She gave back to France Belleisle, Goree, and a share of both the disputed fisheries in Canada: she restored Martinique, Guadeloupe, Marie Galante and St Lucia. She gave back to Spain Cuba in the Caribbean and Manila in the Pacific. Pitt's own plan is difficult to ascertain, for he might have approved in office some of the cessions which he condemned in opposition. That he was sincere in his opposition is certain, for he severed all political connection with anyone who had had a hand in the peace at the time and even maintained this attitude three years later. The Board of Trade's Secret Report on terms of peace of 13 April 1761 went further than Pitt himself in demanding the exclusion of the French not only from the Newfoundland fisheries, but also from Louisiana and from the Neutral Islands and Guadeloupe. Pitt had agreed to some compromise over the Newfoundland fisheries, though he did not accept Bute's eventual settlement. In this he would seem to have erred, for a report from Newfoundland in 17672 showed that the results of the treaty had enabled English trade to increase at the expense of French, and had reduced the number of French fishers by about 1000. Pitt's mind seems to have been exercised by the reflection, which time proved to be correct, that the main trade of Guadeloupe and Martinique must go to the North American continent in any case. And, if so, it was better that British should be substituted for French sugar, and that a potential naval reserve should be withdrawn from France. It has been ingeniously argued3 that Pitt's consent to giving up Guadeloupe in 1761 was due to the fact that he adopted the new doctrine that Canada with a growing population was a better market for home manufactures than Guadeloupe. When he demanded the retention of Guadeloupe or Martinique in 1762, it is held that Pitt had reverted to the old ideas that a sugar isle was a base of supply. But this omits to consider the political influences on Pitt in each case. He condemned the restoration of St Lucia and of Goree on strategic grounds. "They seemed to have lost sight of the great fundamental principle that France is chiefly, if not solely, to be dreaded by us in the light of a maritime and commercial Power." He pointed out the dangers of the union of the two Bourbon Crowns, and said that Spain was not to be trusted. Havana ought to be retained, for from the moment of its capture "all the riches and treasure of the Indies lay at our feet". On the whole Pitt was an advocate of the doctrine of the need for controlling trade routes and obtaining markets. He wished for Cuba to secure the trade of Spain, for Guadeloupe to secure that of France. He wished for St Lucia as a strategic post in the West Indies. In West Africa he desired Senegal on commercial, and Goree on strategic, 1 Jenkinson (afterwards Lord Liverpool) thought Canada hardly worth acceptance without the fisheries. For Board of Trade Report see Brit. Mus., Add. MSS, 35913, ff. 73 seqq. 2 Shelburne MSS, vol. LXV, 15 Dec. 1767, Hugh Palliser to Shelburne. PITT AND THE PEOPLE 503 grounds. He wished for the exclusive right to the fisheries of the St Lawrence and Newfoundland in order to drive French sailors from the New World. Pitt was less of a free agent in his policy than either Bute or Newcastle. He is to blame for disdaining the one, and for making himself intolerable to the other. But he was to some extent compelled to do this, in order to retain his power. For he was "called to office", as he said in his farewell speech at the Cabinet, "in some degree by the voice of the People" and he stood for bold measures and vigorous action. Bute or Newcastle could rely on their command of pensions or of places to win support; Pitt rested on his popularity alone. And he depended in large part on the goodwill of the City, in particular of his chief supporters, Beckford, Hodges, Price and Wilkes. Burke bitterly commented that the "Great Commoner" knew nothing of the "great extensive public" but only "of a parcel of low toadeaters" and by these he meant the City Elders. All of these held that the French must be totally expelled both from Canada and the Newfoundland fisheries. The unanimity of the City Council in this matter seems to supply the reason why Pitt consented so unwillingly to any modification of our exclusive rights.1 Immediately after his fall he spoke in the Commons, declaring that he repented his concession and that, when we resumed negotiations, "we should have the exclusive fishery in the Gulf a sine quâ non", and he was supported in Parliament by his special friend and crony in the City, Alderman Beckford, and by Wilkes in the press. On the West Indian question Pitt's City friends were much more divided. Beckford argued that the acquisition of French sugar isles would injure existing British isles by reducing the price of