¹ Schaefer, A., Geschichte des Siebenjärigen Krieges (Berlin, 1874), II, pt. 2, 251–75.Google Scholar

² ‘Neskolko neizerstnykh ukazov i pisem Imp. Petra III’, Zaria (1871). Appendix 4–5. Keith to Mitchell, 8 Jan. 1762, British Library, Additional Manuscripts (referred to hereafter as B.L. Add. MSS), 6825, fo. 209. Korobkov, N. B. (ed.) Semiletniaia voina: Materialy 0 deistviakh russkoi armi I flota (Moscow, 1948), pp. 808–10.Google Scholar The British government first learned of these dramatic developments via two lengthy reports from Robert Keith, the first dated 5 Jan. the second 8 Jan. 1762. These arrived in London on 28 Jan. and 5 Feb. respectively. On 23 Feb. Peter issued a formal declaration to the Imperial, French and Swedish ministers, announcing his intention to restore Russian conquests and urging all other powers to do likewise. Mitchell to Bute, 19 March 1762, (London) Public Record Office State Papers Foreign (referred to hereafter as P.R.O., S.P.F.), 90/79. Keith to Bute, 11 March 1762, ibid. 91/69. Mercy d’Argenteau to Kaunitz, 26 Feb. 1762, Sbornik Imperatorskago Russkago Istoriceskago Obscestva, xviii, 164–5 (henceforth cited as SIRIO).

³ On Keith see: Schweizer, K., ‘Scottish diplomatists in the British diplomatic service 1714–1789’, Scottish Tradition: Journal of the Canadian Association of Scottish Studies (1978), 115–36.Google ScholarSmyth, G., Memoirs and correspondence [official and familiar) of Sir R. Murray Keith (London, 1849), vol. I.Google Scholar

⁴ Britain and Russia, though on different sides, were not formally at war, hence diplomatic relations between them had not been severed. It was through Keith that Frederick conveyed his first messages to the czar, it was from Keith that he obtained a safe-conduct for Colonel Goltz and more generally, it was Keith who with faithful regularity kept him briefed on all important events at the Russian court. Cf. Lodge, R., Great Britain and Prussia in the eighteenth century (New York: 1972 repr.), p. 118.Google Scholar

⁵ Bute to Bedford, 30 Jan. 1762, Bedford Estate Office, London. Bedford MSS 45, nr. 8, fo. 14. Knyphausen to Frederick, 29 Jan. 1762, Deutsches Zentral Archiv, Merseburg (referred to hereafter as D.Z.A.), Rep. 96, 33, F. fo. 39.

⁶ Newcastle to Hardwicke, 28 Jan. 1762, BL, Add. MSS 32934, fo. 45.

⁷ The king best expressed prevailing sentiment when he observed to Bute in a letter of 6 Feb.: ‘I look on the so sudden retreat of the Russian forces as liable to encourage that too ambitious monarch (i.e. Frederick) to breathe still stronger revenge against the Court of Vienna, on finding himself freed from one formidable foe.’ Sedgwick, R. (ed.), Letters from George III to Lord Bute 1756–1766 (London, 1939), p. 81. Similarly, Lord Bute (secretary for the North) reflecting on events in Russia, reminded Mitchell (British envoy to Berlin) the same day: ‘It is possible that where you reside other ideas may be entertained but the King of England cannot consistently with his earnest desire do anything but work for peace.’ P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/79.Google Scholar

⁸ For a detailed account of British attempts throughout these months to promote Austro-Prussian peace see: Schweizer, K. W., ‘Frederick the Great, William Pitt and Lord Bute: the origin, development and dissolution of the Anglo-Prussian Alliance, 1756–1763’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1976), pp. 250–354.Google Scholar

⁹ P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69 (secret).

¹⁰ British consul at St Petersburg since 1760. Described by Keith in 1758’ as a pushing fellow much spoilt by Sir Hanbury Williams’, Wroughton evidently got the post through Lord Holderness, his former patron, but he was never liked by Keith, by the merchant community or, in the event, by the czar who ultimately refused to receive him. See: Hotblack, K., Chatham's colonial policy (London, 1917), pp. 144–5. Keith to Bute, 20 Feb. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.Google Scholar

¹¹ Bute to Keith, 6 Feb. 1762 (secret), P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69. See Appendix I.

