Page images
PDF
EPUB

diplomatic etiquette, against which Spain had already been warned. The British reply was decided upon on 24 July, after the news of the fall of Pondicherry, of the capture of Dominica and of Ferdinand's victory at Vellinghausen reached England. It declared both private memorials inadmissible. In other respects the British answer, sent on the 25th but known by the date of its reception as the "ultimatum of 29 July", was a stiff one. It declined again to permit the French rights of fishery in the St Lawrence or to restore Cape Breton. It demanded the demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk in return for a French share in the fisheries of Newfoundland. It declined to draw any distinction between the King of Prussia and England's other German allies. It demanded the restoration of Minorca by France in return for the British restitution of Guadeloupe and Belleisle. On receiving this reply on 29 July, Choiseul decided to continue the war. But, though no longer sincere in his desire for peace, he tried to prolong the negotiations to prevent any English attacks that year. On 15 August he achieved his great masterpiece, and signed the third Pacte de Famille with Spain. He engaged to support Spanish interests and Spain promised to come into the war with all possible speed.

Ten days before the signature of the Pacte de Famille, Choiseul delivered to Pitt what was afterwards known as the "French ultimatum of 5 August". He demanded French fishing rights and an island in the St Lawrence and the erection of a barrier territory formed by neutral Indian tribes in the hinterland between Louisiana and Canada. In the West Indies he demanded St Lucia and the restoration to France of Guadeloupe and Marie Galante. On the coast of West Africa he demanded the return of Senegal. But he refused to restore Minorca or to evacuate the territories of the King of Prussia. Pitt returned a strong answer on 16 August. There was, however, some justification for this attitude, for Bussy, in presenting the "French ultimatum", stated that the British one of "29 July" "betrays the aversion of the Court of London for peace". He warmly deprecated Pitt's refusal to receive the Spanish memorial, and said that refusal would draw closer the bonds between the French and the Spanish Bourbons.

But the stiff attitude of Pitt, which Bute and the King had hitherto upheld, now aroused their fears and provoked a reaction. Bute did not even yet wish to expel Pitt, but to outvote him. Feelings had already ruled high in the Cabinet, Pitt had thumped the table, and said he would not "take a cobbled draft". Now, on 17 August, he was outvoted and obliged to transmit a very conciliatory communication to France. England now offered a share in the fishing rights of the St Lawrence and Newfoundland, together with the isle of St Pierre. For the strict provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht regarding Dunkirk were now substituted the milder ones of Aix-la-Chapelle. These concessions were made just after the Pacte de Famille had

PITT'S LAST COUNCIL

493

been signed. Stanley's communication was dated 1 September. As Choiseul gave an unsatisfactory reply, the Cabinet ordered Stanley to return to England (15 September).

On 18 September Pitt summoned the Cabinet to take an even more important decision. He proposed to anticipate the danger of a union of the Bourbons by demanding explanations of Spain and by attacking her if they were not satisfactory. He had pierced to the heart of the situation and divined that France would not make peace because Spain was ready to make war. Pitt knew more of the SpanishFrench designs than any other Cabinet minister, for his naval and colonial despatches proved that Spain was conspicuously unfriendly to British trade in America.

Apart from this, his evidence, though not good in a court of law, was good enough. The private memorial of Choiseul referring to Spain was gravely suspicious. For Pitt now knew that it had been made with the full approval of Spain, which had been warned against such joint diplomatic action in 1760, and Bussy's remarks in presenting the ultimatum of 5 August were menacing. More than one intercepted diplomatic despatch roused suspicions as to Choiseul's conduct at the end of July. Another established the existence of the Pacte de Famille; Pitt did not indeed know all the terms, and could not prove, though he shrewdly guessed, that Spain had pledged herself to make war with France against England. But it did not need much penetration to see that a secret agreement of this kind, signed after Choiseul had stiffened his terms, must have been of this nature. But only Lord Temple supported Pitt's views on "preventive war”. On 21 September the King refused to receive a paper signed by Pitt and Temple giving the views of the 18th, and the Cabinet decided to await further news from Stanley. This marked the final stage, for Bute had at length determined to abandon Pitt as he would not give up his scheme of "preventive war".