sugar. But this view was contested by others of Pitt's City friends. And Pitt was, therefore, able to take his own line more easily. He surrendered Guadeloupe indeed under pressure from his colleagues (and from some of the City) in 1761. But, as soon as he felt strong enough to oppose both, as he did in 1762, he demanded Guadeloupe as well as Canada. For he argued that their trade connection would continue even if Guadeloupe remained French, and that, therefore, she should be British. The classic discussion as to whether Guadeloupe was more important than Canada occupied the pens of many pamphleteers from 1760 onwards. One pamphlet suggested that America might revolt, once it was safe from the French. Others with equal foresight suggested that the peopling of Canada would mean that they would produce manufactures, and that this would not be to England's 1 The meagre evidence as to Pitt's City influence is well summarised by Hotblack, Chatham's Colonial Policy, pp. 12-7. 2 For texts of this speech, 13 Nov. 1761, see Yorke, Hardwicke, m, 338; Hist. MSS Commission, Stopford-Sackville MSS, 1, 86–7. See Grant, W. L., "Canada v. Guadeloupe", Am. H.R. July 1912, pp. 735 seqq. interests. As we know in later years, Pitt declared he would not allow "a nail or a horseshoe" to be manufactured in North America. But he also suggested with pride and prophetic insight that Canada would contain 15,000,000 men "when fully peopled". And this shows that he appreciated the advantages of population as well as of trade, and in this sense went farther than some of his friends in the City. Over the German war Pitt seems to have had the City with him throughout, but he did not always carry all the public. An extremely able pamphlet by Mauduit-Considerations on the present German war— appeared in 1760. It was an anti-Pitt pamphlet, said to have been written under the influence of Lord Hardwicke,1 which ran into many editions. It attacked Pitt's famous dictum of "conquering America in Germany", arguing that the continental war drained our resources, while the colonial increased them. The argument was specious, for it assumed that the German war could be isolated from the colonial struggle, and that our containing operations in Europe did not assist our aggressive operations in America. But it shook Pitt considerably, and at the beginning of 1761 he seemed to be willing to discuss with the King, and with others, the abandoning of the German war. This concession could only have been because of its unpopularity. Towards the end of 1761, however, Pitt strenuously argued for the continuance of war in Europe, and in this attitude the City was with him. Prohibition of manufactures in the colonies, prohibition of Newfoundland fisheries to France, were imperatively demanded by the popular and City connections of Pitt. And it was this system of complete monopoly which was fatal both to his internal and external policy. For Pitt could not have substantially modified either demand and retained either his power or his popularity. As regards the West Indies and the German war he saw deeper and further than any contemporary, and took a more independent course. He was alone in understanding how strategic and commercial aims subserved one another. Far the most powerful defence of the Government was made by Lord Shelburne, who had become President of the Board of Trade in the Government, though he was afterwards to take Pitt as a political model. He began by arguing that territory was "secondary" and "subservient to the interests of commerce, which is now the great object of ambition". In proportion as exports and imports increased in a country, so would the number of sailors and ships, and thus wealth was the best defence of a nation. France and Spain could not 1 This is Horace Walpole's assertion, but it seems doubtful. 2 Shelburne MSS, vol. CLXV, Lord Shelburne's Speech 1762 (evidently on 9 Dec.). It seems to be the notes rather than the text of the speech, and is not signed by Shelburne. It is not given in Hansard, and was not found by Lord Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, 1, 137. There can, however, be no doubt of its authenticity, for it is similar in substance to the "Report of the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations on Division of ceded Provinces and Islands" signed by Shelburne as President of the Board, 8 June 1763. See Brit. Mus., Add. MSS, 35913, ff. 230 seqq. SHELBURNE'S DEFENCE OF THE PEACE 505 well apprehend more evil than they have already sustained, for the capitals of Paris and Madrid were not threatened. So we must make concessions "to make Peace tolerable to our Enemies". The first object we had obtained was America. "The total exclusion of the French from Canada and of the Spaniards from Florida gives Great Britain the universal empire of that extended coast."1 We had