¹² Three days later, during a conference with the Prussian ministers, Bute elaborated on ‘les differentes mesures prises par le nouvel Empereur de Russie pour le rappel de son armée d’Allemagne… dont on tire ici les augures les plus favourables’. Knyphausen and Michel to Frederick II, 9 Feb. 1762, DZA Rep. 96, 33, fo. 52.

¹³ P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹⁴ Transmitted via Mitchell on 24 Jan. In these Keith was asked to present Frederick's congratulation upon the czar's accession and to assure Peter of Prussia's desire for immediate reconciliation. Mitchell to Keith, 24 Jan. 1762, BL, Add. MSS 35484, fos. 81–4.

¹⁵ P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹⁶ On Galitzin see: Hausman, F., Repertorium der diplomatischen Verträter aller Länder (Zurich, 1950), II, 314, 319–21.Google Scholarde Grünwald, C., Trois siècles de diplomatie Russe (Paris, 1945), p. 89.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The document is reprinted in Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen (eds. Volz, G. B. et al., 46 vols., 1879–1939), xxi, 311 (referred to hereafter as Pol. Corr.).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Printed in: Collyer, A. D. (ed.), The dispatches and correspondence of John, second earl of Buckinghamshire (London, 1900), I, 137–46.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Preuss, J. D. E., Friedrich der Grosse (Berlin, 1833), II 306–9.Google Scholar Schaefer, Der Siebenjährige Krieg, II, 437ff. Dunker, M., ‘England und Preussen im Siebenjährigen Krieg’, Preussische Jahrbücher, LV (1895), 141–3.Google ScholarKoser, R., Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen (Berlin: 1925), III, 127.Google Scholar

²⁰ There he wrote: ‘Le sieur Bute, qui, par mépris pour les autres nations, ignorait ce qui se passait en Europe et encore plus la façon de penser du nouvel empereur de Russie, rempli des idées de la paix générale qu’il voulait tout à fait force, chargea le Prince Galizin…de marque à sa cour que, quelque cession que l’empereur exigeât de la Prusse, l’Angleterre se faisait fort de la lui faire obtenir, pourvu qu’il ne hâtat pas de prendre un parti précipité, et qu’il continuât encore de tenir le roi de Prusse en échec, en laissant le corps de M. de Czernichev auprès les Autrichiens. L’Empereur, indigné de telles propositions, y répondit comme un ministre prussien l’aurait pu faire. Il envoya la copie de la dépêche du Prince Galizin au Roi, pour lui découvrir à quel point l’Angleterre le trahissait.’ Preuss, J. D. E. (ed.), Oeuvres de Frédéric le grand (Berlin, 1849), v, 158.Google Scholar

²¹ von Ruville, A., Die Auflösung des preussisch - englischen Bündnisses im Jahre 1762 (Berlin, 1892).Google Scholar

²² R. Lodge, Great Britain and Prussia, pp. 121–3. Corbett, J., England in the Seven Tears’ War: a study in combined strategy (London, 1918), II, 287ff.;Google ScholarHolland-Rose, J., ‘Frederick the Great and England, 1756–1763’, English Historical Review (1914), part II, 271–2.Google Scholar

²³ Fechner, H., ‘Literaturbericht’, Historische Zeitschrift, LXXI (1893), 104–7;Google ScholarMichael, W., England's Aufstieg Zur Weltmacht (Berlin, 1895), v, 705–14.Google ScholarWaddington, R., La guerre de sept ans (Paris, 1914), v, 278ff.Google Scholar

²⁴ Dorn, W. L., ‘Frederick the Great and Lord Bute’, Journal of Modem History, I (December, 1929), 529–60;CrossRefGoogle Scholar see also the same author's, Competition for empire (New York, 1940), pp. 376.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. Horn, D. B., Great Britain and Europe in the eighteenth century (Oxford, 1967), pp. 160–1.Google ScholarEldon, C., England's subsidy policy towards the continent during the Seven Years’ War (Philadelphia, 1938), pp. 146–7.Google Scholar

²⁶ Spencer, F., ‘The Anglo-Prussian breach of 1762: an historical revision’, History, XLI (February 1956), 100–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Finckenstein to Frederick, 30 April 1762, DZA Rep. 96, 199, A, fos. 45–6. Mitchell to Bute, 3 May, 1962. P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/80.

²⁸ Lord Bute's archivist, Miss Armett, is of the opinion that the missing letters were probably destroyed in the fire at Luton Hoo (in 1878) where the collection was then kept.