The last meeting was on 2 October. In after days Pitt spoke of it as "a trembling council". All were against Pitt and Temple, but from different motives. Newcastle and Hardwicke were influenced partly by a belief that strong action might produce the union they feared, and partly by the belief (encouraged by Anson and Ligonier) that England could not fight both Spain and France with success. Bute seems to have refused to believe that the peace he desired would be endangered. We have broken snatches of what Pitt said: "I have in my bag so much matter as I think would be criminal matter against any Secretary of State who lets it sleep in his office. [It is] the highest indignity that ever was offered to the Crown of England. As to the safety of the public, 'tis the worst species of war [for Spain] to abet France with her full weight, [to] cover her trade and lend her money and abet France in negotiation. You are now at war with the House of Bourbon. You are prepared and she is not". He

concludes, "I will be responsible for nothing I do not direct".1 Lord Temple then made a haughty speech and retired. Speeches of compliment then passed between Lord Granville and Pitt in which the latter covertly reproached Bute. Pitt then withdrew and thus ended the most brilliant administration in English history.

The resignation of Pitt and Temple followed on 5 October, and Lord Egremont, who was to be Bute's supporter, became Secretary of State. At the end of October Bute carried a measure for asking for explanations from the King of Spain as to the Pacte de Famille. Newcastle vainly opposed this, perceiving that such a policy could only end in war. On 2 January 1762, Spain's explanations proved so unsatisfactory that England declared war upon her. Even Newcastle now admitted that Pitt had been right. Bute's policy had lost the advantage of the initiative, the opportunity for capturing the Spanish Plate Fleet, and the greatest war minister England ever had.

Bute was equally unfortunate in his treatment of King Frederick. He and the King cared very little about Germany, and even less about Prussia, and were unduly sensitive to British public opinion which showed a steady and rising dislike of the German war.2 George III was shocked at the irreligion of King Frederick, and Bute was annoyed at his wit, for an intercepted letter told him that the monarch had suggested Bedlam as a suitable place for himself. Both were afraid of being accused of German tendencies. Moreover the beginning of 1762 marked another change. For the Tsarina Elizabeth died, and her successor, Peter III, not only withdrew from the war, but even offered Frederick an alliance. Bute, therefore, held that Frederick was quite safe. When the Prussian minister adopted a threatening tone in demanding the British subsidy of £670,000 for the campaign of 1762, Bute said that its payment would depend on the pacific tendencies of Frederick. He added to his faults by some clumsy diplomacy in which he revealed both to Russia and to Austria his desire for peace and the fact that he was putting pressure on Frederick. Bute definitely refused to pay the subsidy at the end of April, despite the opposition of Newcastle's party. He also made clear that he would greatly reduce the British military forces in Germany. This-and a number of other incidents-proved too much for Newcastle, and that assiduous devotee of office was expelled with scant courtesy from all his posts before the end of May. Hardwicke, the great lawyer, unwillingly retired with his friend. The ministry was then reformed, Bute becoming First Lord of the

1 Brit. Mus., Hardwicke MSS, 35870, printed by me in E.H.R. XXI, 327-30. Hardwicke added a note to this last sentence of Pitt: “Surely the most insolent declaration ever made by a Minister".

2 Yorke, Hardwicke, III, 357; Newcastle to Sir J. Yorke, 14 May 1762, “Popular maritime expeditions in war, and a total dislike of all continental measures, are the basis of his (Bute's) politics". Italics my own.

BUTE AND THE PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY

495

Treasury, and George Grenville Secretary of State, along with Lord Egremont.

Bute's conduct towards Frederick has been severely criticised. Bute could not remove Frederick from office, like Newcastle or Pitt, but he could (and did) deprive him of his subsidy. Bute's technical position towards Frederick was bad, and the means he used to terminate the subsidy and to force Frederick to peace were clumsy and inconsiderate. But the subsidy had been given originally to Frederick to preserve him from ruin. If he intended to use it to prolong the war (now that Russia offered him not only peace, but an alliance), why should Bute allow him to do so? Bute would certainly have done better not to refuse but to reduce the subsidy, as he did that supporting Ferdinand's command in Westphalia. But it seems absurd to accuse Bute of treachery (as the British public did) because he refused to pay in full a subsidy originally granted for a totally different purpose from that to which Frederick now proposed to apply it. It is, however, true that Bute did not properly regard Frederick's interests when the final peace was made.1