gained also "new fields of commerce" with the Indians, and supplies of manufactures to 70,000 "Acadians" (French Canadians), we had likewise obtained security for the immense white population of our own colonists. The British exports to the American mainland had greatly increased of late, and the import of naval stores from thence was of great importance, for it might be developed so as to supersede the materials previously obtained from the Baltic, and thereby add to our security. The concessions made by France in the Newfoundland fisheries would enable us to maintain 4000 more seamen than before. Thus the possession of the whole continent of North America assured us an abundance of population and commerce-and therefore of sailors and of ships. On the other hand, even if we acquired more of the West Indian isles, we should not gain. We exported only £1,000,000 to them at present, and imported £2,000,000, thus losing on the balance. In this view Guadeloupe was a "trifling object", particularly as more sugar could be grown in British islands, and the benefit of such cultivation was doubtful. "Wherever sugar grows population decreases", and therefore "our sugar isles weaken and depopulate our Mother Country, sugar requiring moist[ure] and heat [which] are the causes of putrefaction." "On the contrary the Northern Colonies increase population and of course the consumption of our manufactures, pay us by their trade with foreigners...thereby giving employment to millions of inhabitants in Great Britain and Ireland, and are of the utmost consequence to the wealth, safety and independence of these Kingdoms, and must continue so for ages to come.' There was more than one flaw in this vigorously reasoned and able apology. Thus security disappeared on the mainland if some of the Northern Colonies revolted, as more than one pamphlet had hinted they might do. Shelburne's only suggestion in that direction was that the possession of Florida would enable descents to be made on the Spanish fleet from Vera Cruz or on the Spanish islands. In this respect Pitt's insight cut deeper. It was difficult to formulate or apply schemes of defence on the mainland, and so possession of strategic points in the West Indies was really more important. In the islands, defence rested mainly on the fleet of the mother country; on colonial legislatures which could at need be coerced; and on a 1 He explained later that the French settlement of New Orleans was so unwholesome, and the navigation of the Mississippi so difficult, that no danger was to be apprehended in that quarter. general defence policy which could be absolutely controlled by the Admiralty in London. Further concessions could in fact have been extorted from Spain and France. The maladroitness and haste of Bute had made the whole question of compensation for new captures very difficult. For Havana we did not receive full value. For the brilliant capture of Manila, which took place after the Preliminaries of Peace were arranged, no equivalent or compensation was ultimately given. Its occupation, if known in time, would have been a formidable card in British hands to demand the retention either of Cuba or of St Lucia. Here again the haste to make peace injured England's interests. The demand for more strategic security in the West Indies was Pitt's method of meeting the menace offered by the union of the Bourbons. Against this alliance in the future no provision had been made, as Cumberland pointed out to the King. Had Pitt's advice been followed, and St Lucia or Cuba secured, it is certain that the task of the French fleet in the American War of Independence would have been rendered more difficult. It is even arguable whether the naval disasters, which led to the surrender of Yorktown, could have occurred. Thus strategic security in the West Indies was sacrificed to the interests of the American mainland. And diplomatic security was equally sacrificed in Europe, for Bute abandoned his allies in Germany in order to make peace. Pitt saw the danger of such isolation in Europe and strove, directly he returned to power in 1766, to renew our alliance with Prussia and also with Russia. His efforts were vain, and one cause of British disasters in the War of Independence was the fact that Bute's policy had left us without a single ally in Europe. It is a curious reflection on the Peace of Paris that it was assailed by the greatest of all our colonial statesmen on the ground that it sacrificed British interests, both in the West Indies and in Germany, to those of the American mainland. Such a policy implied indeed an abiding trust in the loyalty of British settlers in North America. And the man who had this confidence, the man who cared nothing for Hanover, who gloried in the name of Briton, who gambled on the loyalty of America, was His Majesty, King George III. |