POLICY OF CHARLES III 487 weaker party. But, for some time at any rate, he was not prepared to move. Towards the end of 1759 there was much talk of a peace congress. Immediately after the accession of Charles, d'Abreu-the Spanish ambassador-suggested Spain as mediator between France and England. Pitt declined the offer with much politeness.1 The Spanish minister, however, made suggestions as to the balance of power being disturbed by English victories in America. In December, d'Abreu actually handed in a memorial to the effect that his master "could not see with indifference the English successes in America". This was written from Saragossa, where Charles III was then resting on his journey between Naples and Madrid, as Pitt did not fail to note. He suspected French influence at once, and thought this view confirmed when a fresh offer of Spanish mediation was transmitted at the end of 1759. The offer was promptly refused. At the same time Pitt recognised that some of the specific Spanish complaints as to English conduct were real. Her claims were first, a share in the Newfoundland fishery. This was merely a concession to Spanish pride, for only two Spanish ships had sought to go there during many years. Moreover Pitt could hardly grant it without thereby recognising the much better grounded fishery rights of the French. Her second claim concerned the English right to cut logwood in Honduras. Here Spain had the best of the argument, but concession would have been unpopular in England and certainly have discouraged the West Indian colonists from helping in the prosecution of the war. Her last claim concerned the execution of the treaty of commerce signed 5 October 1750. This was open to misinterpretation, and Spain had real cause of complaint both as regards Spanish prizes taken by privateers in the war and as to British smugglers both in peace and war. Pitt resolved to satisfy Spain by dealing drastically with smugglers to her American shores. In the autumn of 1759, therefore, he issued a circular to colonial governors prohibiting illicit trade and enforcing its prohibition by the action of British cruisers. But in the following year means were found to evade this prohibition and a considerable illicit trade was carried on by British smugglers with the Spanish port of Monte Christi in Hispaniola. Pitt's circular had some effect, for Charles III wrote a friendly letter to George II on 13 December 1759, and disavowed d'Abreu. This more amicable attitude continued till 20 June 1760, when Fuentes, the new Spanish ambassador, presented a haughty memorial as to Spanish prizes. He added a demand for reparation, which was politely refused. On 9 September Fuentes presented further complaints relating first to Honduras, and next a memorial on the Newfoundland fishery, adding that it had been sent to the 1 Yorke, P. C., Hardwicke, III, 236, 241. French Government. Pitt tactfully offered to instruct his ambassador at Madrid to confer with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the Honduras question. As to Newfoundland, he declined to give a written answer, but in a verbal response to Fuentes said that the King had ordered him to express surprise and regret that Spain should have taken the extraordinary step of communicating her differences to a court at open war with England. Even the pacific Hardwicke denounced Spain's conduct as most unusual and highly approved Pitt's reply as being as "measured" as was possible under the circumstances. This incident is important, for when Choiseul introduced the question of Spanish grievances into the negotiations of 1761, both he and Spain were aware that such a step would be regarded by England (and it seems justly) as undiplomatic and provocative. One King's accession at the end of 1759 was to be fatal to Pitt's design of separating the Bourbon Crowns; another King's accession at the end of 1760 was to be fatal to himself. For, when George II died on 25 October, Pitt was confronted with a young King whose advent raised wholly new problems. The King was a Tory and the Great Commoner a Whig, though both favoured the idea of a national, and not of a party, government. George had indeed learned at his mother's knee, and from all his political tutors, that he was to be King in deed as well as in name. But Pitt was susceptible to the majesty of kingship and the King knew the value of popular support. Differences of principle indeed showed themselves at once. The King wished to insert in his public declaration to the Council a passage referring to the losses in blood and gold which the war had brought upon his people. Pitt begged to substitute "just and necessary for "a bloody and expensive" war. Bute, the King's adviser, agreed, but the King himself held out for a day after his adviser had yielded. But this ominous episode was not in itself decisive. Some months later, when the war in Germany was criticised, Pitt offered to reconsider the