Lord Rockingham desired me to deliver to you; which certainly was without their knowledge at the time, and therefore his Lordship wishes that part might be altered, so as to be conformable to the fact, in any manner you please. If you authorise me to make this alteration, then the last sentence will relate to Lord Rockingham only, and the names of the Duke or of Mr. Conway will not stand in it; or perhaps you may choose to make it different in other respects; but upon the substance of what is contained in your answer, his Lordship, whenever you come to town, desires he may have an opportunity of conferring with you.

The bill for the repeal of the Stamp-act was read a second time yesterday, and committed for this day. This Lord Rockingham did not know; but I was told afterwards, that there was no debate, and that this is expected to be the day of opposition in the committee. I am, Sir,

Your most obedient and faithful servant,

T. NUTHALL.

MR. PITT TO THOMAS NUTHALL, ESQ.

Hayes, Friday, 12 o'clock, February 28, 1766.

In answer to your note of this morning, my dear Nuthall, I will only observe to you, first, that ambassadorship is a troublesome trade. What you read to me, being an invitation from Lord

Rockingham to confer with his Lordship, the Duke of Grafton, and Mr. Conway, it was natural to suppose, that the two last-mentioned persons were privy to the message. That not being so, I beg Lord Rockingham will leave out (in the latter part of my answer) those two names, if it relieves his lordship of the least embarrassment in communicating the rest of it; which I hope will be done, word for word, as it is conceived in my own terms.

Be so good as to present my best compliments to Lord Rockingham, assuring him I shall always be proud of the honour of seeing his lordship; but that he will be pleased to see by my answer (which is final), that I am under an impossibility of conferring upon the matter of administration without his Majesty's commands, as expressed in the paper you wrote from my mouth. I continue lame to-day, and am unhappy to be absent from the committee. Believe me always, my dear Nuthall, affectionately yours,

WILLIAM PITT.

THOMAS NUTHALL, ESQ. TO MR. PITT.

SIR,

Crosby Square, February 28, 1766.

I HEARTILY subscribe to your position, that ambassadorship is a troublesome trade. I beg leave to add, dangerous too, and that I envy not the most honourable and expert professors in it.

I have communicated the exact contents of the

letter I had the honour to receive from you this afternoon, to the noble lord from whom I yesterday received my credentials; and as yesterday gave birth, I conclude this day has put a period, to my glory and achievements in this new occupation. I am, Sir,

Your ever faithful and obedient servant,

T. NUTHALL. (1)

GEORGE ONSLOW, ESQ. TO MR. PITT.

DEAR SIR,

Curzon Street, Friday morning,
March 7, 1766.

HEARING at your house in Bond-street (2), that you were not particularly expected there to-day, we are apprehensive that you may not know it is the day for considering the cider petitions, and proposing the bill. Imagining that you would choose to be present, and knowing the consequence it is of that you should, I could not help taking the liberty of informing you of it, at Mr.

(1) Mr. Gerard Hamilton, in a letter of this date to Mr. Calcraft, says : "His Majesty is said to have treated with great coolness, all his servants who voted for the repeal. Grenville and the Duke of Bedford's people continue to oppose in every stage, the passage of the bill; which looks as if they were satisfied that what they did was far from being disagreeable at court. Your particular friends look, I think, particularly cheerful; and the reports of the day are, that Mr. Pitt will go into the House of Lords, and form an arrangement, which he will countenance." (2) Now the Clarendon Hotel. It belonged at this time to the Duke of Grafton, who had let it to Mr. Pitt.

Dowdeswell's desire, and hope this will reach you early enough to enable you to get up to town in time, and without any inconvenience or hurry.

The American bill, or rather the British bill, met yesterday with not quite so civil a reception as such a bill, so carried in our House, and so conveyed as it was by a hundred and fifty members to the other House, did, in my opinion, deserve.(') However, I believe there is good reason to think,

(1) The bill was carried up to the Lords by above two hundred members of the House of Commons. According to the Annual Register, "the éclat with which it was introduced in the upper house did not prevent its meeting with a strong opposition there. Thirty-three lords entered a protest against it, at the second reading; as did twenty-eight at the third. It was, however, carried through by a majority of thirty-four lords, and, in three days after, received the royal assent; an event that caused more universal joy, throughout the British dominions, than perhaps any other that can be remembered."

On the 17th of the month, Lord Chesterfield, in a letter to his son, says: "The repeal of the Stamp-act is at last carried. I am glad of it, and gave my proxy for it; because I saw many more inconveniences from the enforcing, than from the repealing it. You will probably wonder that I tell you nothing of public matters; upon which I shall be as secret as Hotspur's gentle Kate, who would not tell what she did not know; but what is singular, nobody seems to know any more of them than I do. People gape, stare, conjecture, and rejoice. Changes of the ministry, or in the ministry, at least, are daily reported and foretold; but, of what kind, God only knows. It is also very doubtful whether Mr. Pitt will come into the administration or not; the two present secretaries are extremely desirous that he should; but the others think of the horse that called the man to its assistance. I will say nothing to you about American affairs, because I have not pens, ink, or paper enough to give you an intelligible account of them. They have been the subjects of warm and acrimonious debates, both in the Lords and Commons, and in all companies."

that a little abuse is all the harm they can do it; and that, both the bill and its advocates can stand. To-day it is to be read a second time, and will be, I hear, thoroughly debated; I mean as much as such a question will admit of.

I hope you are not the worse for your fatigue, on Tuesday. The seeing you are not so to-day, will give infinite pleasure to your friends in the House of Commons, and particularly to him who has the honour to be, most respectfully, dear Sir, Your most obliged humble servant, GEO. ONSLOW.

VISCOUNT BARRINGTON TO MR. PITT.

DEAR SIR,

Cavendish Square, March 22, 1766.

You may possibly recollect, that not long after you had resigned the seals, you desired me (not as chancellor of the exchequer, but as an old friend and acquaintance) to assist you in providing for a gentleman, whose name I have forgotten, but who married a dowager Lady Aylmer. This person had received great damage in his property when the rebels were in Scotland; he had done good service, and had good claims, as appeared by authentic vouchers which he had left with you when you were secretary of state, but which were unfortunately and unaccountably lost. You there