antly proves.[1] On the strength of a letter from Rigby to the Duke of Bedford, it can indeed be argued that Pitt, during the earlier stages of these negotiations previous to the death of Egremont, refused to come into office without the Duke of Newcastle and his friends,[2] and that whatever he felt was necessary in the middle of August he would equally feel to be necessary at the end of that same month. But it can be answered—putting aside the fact that the refusal of Pitt on that occasion was, according to another and more trustworthy account, based on his aversion to Bedford—that whatever was then said about the alliance of Pitt and Newcastle by Rigby is shown by the letter from Calcraft to Shelburne of August 26th to have been put forward by the Bedford party for their own ulterior purposes, regardless of its accuracy, and without any real belief on their own part. A letter from Hardwicke[3] is usually quoted as the proof that the alliance between Newcastle and Pitt at this period was genuine, but there is no reason to suppose that Pitt had let Hardwicke into his real confidence. Pitt subsequently affirmed that, "if he were examined upon oath, he could not pretend to say upon what this negotiation broke off, whether upon any particular point or upon the general complexion of the whole, but that if the King should assign any particular reason for it, he should not deny it."[4] On a subsequent occasion, in the House of Commons, he contradicted absolutely everything that had been circulated as to the unreasonableness of his demands in August 1763.[5] Such were the only explanations Pitt ever condescended to give of his share in these remarkable transactions. They were, to say the least, oracular.
On the final break up of the negotiations between Pitt and the King, Shelburne at once resigned the Presidency of the Board of Trade, assigning as his reason his distaste for the office he then occupied. "He quitted the royal