matter if that were the King's wish, so that both parties had made some attempt at compromise. The difficulty was that the King, or Bute, had devised a personal policy which they intended to execute themselves. To sheathe the sword and to end the war quickly would associate the new King in the public mind with the restoration of peace and economy. It was a bold bid for power and popularity. But it must be known to be the personal act of the young King, and that would only be clear if the King's adviser was known to have made the peace himself. As the avowed representative of the King, Bute entered the Cabinet within less than a month from his master's accession. He became Secretary of State within six months, and Prime Minister in less than two years. Even apart from the disturbing suddenness of his rise to power, Bute was almost certain 1 The same expression occurs in the King's Speech to Parliament of 18 Nov. 1760. BUTE AND PITT 489 to disagree with Pitt. He resembled him in haughtiness and theatricality of manner, but had little knowledge either of diplomacy or of war. When differences appeared early in 1761, Pitt did not disguise his contempt for Bute's inexperience. Pitt might have modified some of his views on the peace, or deferred to some of the King's wishes; he could not bring himself to defer to those of the King's instrument. Bute, who did not·lack a certain shrewdness, did not wish to attack a minister idolised by the people and successful in the conduct of a great war. He wanted, indeed, if he could, to use Pitt, and not to expel him from the Cabinet. But he prepared for a possible struggle, by demonstrating that he was the real dispenser of royal favours. He got Henley made Chancellor early in 1761; he promoted George Grenville, whose financial gifts made him suspect Pitt's war policy, and kept him informed of all important business. Bute next dismissed Legge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for differing from him over an election, and replaced him by Lord Barrington, an avowed tool of the Crown. Finally, in March, he persuaded Lord Holdernesse to resign the seals of the Secretary of State, which he himself assumed. Pitt, who was now to share the direction of foreign policy with Bute, actually did not hear of the proposed appointment until it was too late to oppose it. And in this very month diplomacy became of supreme importance. For France began to negotiate for peace. The military events of 1761 had an important effect on its diplomacy. Early in the year, and in spite of Newcastle, Pitt had sent an expedition to Belleisle, and the failure of the first attack and the delay in the final capture (it only fell on 7 June), gravely affected British diplomacy. An attack on Mauritius also failed, but these failures were balanced by a success in Germany, and by captures of Dominica in the West Indies and of Pondicherry, the last French stronghold in India. The British Cabinet were encouraged to hold their heads high in the critical days of July. Apart from Pitt, the Cabinet were generally for peace, and largely on financial grounds. As far back as 9 April 1760, Newcastle wrote: "Mr Pitt flew into a violent passion at my saying we could not carry on the war another year; [he said] that that was the way to make peace impracticable and to encourage our enemy".1 But Newcastle was supported by Hardwicke, and by the military and naval advisers, Lords Ligonier and Anson, who favoured concessions to France because they did not think that England could fight a Franco-Spanish combination. Bute and the King for a time mediated between Pitt and Newcastle, but neither George III nor his adviser had any real experience of diplomacy and war, or the insight or capacity to form a correct judgment on either. It is probable that no British minister realised either the strength or the weakness of Choiseul's position. Though dependent on the favour of Louis XV and La Pompadour, he had also appealed for 1 Yorke, Hardwicke, I, 244. support to the French public, and could not consent to humiliating terms. Moreover, he was hampered by two allies, one actual, Austria, one potential, Spain. Austria wanted to continue the war; Choiseul wanted to make a separate peace with England. Spain was likely to join in the war if England's peace terms did not satisfy France. Hence, though willing to offer terms, Choiseul was not negotiating like a really beaten enemy. For, if the war continued, he was likely to have a new ally. Late in March 1761, Choiseul, through the Russian ambassador in England, suggested the assembling of a European peace congress at Augsburg. This was to be preceded by the conclusion of a separate peace between France and England. The basis of that peace was to be the uti possidetis, i.e. the territory actually held by each Power at a certain date. But the dates were to vary with each theatre of war, so that operations, already en train, might have a chance of