in saying that Great Britain had only twelve ships of the line ready for sea, and urged him on that account to maintain a firm attitude.1 For by the end of November the situation had hardened. Spanish pride was roused; Charles stiffened; Grimaldi predicted a riot. The crisis was suddenly and dramatically resolved by the fall of Choiseul. At last it had seemed certain that Spain was committed to war, and that the moment for which he had so long been scheming was at hand. He announced to Louis and his Council the preparations he was making for war with Great Britain. This was the occasion for which his rivals, Maupeou and Terray, had been waiting. He had made matters easier for his enemies by provoking the hostility of the King's new and low-born mistress, Madame du Barry. On 6 December Terray declared that the Treasury was empty and that French credit did not exist. Choiseul's restless intrigues against England were denounced to the King, and his insensate thirst for war, at a time when war meant financial ruin, and when by his foreign policy France was placed in a very unfavourable position upon the European chessboard. The whole affair of the Falkland Islands was said to have originated with him, and to have been encouraged by his unauthorised promises to Spain. Louis took alarm. On the 21st he insisted that the King of Spain should be urged to do his utmost to maintain peace and submit to the British terms. "My Minister wishes for war", he wrote to Charles, "but I do not. 52 On 24 December Choiseul was dismissed. Spain and Great Britain remained on the brink of war. The Spanish court had already decided to refuse the British demands. In answer to the high language held by Masserano in London, Lord North despatched a courier (18 January 1771) to recall Harris from Madrid. Harris quitted the capital, but he had not gone twenty leagues before he was met by a second courier, sent off by Rochford four days later, who informed him that Spain had conceded all the British demands.4 The expedition of Bucarelli was disavowed. The British garrison was restored to Port Egmont. The King of Spain did not, however, withdraw his claim to the territory in question. The terms of the convention were bitterly attacked by Chatham and the Opposition.5 Furious at being foiled in their appeal to the country for increased naval power and territorial and commercial expansion, and aided by the invective of Junius, they pointed out that the demand for the Manila ransom had been dropped, and that the reservation of the Spanish claim to the Falkland Islands was unnecessary and unprecedented. It was moreover alleged that by a secret article or verbal assurance the Government had pledged themselves either to a speedy withdrawal or to a surrender of the

1 Aff. Étr. Angl., Corr. Pol. CDXCIV.

2 Duc de Broglie, The King's Secret, n; Rochford, Correspondence.

3 Grafton, Autobiography, 1, 255; cf. Aff. Étr. Esp. DLXII; Angl. CDXCV.

5

Harris, Diaries, 1, 73; Cal. H.O. Pap. nos. 390, 391, 485, 492.

L.J.; Parl. Hist. xvш, 167–8; Chatham Corr. IV, 71-2.

FALL OF CHOISEUL

703

islands to the Spaniards. The despatches of Harris make it plain that there was no such article, and that the restitution was demanded and conceded by Spain without reserve. The existence of any such agreement "made directly or indirectly by H.M. Ministers", was flatly and indignantly denied by Rochford when the point was raised by M. d'Aiguillon on behalf of Spain in December 1771, and November 1773. M. de Guisnes, however, the French ambassador, asserted that some such solution was spoken of by English ministers, though without Rochford's knowledge. This may have been the origin of the rumour, or possibly it was circulated by Grimaldi, to lessen the loss of his personal credit in France, to foil the attacks made upon him by Aranda and his faction for his feeble handling of the affair, and to be used in the future.1

Whatever the truth of the rumour, Port Egmont was certainly abandoned by the British shortly afterwards (1774). But the flag was left flying and sheets of lead were affixed to the rocks on which was engraved the declaration of the sole right and property of the Crown of Great Britain to the Falkland Islands. It had, no doubt, been found that Anson had much exaggerated the fertility of the soil, which is for the most part only suitable for sheep-farming. The strategical value of the islands has been fully demonstrated of recent years.