²⁹ Cf. ‘Diplomaticheskie dokumenty otrosiashchii k istorii Rossii XVIII v’ SIRIO (St Petersburg, 1868–77), III, V, XX. Russkaia Starina (1870–1918) - miscellaneous documents, often published without annotations or critical comments; also numerous articles and memoirs touching on 18th century Russia. Senatskii arkhiv (St Petersburg, 1888–1913).Google ScholarF., Martens (ed.), Sobranie traktov i konventsii, zakliuchennykh Rossieiu s inostrannymi derzhavami. (St Petersburg, 1874–1902).Google ScholarAlek-sandrenko, V. N., Russkie diplomaticheskie agenty v London v XVIIIv. (Warsaw: 1897),Google Scholar 2 vols. - strictly speaking a secondary source, though it contains many primary materials. The first volume describes the actual operation of the Russian embassy in Britain, the second is a valuable compilation of documents from the Russian archives. Bartenev, P. J. (ed.), Arkhiv Kniazia Vorontsova (Moscow, 1870–95),Google Scholar 40 vols., especially ‘Doklady kantslera grafa M. L. Vorontsova imperatorii Petrii III-mii’; vii (1875) (referred to hereafter as A.K.V.). Bolotov, A. T., Zapiski Andreia Timofeievicha Bolotova (St Petersburg, 1873),Google Scholar 4 vols. Also useful is: Shchebalski, P., Politicheskaia sistema Petra III (Moscow, 1870) who, in appendix reprints some of Colonel Goltz's previously unpublished reports, though he does not discuss the Galitzin letter.Google Scholar

³⁰ See the detailed bibliographies in: Bangert, D. E., Die russisch-österreischiehe militärische Zusammenarbeit im Siebenjährigen Kriege in den Jahren 1758–1759 (Boppard, 1971), pp. 408–12.Google ScholarLeonard, C. S., ‘A study of the reign of Peter III of Russia’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1976), pp. 351–4.Google Scholar

³¹ Soloviev, S. M., Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen (Moscow, 1965), xiii/Bk xxv.Google Scholar

³² Located in the A.V.P.R. (Arkhiv Vneshnei Politiki Rossii) Moscow.

³³ Bute to Newcastle, 6 Feb. 1762, BL Add. MSS 32934, fo. 207.

³⁴ I.e. leaving England to take up the post of vice-chancellor.

³⁵ Already Dr Von Ruville commented on the structural anomaly of the document printed in the Politische Correspondenz: ‘Gerade diese regelrechte form, die der Mitteilung den Character einer Verbal-insinuation verleiht, die Galitzin schweigend angehört hat, macht den Bericht im hohen Grade verdächtig und es ist zu verwundern, dass noch niemand daran Anstoss genommen hat’ (Auflösung, 23).

³⁶ See above, notes 11 and 12.

³⁷ See above, notes 14 and 15.

³⁸ Bute to Keith, 6 Feb. 1762 (separate and secret). P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

³⁹ Bute to Mitchell, 6 Feb. 1762. P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/79.

⁴⁰ According to Mercy d’Argenteau's secret contact in the Russian Chancery (whom he calls ‘der bewusste gute Freund’), Bute had spoken ‘nicht als minister sondern nur vonselbsten’ (Mercy d’Argenteau to Kaunitz, 15 May 1762: Vienna, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Staats- kanzlei, Russland (referred to hereafter as H.H.STa), Berichte, Kart 45, fo. 346).

⁴¹ See above, note 2.

⁴² Historians have traditionally agreed that owing to severe winds in the channel, no mail managed to reach London until the end of February, with the result that Bute could hot possibly have known the extent of Peter's pro-Prussian enthusiasm, when talking to Galitzin at the beginning of the month. In reality, Keith had sent his reports by a Russian courier (also carrying the czar's official notice of accession) who, as the Prussian envoy confirms, crossed the channel on a fishing vessel, arriving in London on 5 Feb. (See: Knyphausen to Frederick, 5 Feb., 9 Feb. 1762. DZA, Rep. 96, 33, F. fos. 46–7, 53. Galitzin to Bute, 5 Feb. 1762. Bute MSS Cardiff, bundle 2, no. 234, acknowledging the arrival of the British mail.)

⁴³ Bute to Yorke, 6 Feb. 1762. P.R.O., S.P.F. 84/495. Bute to Keith, 6 Feb. 1762 (private).

