n the hands of
those subtle schemers, Thugut and Cobenzl. The boundless resources of
Russia were at the disposal of Paul and Alexander, who, with all their
generous impulses, were incapable of steadily applying them to one
definite end. Only after weary years of subservience to Napoleon did
Alexander develop that firmness of character which finally brought
salvation to the Continent. From Frederick William even deeper
humiliations failed to evoke any heroic resolve. Among the statesmen of
those three monarchies at the time of Pitt there is but one who was a
fit compeer to him; and the fates willed that Stein should not control
affairs until the year 1807. The age of Pitt was the age of Godoy,
Thugut, and Haugwitz--weavers of old-world schemes of partition or
barter, and blind to the storm gathering in the West.

The importance of his achievements in curbing their ambitions and
saving the smaller States has not received due recognition. He did much
to rescue the Dutch Netherlands from anarchy, and Sweden and Turkey from
the clutches of powerful neighbours. He failed, indeed, in his
diplomatic contest with Catharine; but the duplicity of the Court of
Berlin, and the factious opposition of the Whigs, made success
impossible; and he had thereafter to look on helplessly at the final
Partitions of Poland. Only those who have probed the policy of Russia,
Austria, and Prussia in the years 1787-92 can fully realize the
difficulties which attended his efforts to frame a solid league against
Revolutionary France. As well might one attempt out of rubble to build a
cannon-proof rampart.

At home Pitt had to deal with George III. Now, even under a limited
monarchy the fortunes of a statesman depend largely on the character of
his Sovereign. While possessing the initiative which proffers timely
advice, it should be under the control of unfailing tact. Dowered with
insight into character and foresight as to the trend of events, the
Monarch must, for the most part, subordinate energy to self-repression
and the prophetic instinct to the warnings of courtly sagacity. Yet the
ideal British ruler must at times assert his will, albeit indirectly,
and with the personal charm which ensures the smooth working of this
delicately poised machine. He should therefore be the embodiment of all
the political virtues. Will even the admirers of George claim that he
realized that ideal? However excellent as Elector of Hanover, he was a
doubtful blessin