The fall of Choiseul, according to the considered opinion of Lord Shelburne, came in the nick of time to save Great Britain, distracted by American affairs, from the attack of a hostile combination. He had proofs he said, speaking six years later, that Gibraltar, Minorca, Jamaica, and the greater part of our possessions in the East and West Indies would have been among the first sacrifices that would have befallen us, but for that "miraculous interposition of Providence".2 The Falkland affair had some important results. On the one hand, it compelled a strengthening of British naval forces and was the occasion of Nelson's entering the Navy. On the other hand, it removed the most determined enemy of Great Britain from power, and it demonstrated the weakness of France and the lack of co-ordination between the members of the Family Compact.3

Thus was war, arising from French and Spanish rivalry in the colonial sphere, narrowly averted for the time being. France, under the guidance of Madame du Barry and the Triumvirate, Maupeou, Terray and Aiguillon, passed for the next few years into eclipse. The only official incidents worth mentioning in this period were the surreptitious strengthening of Dunkirk and the trespass of some

1 Harris, Diaries, 1, 77, 78; Williams, Life of Chatham, 11, 272; St Paul of Ewart, Correspondence, 1, 276-91, 1, 75, 129, 133, 134; Down, W. C., "The Falkland Islands Dispute", an unpublished thesis in the University Library, Cambridge.

2 Parl. Hist. xviii, 675.

3 Cf. Hertz, G. B., British Imperialism in the eighteenth century, pp. 110-53, and Winstanley, D., Chatham and the Whig Opposition, pp. 391-6, 408-13; Goebel, J., The Struggle for the Falkland Islands.

French traders in Senegal. The latter encroachment was regarded in England as the beginning of a sinister attempt to "worm us out of the most beneficial part of that trade". It was disavowed by M. de Boynes, Minister of Marine, 13 June 1773.1 But the whole question as to what was meant in the Treaty of Paris by the cession of the River of Senegal "with all its rights and dependencies", was raised again in 1774 and 1775, by the action of French traders and the claims of the French Governor of Goree on their behalf. Firm instructions, backed by a couple of frigates, were sent to Governor O'Hara to enforce British claims (April 1776). In this Aiguillon acquiesced. Mention should perhaps be made of the extraordinary "unofficial" memorial presented by him on India. Lord Rochford returned it with the comment that if it had been "ministerial", it must have been regarded as a prelude to war. For the rest, the French minister was continually reproached by Spain for his lack of hostility to Great Britain. Expeditions to make settlements on the Niger and in Formosa were also taken in hand by the French (1772, 1773).5

2

In Spain, the position of Grimaldi, shaken by the fall of Choiseul, was further weakened by the disastrous defeat of an expedition against Algiers planned by him (June 1775). This circumstance, combined with the forbearance of the British Government, whose hands were full with American affairs, led to the speedy settlement of an incident in the West Indies, where a landing from an English vessel on Crab Island, to which both Spain and Great Britain laid claim, created a situation which might otherwise have assumed a more threatening aspect. About the same time, a lively discussion raised by Spain over the concession of the island of Balambangan in the Philippine group to the East India Company ended in the acknowledgment of the British claim, whilst Spanish influence over Sulu and the neighbouring island was recognised (August 1775).8

After the death of Louis XV, the ideas of Choiseul began once more to dominate French policy. They found an able exponent in the clear-sighted and vigorous Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Comte de Vergennes. The revolt of the Thirteen American Colonies gave France the opportunity for which she had so long been waiting. Chatham, in a famous speech (20 January 1775), described France as a "vulture hovering over the British Empire, and hungrily watching the prey that she is only waiting for the right moment to pounce upon". His prophecy that a prolonged struggle with America would lead to the intervention of France and Spain was repeated in the

1 St Paul of Ewart, Correspondence, 1, lxxvii, lxxx, 208–20. 2 Ibid. 11, 53 seqq.; vide supra, p. 455.

4 Ibid. 1, xxxvii, 276.

3 Ibid. 1, 29-37.

Ibid. 1, 72, 294.

6 Coxe, Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain, 1, 376-8; St Paul of Ewart, Correspondence, II, 216-21. ? Coxe, III, 380; Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1699, nos. 766, 907. Renaut, F., Le Pacte de Famille, p. 215.

BEAUMARCHAIS' MISSION

705 following year by Colonel Barré and Charles Fox to an incredulous House of Commons. One of the arguments adduced in the House in favour of repealing the Stamp Act had been that if it were persisted in, America might place herself under the protection of France and Spain. These might, indeed, at first sight well be deemed strange allies. But the colonists had long enjoyed a brisk inter-colonial trade with them, a trade forbidden, indeed, but engaged in by all the Powers alike, and rendered, financially and commercially, a necessity to the colonies, by the very treaties and Acts of Trade and Navigation which forbade it. The rigid enforcement of these Acts had brought vividly home to the Americans that their interests were closely bound up with those of the French and Spaniards. George Johnstone, Governor of West Florida, for instance, wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Trade that he despaired of seeing that settlement flourish unless Spanish commerce was permitted. He could not conceive why it had been stopped.1 More recently the boycott of British goods by the colonists, following upon the imposition of the tea and other duties, had resulted in the diversion of a large amount of trade to France.2 Commercial relations of this sort naturally drew the colonists closer to their erstwhile enemies, especially now that they were relieved from the danger of their immediate neighbourhood.