being completed. Choiseul proposed that the date for Europe should be I May, that for the West Indies and Africa 1 July, and that for the East Indies 1 September. But these detailed dates, together with the question of compensation for surrender of territory, were to be matter for negotiation. The British Government replied by accepting in principle both the peace congress and the separate negotiation, but demurred as to the proposed dates at which hostilities should cease. Choiseul at once changed his tone and refused to alter the dates. Pitt, who hoped soon to capture Belleisle and, therefore, to have a further card in his hand, induced the Cabinet on 27 April to reject Choiseul's dates, and to refuse to fix new ones until Belleisle fell. It was, however, agreed to receive a French negotiator (Bussy) in London and to send a British one (Hans Stanley) to Paris. The instructions to Stanley were decided in a Cabinet meeting of 13 May. Pitt was unable to persuade his colleagues to take a definite decision as to what was to happen to her German allies, some of whose territory was in French hands. All they would say was that Choiseul was to be informed that England would not desert the King of Prussia. Bussy's mission to England is a matter of much mystery; in days past he had earned English gold for revealing French secrets.1 He seems to have been conciliatory to Newcastle, but unbending towards Pitt, and to have tried to sow dissension between the two parties in the Cabinet. At any rate Choiseul proved more conciliatory in France. After the fall of Belleisle (7 June) the British Cabinet fixed the uti possidetis date in Europe as 16 June, informed Choiseul that peace must be signed by 1 August, and upon terms to be considered as final, apart from what happened at Augsburg. These suggestions were never really considered, for they crossed a proposal made by Choiseul on 17 June. He proposed to get over the 1 Waddington, Renversement des Alliances, p. 101; Yorke, Hardwicke, II, 128. CHOISEUL'S NEGOTIATION 491 difficulty of the dates by specifying the terms. He would restore Minorca to England in exchange for Guadeloupe, Marie Galante and Goree. He would cede Canada with new boundaries, but what they were is not easy to see.1 If we may judge from his memorial of 15 July, he wished to interpose a neutral belt between Louisiana, the Great Lakes and the Ohio. He desired to retain, though not to fortify, Cape Breton Island (i.e. to maintain France's fishing rights in the St Lawrence), and also to keep fishing rights off Newfoundland. He offered to surrender her conquests from the German allies of England. These terms were probably sincere, though Choiseul wanted not a lasting peace but a truce, in which he could reorganise French resources. On 24 June, the British Cabinet all agreed to reject the claims for redefining the boundaries of Canada and for restoring to France Cape Breton or the fishing of the St Lawrence. Opinion was divided over the Newfoundland fisheries. The Newcastle party (including Halifax, the colonial expert) wished to concede the French demands; Pitt and Temple to reject them. Bute (and the King) wished to negotiate further and see if France would yield. Pitt seems to have criticised this not wholly unstatesmanlike idea with undue asperity, and thus perhaps provoked their opposition. He drafted a reply to Choiseul (accepted by the Cabinet on 26 June) demanding all Canada, and stating that France could not enjoy her rights to the Newfoundland fisheries under the Treaty of Utrecht without substantial compensation to England. Guadeloupe and Marie Galante would be restored only if the territory of England's German allies was immediately evacuated. Senegal and Goree were to be ceded to England and Dunkirk was to be dismantled according to the conditions of Utrecht. Choiseul seems to have been sincerely convinced that he could not make peace without "saving face" by extorting some British concession over Dunkirk, and without obtaining at least a partial concession over the fisheries. He still pleaded for Cape Breton, but this may have been a way of bidding higher for Newfoundland. His reply of the 15th which reached England on 20 July demanded a share in the Newfoundland fisheries and Cape Breton Island as well. He added ominously that, while he would surrender the French conquests from the German allies of England, he must except those of the King of Prussia. He could not restore these last without the consent and knowledge of Austria, and in a private memorial he intimated that she would not surrender them. More ominous still, he sent a private memorial to England advising her to end her disputes with Spain, and "agree to invite" Spain "to guarantee" the new treaty. This last step seems to have been a grave departure from 1 The wording is "une fixation des limites du Canada dans la partie de l'Ohio déterminée par les eaux pendantes". P.R.O., Chatham MSS, vol. LXXXV. |