to prevent, if pofllble, the final rum ot the 
 kingdom ? It is impoffible therefore to argue 
 from either of thcfe expreflions, which were 
 written in anfwer to Sir James Wright, that my 
 father either courted a negotiation with Lord 
 3ute, or was willing to a6t with his Lordftiip in 
 ^dai|ni(lration } unlefs it can be pretended that 
 
 P * th? 
 
 L':' 
 
 ^1 1 
 
 1*1 
 
 ir 
 
 I I 
 
 \. 
 
 I 
 
 ¥; 
 
t 36 ] 
 
 the profcffions of zeal, duty, and ohedienUt are 
 to be referred to Lord Bute. Let it alfo be re- 
 membered, that the very meffage from which 
 Lord Mountftuart has quoted the cxpreffioni 
 above recited, contains in it the declaration of 
 Lord Chatham's opinion, " That^ if afrjf thirty 
 •* can prevent the confttmmatipn of public ruin, tt 
 *' can only be new counfels and new counfellors^ 
 •* without further tofs of time, a realchange 
 *f from Jincere c envision of paft errors, and not a 
 •' mere palliation, which muft prove fruitlefs^ 
 which words were confidcred by Sir Jajncf 
 Wright, and, (as appears from Sir James's kt* 
 ter of February 7th) were conHdered by Lord 
 Bute himfclf, as including his Lordfliip as wd| 
 as the Miniftry. 
 
 Lord Mountftuart next attempts to fliew, 
 ** that Lord Chatham at the beginning of the 
 ** prefent year was looking out for a negotiation 
 " with Lord Bute." It is not very clear what 
 exactly is meant by that cxpreflion. I cannot 
 imagine Lord Mountftuart to have intended to 
 imply that Lord Chatham expeded a negotia- 
 tion would be begun on the part of Lord Bute ; 
 becaufe that would feem as if Lord Mountftuart 
 admitted that there was ground for fu;:;h an ex- 
 pedation. But, if he intended by ihis expref- 
 fion to convey, that Lord Chathan" was dif- 
 pufcd to court a negotiation with the Earl of 
 Bute, I muft take the liberty to "flfert, that 
 the circumftance he refers to is no proof of fuch 
 a pofition. Tl)e affair mentioned by Lord 
 Mountftuart, in which Mr. Dsgge was con- 
 
 ccrhcd, 
 
I i 
 
 { 37 1 
 
 jccmed, was reported to Lord Chatham by hi^ 
 pcphew, Mr. Thomas Pitt, (who is at prefcnt 
 out of England) and jt is from him that Lord 
 Mountftuart mud have received the account he 
 alludes to. His Lordfhip has not thought pro- 
 per to lay that paper before the public, and 
 ^therefore 1 need not enlarge upon the fubjedt i 
 but I am confident Mr. Pitt cannot have afTerted 
 any thing which has the mod remote tendency 
 to prove that Lord Chatham was at any time 
 looking out for a negotiation with Lord Bute, 
 The only reafon alledged by Lord Mounftuart 
 ^r thinking that he was, amounts to no more 
 than this : That Lord Bute did fpeak refpe£t- 
 fuUy of Lord Chatham to Mr. Dagge, and did 
 declare his opinion, that Lord Chatham*s fer- 
 vices mufi of courfi be called for in the prefent 
 crijis. That Mr. Uagge did communicate this 
 to Lord Chatham's nephew, Mr. Thomas Pitt. 
 That he did go to Hayes, in order to report this 
 to Lord Chatham — and that Lord Chath-'.m did 
 in confequence imagine, that it was meant by 
 Lord Bute to be communicated to him. On 
 this I dp not think it peceflary to make any ob- 
 jfervation. I muU however add, that thofe who 
 received an account of this affair from my fa- 
 ther's own mouth, know, that he was io far 
 from welcoming thefe unauthorized advances* 
 with the view of improving them into farther 
 negotiation, that he expreflcd in the ftrongefl: 
 terms his didike to fuch a mode of application. 
 