Relations with the representatives of the insurgent colonists appear to have been first established in England by Caron de Beaumarchais. Son of a clockmaker of Paris, known at that time chiefly for the romantic incidents of his youth and his trial before the Maurepas Parlement, remembered now almost wholly as the witty author of The Marriage of Figaro and The Barber of Seville, Beaumarchais himself attached most importance to his career as a busy agent in the underworld of politics. As such, he had been sent to England by Vergennes to procure the suppression of a pamphlet directed against Marie Antoinette, which had been printed in London. Here he came into touch with the notorious Chevalier d'Éon, and succeeded in purchasing from him the State papers and plans for an invasion of England which he had secreted since 1763. Here, too, at the house of Wilkes, he met Arthur Lee, a young Virginian student of law. This was towards the end of 1775.

3

In America, John Adams, at the head of the New England party, had already urged that the revolutionary leaders should enter into negotiations with France and Spain. In November a Committee of Secret Correspondence "with the friends of America" was appointed. Congress was in urgent need of money, arms and clothing for the army. In the following spring Silas Deane was sent to Paris as 1 Hist. MSS Comm., Report XIV, App. x (American Papers).

2 See Benjamin Franklin to Cushing, 5 Jan. 1773.

3 Broglie, II, 500 seqq.; Loménie, L. de, Beaumarchais et son temps, II, 113; Vergennes, Correspondance.

CHBEI

45

Commercial Commissioner and Agent for the Thirteen United Colonies. His instructions, dated 3 March 1776, directed him to acquaint Vergennes that, in the probable event of separation from Great Britain, France would be the Power whose friendship they would most desire. It had been hinted by Rochford to M. de Guisnes in July 1774 that many people in England felt that a war with France might prove the solution of the American problem. The colonists, it was thought, might then settle their quarrel with the mother country, from fear that France might recover Canada. Guisnes informed Vergennes, and a message was conveyed to the Americans, assuring them that France sympathised with them in their struggle, and that, for herself, she had no desire to regain Canada. The mission of Deane was in some sort a reply.

When he arrived in Paris (July 1776) the policy of France had already been determined. At the beginning of the year, Vergennes had presented a memorial to the King, in which he urged that it was the interest of France and Spain to seize the opportunity marked out for them by Providence for the humiliation of England and to strike decisive blows at a chosen moment. He argued that, if Britain effected a reconciliation with her colonies, she would probably utilise the forces she had concentrated in America to seize the French and Spanish possessions in the West Indies. Or again, if the colonies achieved their independence, Britain might endeavour to compensate herself for her loss by taking the West Indian islands belonging to France and Spain. The military and financial position, however, was not sufficiently good to tempt the Bourbon Kings to adopt so bold a policy.

Vergennes, therefore, submitted an alternative proposal to the King and his Council. Since the exhaustion produced by the civil war must be infinitely advantageous to France and Spain, that war must be encouraged by secretly assisting the Americans whilst "dexterously tranquillising" the English ministry by professions of friendship. The insurgents must be supplied with the money and military stores without which they could not continue their resistance. France in the meantime must strengthen her navy and prepare for intervention should occasion arise. Louis referred this proposal to Turgot, the Comptroller-General of Finance, in April 1776. He answered in a remarkable memoir, forecasting the probable economic effect of the independence of the British colonies. As for France, he insisted that nothing but prolonged peace and economy could prevent a financial breakdown. To that end she must avoid any course which might lead to war, though ministers might perhaps be excused if they shut their eyes to either of the contending parties making purchases in French harbours.1 Maurepas and Malesherbes agreed. But Malesherbes shortly afterwards retired and Turgot was dismissed. The policy of Vergennes triumphed. Under Sartines at the Ministry of Marine 1 Turgot, A., Réflexions rédigées à l'occasion [du mémoire de Vergennes].