LETTERII.To Dr. MUSGRAVE ofPlymouth.
SIR,
My last letter concluded with the mention of the conquest of the Havannah. The news of this important conquest arrived in England on the 29th of September, 1762, while the treaty of peace was negociating. Until this period, the D. of B—— had little or no trouble in the negociation, for the principle articles or great outlines of the terms of peace had been previously settled between Lord Bute and Mons. De Verois (now Count Viry) in England, and the Duc de Choiseul and the Sardinian minister at Paris.
At this time the Right Hon. G—— G—— was Secretary of State for the Northern department, and by his office (being a commoner) was to carry the peace through the House of Commons, when it should be laid before the House. When the news of the conquest of the Havannah came, and it was directly determined by the Favourite to give up this important island, because it should not embarrass the negociation, nor impede the conclusion of the peace, Mr. G——— differed, and, in particular, insisted upon an indemnification for it, from either France or Spain. He wanted St. Lucia and Porto Rico,or the entire property of Jucatan and Florida. The Favourite refused to make application for any of these; upon which Mr. G——— resigned October 12, 1762[2]. Mr. Fox (now Lord Holland) was then called upon to carry the peace through the House of Commons. Lord Halifax succeeded to Mr. G———’s office. But Lord Egremont, being of Mr. G———’s opinion, prevailed to have an instruction sent to the D. of B——— to demand Florida only, which was granted without hesitation; for the messenger who was dispatched to the Duke at Paris with this demand, returned in eight days, with an account of its having been complied with. The fact is, the French minister (Choiseul) obliged the Spanish minister to agree to thisdemand, without sending to his court. A proof of the discretionary power which was vested in the French minister by the court of Spain, to agree to whatever compensation should be insisted upon for the Havannah.
The following anecdote concerning the English Ultimatum may throw some light on the preceding fact:—Towards the latter end of the negociation, Mr. Wood, then Secretary to Lord Egremont, called one day at the Duc de Nivernois’s (the French Ambassador in London) about three o’clock, and desired to speak with him. The Swiss told Mr. Wood, his Excellency was dressing, and could not be disturbed: but Mr. Wood insisting upon admittance, was carried up stairs, and passing through a bed-chamber leading to the dressing room, he laid some papers upon the bed, and covered them with his hat. This circumstance being observed by the French Secretary, he directly whispered the Ambassador to keep Mr. Wood to dinner, and he would copy the papers if they contained any thing essential. This was accordingly done: and these very papers, which contained nothing less than the Ultimatum on the part of England, were actually copied by the French Secretary and his clerks, and dispatched that very night to the Duc de Choiseul at Paris. Thus the French Minister at Paris was in possession of these important papers at least two days before the D. of B———.
In a subsequent conference which the D. of B——— had with the French Minister, he urged a compliance to his demands in a high and peremptory tone; the wily French Minister smiled, and told his G.He knew the sentiments of the court of London upon the whole business.
It was the current report in England, when the D. of B——— returned from France, that he had frequently said to his friends, that he could have obtained better terms of peace if he had been permitted. If he was controuled, why does he not now shew those instances of controul, and who it was that obliged him to sacrifice the conquests of the war? As he is known to keep a diary of all public transactions wherein he is concerned, there is no doubt of his being able to give full information; and as days and dates are sometimes of importance in affairs of this kind, his diary will assist him greatly on this occasion. Besides, his letters are somewhere in existence; the Chevalier D’Eon never saw them, and consequently a motion in the H—— of C—— might produce them. We should then see who were the betrayers of our country in that infamous peace: And who it was that so frequently pressed his G. to conclude the negociation, and sign the treaty. The originals of all these important letters are still in being; and if they should not, there is no doubt the D. has a copy of them in his diary. I repeat it emphatically, the correspondence relative to the negociation ought to be laidbefore the public. The Commons of England have a right to call for it; and it is a duty which they owe to their country and to posterity.
Whether the immediate cession of Florida, or what other cause that has not yet transpired, encouraged the demand of Porto Rico, or whether the D. of B. knowing Mr. G——’s sentiments, made that demand himself, finding Florida so easily given up; certain it is, that a demand of that important island was made; and here the French Minister resorted to his chicane. A messenger was sent with this demand to the Court of Madrid. Fourteen days were allowed for the messenger to return. During this interval, the D. received express and positive ordersto sign the treaty immediately. Two days after the treaty was signed, and within the fourteen days, the messenger returned from Madrid, with the surrender of the island. It has been suspected, perhaps from the complexion of the fact, that the island was purchased. If it was, Count V. no doubt, knows both the sum that was given, and to whom it was consigned. If any sum actually was given, it was by Spain; for the view of France was, to make Spain pay the piper.
My next will contain some further particulars of this extraordinary negociation.
I am, Sir,
Your humble servant,
AnENGLISHMAN.
[2]In the pamphlet, intituled,An Appendix to the State of the Nation, we find this fact strongly pointed at, p. 16, wherein the author says, in reply to theObserver: “If he means to charge the great statesman (Mr. G.) who was Secretary of State at the time the plans for the reduction of Martinique and the Havannah were carried into execution, with consenting to restore themwithout compensation; I must tell him, that it was publicly spoken of, at the time the treaty of Paris was negociating, that this gentleman resigned his office of Secretary of State for no other reason,than that further cessions in the West Indies were not insisted on.” And in the Observations on the State of the Nation, we find that author not unacquainted with this part of the negociation, though, agreeable to the principles of the party he espouses, it is but faintly touched; page 29, 8vo edit. are these words, “If this gentleman’s hero of finance, instead of flying from the treaty, which, though he now defends,he could not approve, and would not oppose; if he, instead of shifting into an office,which removed him from the manufacture of the treaty,” &c.
[2]In the pamphlet, intituled,An Appendix to the State of the Nation, we find this fact strongly pointed at, p. 16, wherein the author says, in reply to theObserver: “If he means to charge the great statesman (Mr. G.) who was Secretary of State at the time the plans for the reduction of Martinique and the Havannah were carried into execution, with consenting to restore themwithout compensation; I must tell him, that it was publicly spoken of, at the time the treaty of Paris was negociating, that this gentleman resigned his office of Secretary of State for no other reason,than that further cessions in the West Indies were not insisted on.” And in the Observations on the State of the Nation, we find that author not unacquainted with this part of the negociation, though, agreeable to the principles of the party he espouses, it is but faintly touched; page 29, 8vo edit. are these words, “If this gentleman’s hero of finance, instead of flying from the treaty, which, though he now defends,he could not approve, and would not oppose; if he, instead of shifting into an office,which removed him from the manufacture of the treaty,” &c.
[2]In the pamphlet, intituled,An Appendix to the State of the Nation, we find this fact strongly pointed at, p. 16, wherein the author says, in reply to theObserver: “If he means to charge the great statesman (Mr. G.) who was Secretary of State at the time the plans for the reduction of Martinique and the Havannah were carried into execution, with consenting to restore themwithout compensation; I must tell him, that it was publicly spoken of, at the time the treaty of Paris was negociating, that this gentleman resigned his office of Secretary of State for no other reason,than that further cessions in the West Indies were not insisted on.” And in the Observations on the State of the Nation, we find that author not unacquainted with this part of the negociation, though, agreeable to the principles of the party he espouses, it is but faintly touched; page 29, 8vo edit. are these words, “If this gentleman’s hero of finance, instead of flying from the treaty, which, though he now defends,he could not approve, and would not oppose; if he, instead of shifting into an office,which removed him from the manufacture of the treaty,” &c.