[Footnote 11:  See Novossiltzoff’s Report in Czartoryski’s “Memoirs,” vol. ii., ch. iv., and Pitt’s note developing the Russian proposals in Garden’s “Traites,” vol. viii., pp. 317-323, or Alison, App. to ch. xxxix.  A comparison of these two memoranda will show that on Continental questions there was no difference such as Thiers affected to see between the generous policy of Russia and the “cold egotism” of Pitt.  As Czartoryski has proved in his “Memoirs” (vol. ii., ch. x.) Thiers has erred in assigning importance to a mere first draft of a conversation which Czartoryski had with that ingenious schemer, the Abbe Piatoli.  The official proposals sent from St. Petersburg to London were very different; e.g., the proposal of Alexander with regard to the French frontiers was this:  “The first object is to bring back France into its ancient limits or such other ones as might appear most suitable to the general tranquillity of Europe.”  It is, therefore, futile to state that this was solely the policy of Pitt after he had “remodelled” the Russian proposals.]

[Footnote 12:  “Corresp.,” No. 8231.  See too Bourrienne, Miot de Melito, vol. ii., ch. iv., and Thiers, bk. xxi.]

[Footnote 13:  This refusal has been severely criticised.  But the knowledge of the British Government that Napoleon was still persevering with his schemes against Turkey, and that the Russians themselves, from their station at Corfu, were working to gain a foothold on the Albanian coast, surely prescribed caution ("F.O.,” Russia, Nos. 55 and 56, despatches of June 26th and October 10th, 1804).  It was further known that the Austrian Government had proposed to the Czar plans that were hostile to Turkey, and were not decisively rejected at St. Petersburg; and it is clear from the notes left by Czartoryski that the prospect of gaining Corfu, Moldavia, parts of Albania, and the precious prize of Constantinople was kept in view.  Pitt agreed to restore the conquests made from France (Despatch of April 22nd).]

[Footnote 14:  Garden, “Traites,” vol. viii., pp. 328-333.  It is clear that Gustavus IV. was the ruler who insisted on making the restoration of the Bourbons the chief aim of the Third Coalition.  In our “F.O.  Records” (Sweden, No. 177) is an account (August 20th, 1804) of a conversation of Lord Harrowby with the Swedish ambassador, who stated that such a declaration would “palsy the arms of France.”  Our Foreign Minister replied that it would “much more certainly palsy the arms of England:  that we made war because France was become too powerful for the peace of Europe.”]

[Footnote 15:  “Corresp.,” No. 8329.]

[Footnote 16:  Bailleu, “Preussen und Frankreich,” vol. ii., p. 354.]

[Footnote 17:  Thiers (bk. xxi.) gives the whole text.]

[Footnote 18:  The annexation of the Ligurian or Genoese Republic took place on June 4th, the way having been prepared there by Napoleon’s former patron, Salicetti, who liberally dispensed bribes.  A little later the Republic of Lucca was bestowed on Elisa Bonaparte and her spouse, now named Prince Bacciochi.  Parma, hitherto administered by a French governor, was incorporated in the French Empire about the same time.]