While Britain thus triumphed on every side, and by diplomacy, subsidies and fighting gave "fair, candid and honest"1 aid to her ally, the fortunes of Frederick seemed to be sinking beyond hope. Far outnumbered by the Austrians and Russians, he could neither bring the Austrians to give battle nor the Turks to paralyse the Russians by entering the war. In July, a lieutenant failed disastrously to stay the Russian invasion and the fall of Frankfort-on-the-Oder followed. The King himself dashed northward to save Berlin, but at Künersdorf (12 August) Russian guns and Austrian horsemen crushed his army and drove him to the verge of suicide or abdication. The coup de grâce, thanks to the jealousy and incompetence of the allies, was not given, but the loss of Dresden and two further grave disasters in the field must convince any ordinary observer that the downfall of Prussia was at hand. Even before these blows fell Frederick had confessed that he could not sustain the conflict for another year, and that Britain's triumphs and "the honourable and disinterested views of Mr Pitt" could alone rescue him from ruin.2 Time would show what in the great patriot's judgment were the conditions of a righteous and abiding peace. 1 Mitchell to Pitt, 8 Jan. 1759, Pol. Corresp. XVIII, 10. 2 To Knyphausen, 1 Sept. 1759, ibid. xvm, 512. CHAPTER XVII THE PEACE OF PARIS THE year 1759 saw the zenith of the glory of England and of Pitt. The mere reading of the battle roll will explain why. First came the news that Goree had fallen and that England had secured the whole West African trade in slaves and gum. Next it was announced that the French had surrendered Guadeloupe, their richest sugar isle of the West Indies, and, soon after, the isles of Basse Terre and Marie Galante. Then came that victory, called by Pitt the "Marathon of Minden", where the British infantry won immortal fame. Next it became known that Amherst had occupied Ticonderoga and avenged our defeat of the year before, that Johnson had seized Fort Niagara, that Wolfe had passed up the St Lawrence and was bombarding Quebec. From India, where the British had been hard pressed the year before, came the joyful tidings that the French had been repulsed from the walls of Madras and beaten at sea, while Surat had fallen to British arms. In August Admiral Boscawen reported his victory over the Toulon fleet off Lagos in Portugal. În the very week in which Parliament assembled, came the news of the capture of Quebec and of Wolfe's glorious death in the moment of victory. Even yet the cup of triumph was not full. In November Hawke won at Quiberon Bay the greatest victory over the French that England had yet achieved. Thirty-one French sail of the line had been captured or destroyed in the war, and of these a third had been taken in this year. On 29 November a royal proclamation ordained a public thanksgiving to Almighty God "for disappointing the boundless ambition of the French", and because "He had given such signal successes to our arms both by sea and land". Undazzled by success Pitt planned the campaign for the new year in the autumn of 1759. Victories hardly less splendid than those of 1759 were won by the generals of Pitt's choice. The British garrison, which had been besieged in Quebec, was relieved in May. In June Amherst advanced from the south and, by a triumph of organising skill, united his three converging columns beneath the walls of Montreal. On 8 September the surrender of that city took place, and with it all Canada was British. In India, as in Canada, 1760 was the year of final conquest. On 22 January Coote defeated the French at Wandewash in a battle second only to Plassey in importance. February saw the fall of Arcot, April that of Caracal, and May the blockade of the French in Pondicherry. It is striking to see the impression made by the events of 1760 even upon the timid Newcastle party. On hearing of the fall of Quebec in 1759, the sage Hardwicke doubted whether we could keep it, or Louisbourg or all Canada "without fighting on for ever". But when negotiations began in 1761 everyone in the Cabinet voted for keeping all Canada. The tide of war had turned also in Germany. In July 1760 Prince Ferdinand triumphed at Warburg where Granby and the British cavalry excelled themselves. Frederick won a brilliant victory at Liegnitz in August, and a more solid success at Torgau in October. He had not expelled his enemies from his territory but he had administered decisive checks to them. By giving troops to Ferdinand and subsidies to Frederick Pitt had used Germany to contain the French. He intended to celebrate the year 1761 by capturing Dominica, Martinique and St Lucia. He meant also to touch French pride and to obtain an equivalent for Minorca by seizing Belleisle. But he was fully conscious of the need of a diplomatic, as well as of a military, strategy. And the chief aim of his policy towards neutrals was to conciliate Spain. Pitt dreaded the union of the Spanish and French crowns. He had witnessed two Family Compacts between the Bourbon rulers and wished to avert a third. He began in 1757 by offering Gibraltar as the price of an alliance, provided that Minorca (just captured by France) was returned to England.1 And even when this handsome offer was refused, Pitt continued assiduously to court her favours. The feeble Ferdinand died in the autumn of 1759. He was succeeded by Charles III, the Bourbon ruler of Naples, and a very different man. A philosophic despot, obstinate, bold, haughty, energetic, he brooked no resistance at home and was impatient of opposition from without. He had special reasons for disliking England and her sea power. Seventeen years before, a British captain had stood by him at Naples with his watch in his hand and forced him, by a threat of bombardment, to sign a treaty of neutrality in an hour. To this personal humiliation of the new King was added his great interest in the commerce of Spain, and his irritation at British smuggling. The French Foreign Minister, Choiseul, at once sought to inflame Charles III's hatred of England, by proposing an alliance with France. For this Charles was not as yet prepared. Being an admirable administrator himself he wished to reorganise the commerce, the army and the fleet of Spain, and such a process took time. Moreover, he did not, as yet, want to be too dependent on France. He preferred to offer himself as a mediator between France and England, with a threat of siding with the Power which rejected his mediation. If he was unable to play this glorious part, if England failed to redress his grievances, he might ally himself with France, the 1 Hist. MSS Comm. Rep. x, Weston-Underwood MSS, 1, 212, 221. 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. 1 |