⁴⁴ Keith to Bute, 30 Jan. 1762. P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

⁴⁵ Bute to Galitzin, 25 Feb. 1762. BL, Add. MSS 35484, fos. 145–6. Bute to Weston, 25 Feb. 1762, Weston MSS, bundle I, fo. 27. Cf. Schweizer, K. W., ‘A handlist to the additional Weston papers’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LI, 123 (May, 1978), 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ As he observed to Edward Weston (his undersecretary) on 5 Feb. (just before the arrival of Galitzin's courier): ‘If the Court of Russia should not pursue with the same vigour the war, the Empress Queen must see it is her interest to make peace as well as it is ours to make the King of Prussia accept reasonable terms’. Weston MSS, bundle I, fo. 25.

⁴⁷ Knyphausen to Frederick, 12 Feb. 1762. DZA, Rep. 96, 33, F., fo. 56.

⁴⁸ Galitzin to Voronzov, 26 Jan. (6 Feb.), 1762, A.V.P.R. (Moscow), OP 35/1, 1762, del. 827, fos. 30–1. Goltz to Frederick, 4/15 May 1762, DZA, Rep. 96, 56, fasz. I, fos. 103–4; Knyphausen to Finckenstein, 2 March 1762, DZA, Rep. XI, 73, Conv. 104, fo. 17.

⁴⁹ Galitzin to Kauderbach, 24 March 1762, P.R.O., S.P. 107/91 (intercepted dispatch). ‘II a’, Choiseul once remarked, ‘pour le Roi de Prusse une véritable haine.’ Buck Corr. 1, 95, note 2.

⁵⁰ This is true. For some reason, Galitzin was not instructed of his government's diplomatic re-orientation until later in the month (Galitzin to Voronzov, 1/12 Feb. 1762, A.V.P.R. OP 35/1. del. 827, fos. 49–53). During a conversation about Galitzin's dispatch, Voronzov told Mercy d’Argenteau on 30 March that ‘sein Monarch wäre ober obberührte antwort des Fürsten Gallitzin [sic] auf den ersten Anwurff des Lords Bute dergestalten aufgebracht gewesen, das es ihm, Woronzov, viele mühe gekostet hätte bis er dem Käiser recht begreifen machen können, dass besagter Fürst zu London keine anderst beschaffene Sprache haben führen können, nachdem ihm bis dahin noch keine hiesige Befehle zugekommen wären, vonseinen alten Anweissungen abzugehen’, Mercy d’Argenteau to Kaunitz, P.S. 30 March 1762, H.H.St.a. (Vienna), 45. Russland. fo. 369.

⁵¹ Thus Bute's assertion in the letter to Newcastle: ‘He would not allow their army was recalled.’

⁵² This again substantiates Bute's account: ‘He Galitzin did not hesitate to tell me that his court would never part with Prussia’.

⁵³ Galitzin to Voronzov, 26 Jan/6 Feb. 1762, A.V.P.R. (Moscow), 1762. OP 35/1. del. 827, fos. 31–2.

⁵⁴ Mitchell to Keith, 2 April 1762, BL, Add. MSS 35484, fo. 183; Buck Corr. 1, 85, Mercy d’Argenteau to Kaunitz, 24 July 1762, SIRIO, xviii, 450–1.

⁵⁵ Early in January, Bute had pointedly informed the Prussian ministers that the grant for 1762 (amounting to £670,000) would be withheld until Frederick divulged his military plans and showed active interest in the re-establishment of peace. See Dorn, , ‘Frederick the Great and Lord Bute’, 539–42. Schweizer, K. W. and Brown, P. D. (eds.), The political diary of William Cavendish, 4th duke of Devonshire 1759–1762, Camden Series, xxvii (1982), 157–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For a full account of this abortive enterprise see: Schweizer, K. W., ‘Newcastle, Prussia and the Hague overtures: a re-examination’, Albion: Journal of the North American Conference on British Studies, viii, I (Spring, 1977), 72–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ By all appearances, he continued to remain sceptical even after the Russo-Prussian armistice and the withdrawal of Russian forces had been confirmed by his own government. Cf. Knyphausen to Frederick, 19 Feb. 1762, DZA, Rep. 96, 33, fo. 62.

