Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/382

 372 Reviews of Books contends was largely influenced by Pitt's expectations of a legacy from the Duchess of Marlborough. Similarly in regard to Pitt's attitude toward the statesmen who made the Treaty of Paris, von Ruville con- tends that Pitt was implacable because of another inheritance which he was expecting. These explanations are at the best but conjectures, and needless conjectures. In the case of Pitt's leaving office in 1762 the case is stronger, and it is likely, as von Ruville contends, that Pitt wished to avoid being responsible for a change of policy, which he saw was inevitable. Even in matters which need no explanation on the basis of personal motives, von Ruville seems anxious to supply such a motive. Thus when Pitt advocates a partial reform of the parliamentary franchise, and one which would conserve many of the rotten boroughs, von Ruville argues that this was done because Pitt did not wish to ruin his children's oppor- tunities for securing seats in Parliament. This is absurd. Pitt's sug- gestion was characteristically English, and resembles in many ways Cromwell's attempt at reform made a century earlier. Von Ruville's conclusions as to Pitt's statesmanship are more nearly in accord with the traditional view. Pitt, he holds, was the greatest of English ministers. It must be admitted that the author gives the reader more reason for this view than any other of the biographers of the great Englishman. He shows clearly what the merits of Pitt were, and this is particularly the case in regard to Pitt's ability as a war minister. Probably for the first time, the reader understands why Pitt is to be credited with the victories of the Seven Years' War. Pitt's measures are detailed, his accuracy in judgment clearly demonstrated, and his keenness of intelligence and thorough knowledge of military affairs proved. But not everything is ascribed to Pitt. Von Ruville makes it clear that the conquests of Havana and of Manila were not due to his measures, as is generally asserted. Pitt's statesmanship, says von Ruville, is noteworthy for its transition character. He was one who built upon old methods of government and old measures of policy, while at the same time attempting new measures and new policies which he dimly perceived must be the measures and the policies of the future. His successes and his failures sprang alike from this transitional character of his statesmanship. It is an acute and a true judgment, and explains why Pitt was not capable of ruling England after the Seven Years' War. Von Ruville's attitude toward Newcastle and Bute must be noted and commended. He places both much higher than is usually done. He makes it clear that Newcastle was a man of considerable ability, good common sense, and ceaseless industry. Similarly he shows that Bute was by no means the insignificant politician that he is usually repre- sented as being. A number of minor criticisms may be offered. The author should have used at least Lecky and Moses Coit Tyler in his treatment of