By the end of April Bute had disposed of Frederick, and was negotiating again with Choiseul. Stanley had left Paris in October 1761, but in November Count Viry, the Sardinian minister in London, intimated to M. Bailli de Solar, his colleague at Paris, that England would discuss terms of peace. On 8 December Choiseul intimated, through Solar, that he would listen to any overtures for a separate peace from Bute, to which Viry replied on the 13th by suggesting the British ultimatum of 29 July and the French of 5 August as bases for negotiation. He added that the British conquest of Martinique (which was expected) would make a difference, and that public opinion would demand that peace should be (in form at least) offered to, and not received from, Great Britain. The British declaration of war against Spain made little difference to the British desire for peace, and Choiseul felt strong enough to reply (23 January 1762) that the British capture of Martinique would not affect French policy. As Martinique was the strongest and largest French West Indian island, and as it fell in February, this was a strong statement. Bute was indiscreet enough to let it pass unchallenged, but Lord Egremont finally stated the terms as follows. Neither Power was to assist her allies in Germany after the conclusion of the Franco-British peace, except with money; Goree was to be returned to France; rights of fishing in the St Lawrence with the Isles of St Pierre and Miquelon and fishing off Newfoundland were to be conceded to France.

1 By the Preliminaries of 3 Nov. 1762 as well as by the Peace of Paris of 10 Feb. 1763, France agreed to restore the territory of England's other German allies, but not that of Prussia, only promising to evacuate it and not to render further assistance to her own allies (i.e. Austria). By the Treaty of Hubertusburg (between Prussia and Austria) of 15 Feb. 1763 Austria agreed to evacuate Frederick's territory.

The majority of the Cabinet were ignorant of these negotiations, but on 29 March they were induced to sanction one overture to France, and another to Spain. On 15 April, Choiseul answered by accepting the basis of the French and British ultimatums, but demanding the restoration of Martinique. This provoked hot discussion in the British Cabinet, but Newcastle finally induced Bute to lower his terms. Egremont made an official reply to Choiseul,1 insisting on his previous terms, and adding that England would restore Martinique, but demanding the Neutral Isles for England, of which St Lucia, from its position, was of the highest strategic importance.2 Egremont indeed said later that the Barbados were unsafe if St Lucia remained in French hands, and George Grenville to the end remained strongly in favour of its becoming British. This was an extension of British demands and due to fresh conquests. Pitt had declared he would accept a partition of the Neutral Isle in 1761. So far the negotiations had been conducted with the approval of Newcastle, Hardwicke and his party, but they now retired from the Cabinet and did not influence subsequent events. Choiseul was much alarmed over the fall of Newcastle, as he thought it might let in Pitt, and intimated plainly to Bute that there could be no peace if that minister returned to office (23 and 25 May). On 25 May Choiseul, in a lengthy memorandum, insisted on retaining St Lucia and Martinique, but offered to surrender Mobile on the mainland, suggesting, but not insisting, that Cape Breton Isle should be restored to France, and also that concessions should be given her on the coast of Coromandel. On 28 May he wrote again to Solar saying that he would rather break off the negotiations than surrender St Lucia.

On 21 June Bute found the Cabinet opposed to the restoration of St Lucia, and received some sharp criticism. None the less, on 27 June, Bute in concert with Lord Egremont and the King, and unknown to the rest of the Cabinet, gave a secret pledge to restore St Lucia if France were favourable on other counts. They stipulated, however, that the secret of this transaction was to be inviolable. But their conduct in thus defying the majority of the Cabinet was less rash than it appears, for on 17 June Solar had reported Choiseul as saying that peace was made if the British answer was favourable. And it was.

On Choiseul's advice, Bute had negotiated with Spain and received a somewhat haughty reply early in July. This fact added to his difficulties in the Cabinet, and made him unexpectedly stiff when

1 His reply is undated, but must have been sent at the end of April or very early in May. All the quotations in the next few pages are from the Shelburne MSS, vols. IX, X, XI, now in the Library of the Univ. of Michigan.

2 Tobago and St Lucia were already in British occupation; the fall of Grenada and the Grenadines was announced as the despatch was being written; that of St Vincent was expected.

« PreviousContinue »