⁵⁸ de Martens, F., Receuil de Traités…conclus par la Russie, IX (Angleterre), 212.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For further details see: Brandt, O., ‘Das Problem der Ruhe des Nordens im 18 Jahrhundert’, Historische Zeitschrift, CXL (1929), 550–64; BL, Egerton MSS 2695, xvi, fos. 23–5 (Titley Diary). F. de Martens, Receuil de Traités…conclus par la Russie, ix, 212.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See above, note 33.

⁶¹ K. W. Schweizer, ‘Frederick the Great, William Pitt and Lord Bute…’, pp. 250–85.

⁶² Thus Lord Bute's observation to Newcastle, ‘He [Galitzin]…did not hesitate to tell me that his court would never part with Prussia; that they desired nothing in the Empire’, and ‘argued the impossibility of the Czar giving up so long wished for a conquest.’ (In the letter of 5 Feb. 1762, BL, Add. MSS 32934, fo. 207.)

⁶³ George III to Bute, 17 May 1762, Sedgwick, Letters from George III, p. 107.

⁶⁴ Mémoire A, Buckingham Corr. I, 137–48, ‘Mémoire pour servir de reponse aux remarques contenus dans la lettre de Mons Mitchell en date du 18 Sept. 1762.’ For Mitchell's letter of 18 Sept. 1762 see: DZA, Rep. 96, 36, N. II, fos. 165–7.

⁶⁵ Mémoire B, Buckingham Corr. I, 149–73.

⁶⁶ Buckinghamshire to Lord Halifax, 30 Dec. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/71.

⁶⁷ In his report of 13 March 1762, Goltz clearly states that a summary, translated into French, had been prepared at the express order of the czar (DZA, Rep. 96, 56, D. fo. 26). Yet in a note communicated ‘verbalement’ to Buckinghamshire on 28 Dec. 1762, Catherine, in reference to Galitzin's dispatch and the Prussian memorial, declared that ‘… il est constant qu’il n’y a point du tout le dit mémoire mais que toutes les relations de ce ministre sont ici en entier et en original; et on peut assurer avec certitude qu’il s’en faut beaucoup qu’elles soient dans de tels termes qu’on les donne de la part du ministère de Berlin’ (‘Pro memoria reçu du Chancelier, le janvier, 8 (NS), 1763.’ Buckinghamshire MSS/Norfolk Record Office, 21122, 74.)

⁶⁸ Dorn, ‘Frederick the Great and Lord Bute’, p. 552.

⁶⁹ See above, note 56, pp. 89–90.

⁷⁰ The Emperor of Russia’, Newcastle observed to Bedford on 12 April, ‘has such a passion for the King of Prussia that His Imperial Majesty is extremely angry with us, in having sounded the Court of Vienna about peace; but that affair has been very falsely represented and my Lord Bute, I hope, will have set it right.’ (Bedford MSS, vol. 45, 1762, fo. 70.)

⁷¹ Mitchell to Bute, 3 May 1762 (private and confidential). P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/80.

⁷² See above, note 27.

⁷³ Finckenstein to Frederick, 9 June 1762, DZA, Rep. 96, 199, A, fos. 59–60.

⁷⁴ Keith to Mitchell, 26 March 1762, 30 March 1762, BL, Add. MSS 6825, fos. 247–8. Mitchell to Keith, 4 June 1762, 9 June 1762, BL, Add. MSS 35485, fos. 31–2, 36–9.

⁷⁵ Bute to Mitchell, 26 May 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/80.

⁷⁶ Ibid.

⁷⁷ Ibid. For Frederick's own fervent expressions of gratitude to Keith see: Frederick to Mitchell, 17 Feb. 1762, in: Mitchell to Keith, 24 Feb. 1762, BL, Add. MSS 35484, fo. 174.

⁷⁸ Cf. Galitzin to Voronzov, 9 Feb., 12 Feb. 1762, A.V.P.R. OP35, del. 827, fos. 45–7, 49–52. As Voronzov told Mercy d’Argenteau on 25 April: ‘…es seye nicht Zu beschreiben wie vergnüglich sich nach Inhalt des Galitzins’ mehreren Einberichtungen das Englische Ministerium fur unseren allerhöchsten Hof zu aüsseren fortfahre.’ (Mercy d’Argenteau to Kaunitz, 25 April 1762, SIRIO, XVIII, 286–7.)

⁷⁹ Commander in chief.

⁸⁰ Yorke to Newcastle, 2 April 1762, BL Add. MSS 32936, fo. 300.