 Lord Mountftuart obferves, that Lord Chat- 
 haqfl's declaration to Dr. Addington, ** that it wa^ 
 ;• «♦ imvojfibl 
 
 \ 
 
 . I 
 
[ 38 ] 
 
 «c 
 
 rmpqffibk for him to ferve the public with either 
 •* Lord Bute or Lord Norths* is no proof thac 
 Lord Bute offered to ferve the public in a Mi- 
 niftry with Lord Chatham. It was never in- 
 tended as a proof oi that matter; but merely as 
 an evidence of Lord Chatham's rcfoluticn not 
 to adl in Adminiftration with Lord Bute. To 
 that point Dr. Addington's evidence is conclu- 
 fivc ; for however other pw,rts of his Narrative 
 may be contradifted by Sir James Wright, it is 
 impoflible for Sir Jam^*: to difpute his account 
 of the converfation between Lord Chatham and 
 the DoAor, at Hayes. There are, however, 
 other perfons, befides Dr. Addington, to whom 
 Lord Chatham has made the (Irongeft declara- 
 tions to the fame purpofe; and the more his 
 condud is canvafled, the mere proofs will ap- 
 pear of this unalterable rcfolution. 
 
 I muft now add a few words with regard to 
 the extradt of Lord Bute's letter to my mother, 
 which is quoted by i ord Mountftuart. Lord 
 Bute mentions, " that Sir James Wright com- 
 ** muricated to him the very flattering lan- 
 ** guage in which Sir James declared Lord Chat- 
 " ham exprefled himfelf concerning Lord 
 *' Bute." I am very far from queitioning that 
 Sir James Wright cxpreflid himfelf in the man- 
 ner ibtcd by Lord Bute ; but I muft obfervc, 
 that Sir James docs not pretend to have heard 
 that Lord Chatham held iuch language, fro^i 
 any other perfon tlian from Dr. Addington \ an4 
 wlioevcr will take the trouble to recur to the 
 Dodor'3 Narrative, wiU there find th^f, the Doc- 
 
^^ffK^""^ 
 
 f 
 
 iflW^ ilF^WJ^T" 
 
 [ 39 3 
 
 tor, in the beginning of this tranfadion, de- 
 clared to Sir James Wright, that, to the beft 
 of his remembrance, Lord Chatham had never 
 §nce named Lord Bute to him. 
 
 Lord Bute, in another part of his letter, fays, 
 ** that he was extremely furprifed with a con- 
 *' verfation Sir James faid Di. Addington wifh- 
 '* ed to be reported to h'm. Tt v/as in fubftance 
 ** Lord Chatham's opinion of che alarming ccn- 
 *' dition we Vvcre in, and the neceflary meafurts 
 " to be immediately taken upon it." Lord 
 Bute cannot poffibly here refer to any thing, ex- 
 cept to the, paper. No. II, which is printed in 
 the Authentic Account. The opinion con- 
 tained in that paper of the necejfary meafures to 
 to be taken, is only in general terms, " that, 
 ** if any thing can prevent the confumynatlon of 
 •* public ruin^ it can only be new counfels and new 
 ** -ounfellors, &c." and this communication did 
 net p.'oceed fpontaneoiifly from my father, bat 
 was in anfwer to Sir James Wright's letter, of 
 February 2, which vvas by his delire communi- 
 cated to Lord Chatham. 
 
 The latter part of Lord Mountftuart's letter 
 flates to Lord Chatham's exprellion, ihat Lord 
 Bute had brought the King and kingdom to ruin, 
 Whit reafon Lord Chatham had at that time 
 for thinking that Lord Bute influenced the 
 meafures of Government, it would be prefump- 
 tion in me to examine ; nor is it for me to en- 
 quire, whether he was or was not deceived \a 
 his opini jn of Uie public ruin. But in this fmgte 
 
 . inltancc. 
 
 K 
 
 i 
 

 
 
 TS^ 
 
 f 4* i 
 
 nftance, thofe Who revere his rtiemofy the mod 
 will fincercly rejoice (as he himfelf would were 
 Ke living) if they Ihall find his opinion difproved 
 by the event. 
 
 I am; S(c. 
 
 WILLIAM PITT. 
 
 ! ■■ 
 
 -;-f 
 
 F I N I & 
 
 «* 
 
 U>i 
 
«si 
 
 m^mwmigfimmmmmfjpi 
 
 y 
 
 
 mgmmtmtgasmmmmia^ 
 
 HI