⁸¹ Galitzin to Vorontzov, 15 Jan. 1762, A.V.P.R., OP 35, del. 827, fos. 9–16. For these negotiations see: Schweizer, K. W., ‘The nonrenewal of the Anglo-Prussian subsidy treaty 1761–1762: a historical revision’, Canadian Journal of History, xiii, no. 3 (1978), 384–96.Google Scholar

⁸² Bute himself, no doubt, hit on at least part of the truth when he suggested to Mitchell on 26 May, that Galitzin ‘may have been prompted by his known attachment to the Court of Vienna, to give such a turn to his relation of my discourse, as he might think most likely to serve that interest’, P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/80.

⁸³ Reischach to Kaunitz, 9 Apr. 1762, H.H.ST.a. Holland, Berichle, 61. Doc. nr. 29 (unfoliated); Prince Ferdinand to Frederick, 19 Apr. 1762, DZA, Rep. 96, 101, D. fo. 75.

⁸⁴ This was no less so under Catherine. As McCartney observed in 1766: ‘He (Galitzin) enjoys hardly any credit and as minister he is more often used for show than for trust.’ Turgenev, A., La cour de la Russie: il y a cent ans 1725–1783 (Berlin, 1858), pp. 242, 244.Google Scholar The empress promoted him twice - to actual privy counsellor in 1762 and to oberkammerger in 1764 — but he played no vital political role and eventually retired in 1775. Cf. Griffith, D. M., ‘Russian court politics and the question of an expansionist foreign policy under Catherine II, 1762–1783’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1967).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Korobkov, N., Semiletniaia voina (Moscow, 1940), pp. 809–10;Google ScholarPolnoe sobranie zakanov rossiskoi imperii (St Petersburg, 1830), xv, 11516 (traktat, 24 Apr. 1762), 987–91.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ P. Shchebalskii, Politicheskaia sistema Petra III, passim; Chechulin, N. D., Vneshniaia politika Rossii v nachale tsarstvovaniia Ekateriny II, 1762–1774 (St Petersburg, 1896), p. 31;Google Scholar S. M. Soloviev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, XIII, bk. 25; however, a fresh interpretation is suggested by Troitskii, S. M., Finansovaia politika russkogo absoliutizma v xviii veke (Moscow, 1966), p. 247.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Bilbasov, V. A., Istoriia Ekateriny Vtoroi (London, 1895),Google Scholar I; N. Korobkov, passim; Ransel, D., The politics of Catherinian Russia (New Haven, 1975),Google Scholar ch. III; Fleischacker, H., ‘Porträt Peters III’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, v, 1–2 (1957), 127–89.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ From 1760 to 1762, sentiment favouring peace was strong; Vorontsov advocated it at a meeting with the empress in November, 1760; M. S. Vorontsov, ‘Rassuzh-denie o nyneshnem sostoianii voiuiushchikh derzhav i sposobakh dlia dosti-zheniia skol’ko vozmozhno slavnogo, poleznogo i prochago mira 1760 g.’, AKV (Moscow, 1872), iv, 174–8; see also financial reasons in Haxthausen's dispatches: ‘Without being able to produce very considerable sums the levies and taxes used to support the war caused a great murmur among the people…’, Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 21 Sept./2 Oct. 1761, Rigsarkivet, Tyske Kancellis Udenrigske Afdeling (Copenhagen), B-R 172 (referred to hereafter as RADTKUA); 14 Dec. 1761 and 7 Feb. 1762, Senatskii arkhiv, xii (1907), 108–14, 124–5; Breteuil to Choiseul, 17/28 June and 22 July/2 Aug. 1761, Archives du ministère des Affaires Etrangères; correspondance politique (Russie), (Paris) (referred to hereafter as AMAE (CPR)), 67; finally, Peter's own comment ‘at dinner’ that, according to Haxthausen, ‘he wanted at all cost to finish this abominable war and have the glory of giving peace to Europe; that this war cost already thirty million rubles and depressed his army in a manner that he would have to spend ten years putting it on good footing’, Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 1/12 Feb. 1762, RAD TKUA B R 78.

⁸⁹ This is especially evident in the long negotiations over Holstein throughout the 1750s, when he submitted sharp but carefully reasoned rejections of Denmark's various offers regarding the disposition of his duchy; the resentment of diplomats over the secrecy of his plans for peace and alliance and over his long delay in their reception at court suggests that his aims in foreign policy were not clearly understood: see ‘Note au ministère Imperiale de Russie de la part de M. le Grand Due pour servir de reponse au projet de traite du Dannemark’, 27 July/7 Aug. 1761, AMAE CP R 67; Caspar von Saldern to J. F. V. Otte, 18 Jan. 1763, Korrespondanse-Akter vedr. Mageskifter Ottes Arkiv, 35; Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 22 and 28 Feb/3 and 11 March 1762, RAD TKUA B R; Posse to Ekeblad, 9/20 March 1762, Riksarkivet, Diplomatica Muscovitica (Stockholm) 307 (referred to hereafter as RAS DM); Breteuil to Choiseul, 1/12 Feb., 10/12 Apr. 1762, AMAE CP R 68, 69; Mercy to Kaunitz, 9/20 Apr. 1762, SIRIO xviii, 273.

⁹⁰ ‘The Treaty of commerce between France and Russia is well in progress’, Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 29 March/9 Apr. 1762, RAD TKUA B R 79; regarding England and Sweden, see Keith to Bute, 19/30 Jan. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69; Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 19 Feb/2 March 1762, RAD TKUA B R 78; Breteuil to Choiseul, 1/12 Feb., AMAE CP R 68; Posse to Ekeblad, 11/22 Jan. 1762, RAS DM 307.

⁹¹ Ekeblad to Posse, 18/29 June 1762, RAS DM 334; Bute to Keith, 9 Apr. 1762, BL, Add. MSS 32936, fo. 460.

⁹² Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 16/27 Feb. 1762, RAD TKUA B R 78.

⁹³ Ekeblad to Posse, 22 Dec. 1761, RAD DM 334; Säve, T., Sveriges deltagande i sjuäriga kriget aren 1757–1762 (Stockholm, 1915), pp. 23ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Peter to Volkov, 2 Jan. 1762, TsGADA, fo. 9, no. 43, I. M. L. Vorontsov, ‘Doklady; 25, 27, dek. 1761’, AKV, vii, 525–7; Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 16/27 Feb. 1762, RAD TKUA B R 78; Posse to Ekeblad, 5/16 Feb. 1762, RAS DM 307.

⁹⁵ Breteuil to Choiseul, 18/29 Jan. 1762, AMAE CP R 68.

⁹⁶ Frederic to Goltz, 7 Feb. 1762, Pol. Corr., xxi, 234–5.

⁹⁷ Keith to Bute, 28 Feb./10 March, 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

⁹⁸ Peter requested that prior to their imperial reception, the diplomats pay their first visit to his uncle Prince George Ludwig of Holstein, which they refused to do; Breteuil to Choiseul, 1/12 Feb., 10/21 Apr. 1762, AMAE CP R 68, 69; Mercy to Kaunitz, 9/20 Apr. 1762 SIRIO, xviii, 273.

⁹⁹ ‘Proket traktata’, AKV (1875), VIII, 563; F. de Martens, Recueil de traités…, v, 389; Shchebal'skii, P., ‘Vopros o kurlandi pri Petre III’, Russkii arkhiv (1865), iv, 284–94;Google Scholar Fhechulin, p. 208. See Peter's first official message to Frederick, carried by special emissary to Prussia, stating that the emperor wished ‘to renew, extend, and confirm in a durable and good friendship that understanding which had always existed under our predecessors’, Mitchell to Bute, 30 Jan. 1762, BL, Add. MSS 32934, fos. 80–1. Dassow, F. J., Friedrich II von Preussen und Peter III von Russland (Berlin, 1908), pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Breteuil to Choiseul, 15/26 March 1762, AMAE CP R 68. Goltz to Frederick II, 2/12 March 1762, 25 March/6 Apr. 1762, DZA, Rep. 96, D. II, fos. 26–7, fos. 51–2.

¹⁰¹ Cf. H. Kaplan's ‘Russia's impact on the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain during the second half of the eighteenth century: the significance of international commerce’, seminar paper for the American Historical Association, 28 Dec. 1978. Schweizer, K. W., ‘The Anglo-Russian convention of 1755’, Military and naval encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union (Academic International Press), D., Jones (ed.), vi (1983), in the press.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Breteuil to Choiseul, 30 Jan/10 Feb., 31 Jan/11 Feb. 1761, and 11/22 Jan. 1762, AMAE CP R 66 and 68; Oliva, L. Jay, Misalliance: a study of French policy in Russia during the Seven Years’ War (New York, 1964), pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Appendix II.

¹⁰⁴ Keith to Bute, 8/19 March 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 69, fo. 161.

¹⁰⁵ Frederick to Goltz, 7 Feb. 1762, Pol. Corr., xxi, 234–6.

¹⁰⁶ Frederick to Goltz, 23 March 1762, ibid. p. 312. In closing, Frederick emphasized again: ‘Entrez dans toutes les engagements que l’Empereur voudra, je vous y autorise, c’est mon ami. II n’a qu’à rédiger les traités comme il les voudra, je les signerai.’

¹⁰⁷ Keith to Bute, 27 May/7 June 1762, PRO., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹⁰⁸ Keith to Bute, 12/23 Apr. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69. Cf. Saldern to Frederick II, 22 Apr./3 May 1762, DZA, Rep. 96, D. II, fos. 86–7.

¹⁰⁹ Keith to Bute 13/23 Apr. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹¹⁰ On 29 March, Peter gave a hint of his forthcoming alliance to Mercy, by implying that if Maria Theresa did not choose to withdraw from the war, he would mobilize Russian troops against Austria; Haxthausen to Bernstorff, 29 March/9 Apr. 1762, RAD TKUA B R 79. Mercy to Kaunitz, 30 March 1762; H.H.ST.a. Berichte, Russland, 45, fos. 368–72.

¹¹¹ Peter's policy in support of the royalist party in Sweden, his opposition to the French in Poland, and his struggle against Denmark, France's ally, in the north suggests the traditionalism of his northern policy - to weaken French influence; as for his relations at court, Breteuil was correct in noting that ‘nothing is capable of balancing the intensity of his taste for the English’, Breteuil to Choiseul, 1/21 Feb. 1762, AMAE CP R 68. Cf. Mercy to Kaunitz, PS to 1 Feb. 1762. H.H.ST.a. Berichte, Russland, 45, fos. 173–8.

¹¹² Keith to Bute, 29 March/9 Apr. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹¹³ Keith to Bute, 5/16 Apr. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹¹⁴ Bute to Keith, 6 Feb. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹¹⁵ Bute to Keith, 7 Feb. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

¹¹⁶ Bute added, showing his concern for relations with Russia, ‘You will put his Majesty's resolution of taking no part, on the foot of the expenses of the present War and advance no offense to his sensibility, on a point, which he appears to have so much at heart, - as the recovery of his ancient family possessions’, an answer to Peter's requests for aid that, while not entirely what Peter wanted, was ‘full strong enough’, in Hardwicke's words. Bute to Keith, 9 Apr. 1762, BL Add. MSS 32936, fo. 462; Hardwicke to Newcastle, 10 Apr. 1762, BL Add. MSS 32937, fos. 17–19.

¹¹⁷ Bain, R. N., Peter III, Emperor of Russia. The story of a crisis and a crime (Westminster, 1902), p. 25.Google Scholar

¹ Bute to Wroughton, 6 Feb. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

² George III's mother, Princess Augusta.

³ BL Add. MSS 38191, fo. 8. The letter is undated, but internal evidence places it around this time. Catherine's non-committal reply is enclosed in: Wroughton to Bute, 5 March 1762, BL, Add. MSS 38198, fos. 91–3.

⁴ Cf. Hardwicke to Newcastle, 28 Jan. 1762, BL, Add. MSS32934, fos 48–9. Yorke to Royston, 19 Feb., 9 March 1762, BL Add. MSS 35266, fos. 30–1, fos. 40–1.

⁵ Bute to Keith, 6 Feb. 1762 (confidential and secret). P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

⁶ Bute to Keith, 23 March 1762 (private). P.R.O., S.P.F. 91/69.

⁷ Schaefer, Siebenjährigen Krieg II. pt. 2, p. 462. Lodge, Britain and Prussia, p. 124.

⁸ Dorn, ‘Frederick the Great and Lord Bute’, p. 551 note 63.

⁹ P.R.O., F.O. 90/58, fos. 31–5.

¹ I.e. George III.

² Excerpted line not present in French version of dispatch.

³ Bute to Mitchell, 8 Jan. 1762, P.R.O., S.P.F. 90/69.

⁴ Frederick II.

⁵ Presumably Pomerania and East Prussia seized by Russian forces during the war.