We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
The failure of the Anglo-French peace negotiations of 1761—the so-called Stanley-Bussey talks—is usually ascribed to two principal causes: British intransigence over the Canadian fisheries and, closely related, the inadequacy of William Pitt's diplomacy; the fact that he lacked both the technique and personality for successful negotiation. British historians in particular, have tended to assess the course and failure of the negotiations with exclusive reference to the policies of the elder Pitt, another example of the mastery that Pitt supposedly wielded over government and administration at this time. The picture they present is that of a domineering figure, subduing cabinet opposition to his extreme demands with the same harsh tactics he employed against defeated France. In the words of Kate Hotblack (taking a view which is still current), “Until his resignation in October, Pitt dominated the peace negotiations as he had dominated the war.”
The purpose of this article is to question this interpretation by showing that Pitt, leading political figure though he was, did not singly control the cabinet and its decisions, but worked more in collaboration with his coministers, most notably his fellow secretary Lord Bute, who played a much greater role in decision-making than has hitherto been recognized. Indeed, if any single factor proved decisive for the deliberations with France, it was their alliance—long in materializing, uneasy in practice, and brief in duration. While Bute sided with Pitt, the latter managed to prevail against his opponents in Council and Britain's policy remained firm; when early in August of 1761, Bute shifted support to the moderates, those favoring last minute concessions on the fishery, Pitt swiftly lost ground and resigned shortly after.
Research for this paper was made possible by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from the Bishop's University Research Fund. An earlier version was presented at the New England Conference on British Studies, November 1, 1980. For permission to consult and cite their manuscripts, I am indebted to: The British Library (B.L.); the Public Records Office (P.R.O.); the Central Library, Cardiff; the Marquis of Bute, Isle of Bute, Mt. Stuart; His Grace the Duke of Devonshire (Chatsworth MSS); the Trustees of the Bedford Estate, London (Bedford MSS); the Hampshire Record Office, Winchester (Stanley Papers); Archives du Ministere des Affaires, Estrangeres, Paris; The Deutsches Zentral Archiv, Merseburg. I also wish to thank Dr. J. L. McKelvey, Dr. K. Hackmann, Dr. M. Moore and Professor I.R. Christie for advice and criticism on various points.
1 The most detailed accounts of the deliberations are: Williams, Basil, The Life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, 2 vols. (London, 1913), 2: 80–102Google Scholar; Yorke, Philip, The Life and Correspondence of Philip Yorke, Earl of Hardwicke, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1913), 3: 268–283Google Scholar; Temperley, H. V., “The Peace of Paris”, Cambridge History of the British Empire, (1929), ch. 27Google Scholar; Corbett, Julian, England in the Seven Years War, 2 vols. (London, 1919), 1: 328 ffGoogle Scholar; Hotblack, Kate, The Peace of Paris (London, 1908), pp. 235, 267Google Scholar; Gipson, L. H., The British Empire Before the American Revolution VIII, the Great War for Empire: the Culmination, 1760-1763, New York (1954), pp. 207–227Google Scholar; Dorn, Walter, Competition for Empire, 1740-1763, (1940), pp. 370–384Google Scholar; Waddington, Richard, La Guerre de Sept Ans, 4 vols., (Paris, 1911), 4: 500–603Google Scholar; and Rashed, Zenab E., The Peace of Paris, 1763, (Liverpool, 1951)Google Scholar. Important primary materials may be found in Thackeray, Francis, A History of the Right Honorable William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, 2 vols., (London, 1827)Google Scholar. Mémoire Historique sur la negotiation de la France et de l'Angleterre depuis le 26 Mars 1761 jusqu 'au 20 Septembre de la même année avec les pieces justificatives (New York, 1966).Google Scholar
2 Rashed, , Peace of Paris, p. 108Google Scholar. Soltau, Roger H., The Duke de Choiseul, (Oxford, 1908), pp. 69–71.Google Scholar
3 French scholars have equally tended to criticize Pitt's imperious ways, W. L. Grant calling him “le dictateur de la politique brittanique” (“La mission de c. de Bussy à Londres en 1761, ” Revue d'histoire diplomatique 20 [1906]: 351Google Scholar). Cf. Waddington, Richard who wrote, “A notre avis c'est bien a Pitt qu'incombe ia responsabilté de léche. Comme conditions de paix il était bien determine a n'accorder que celles qui imposent au vaincu la loi du vainqueur” (La Guerre de Sept Ans, 4: 600–601)Google Scholar. See also, Bourquet, Alfred, “Le Duc de Choiseul et l'Angleterre, la mission de Monsieur de Bussy a Londres, ” Revue historique 71 (1899): 1–32Google Scholar; Le Duc de Choiseul et l'alliance Espagnole, (Paris, 1906)Google Scholar. Muret, Pierre, La Preponderance Anglaise, 1715-1763, (Paris, 1949), p. 532.Google Scholar
4 Hotblack, , The Peace of Paris, 248Google Scholar; cf. Eyck, Erich, Pitt vs. Fox, Father, and Son, 1735-1806 (London, 1950), pp. 99–100Google Scholar. Ayling, Stanley, The Eider Pitt (London, 1976), p. 288Google Scholar. Dickinson, Larry, “The Duke of Newcastle, ” in van Thal, Herbert, ed., The Prime Ministers, 2 vols. (London, 1974), 1:87–90.Google Scholar
5 Bute has been unduly neglected by historians; the only biography is Lovat-Frazer, C.A., John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (Cambridge, 1912)Google Scholar. Aspects of Bute's career are in Namier, Lewis B., England in the Age of the American Revolution (2nd ed.; London, 1961)Google Scholar, and McKelvey, James L., Lord Bute and George III: The Leicester House Years, (Durham, NC, 1973)Google Scholar. Sedgwick, Romney, ed., Letters From George III to Lord Bute 1756-66 (London, 1939)Google Scholar is no longer definitive for there are over 400 additional unedited letters and notes from George 111 to Bute (1756-1765) in the Cardiff Public Library. See also Brewer, John, Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III (Cambridge, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem. “The Misfortune of Lord Bute: A Case Study of 18th Century Political Argument and Public Opinion.” Historical Journal 16 (1973): 113-143; Schweizer, Karl W., “Bute, Newcastle, Prussia and the Hague Overtures: A Re-examination, ” Albion 9 (1977): 72–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Non-Renewal of Ihe Anglo Prussian Subsidy Treaty 1761-1762: A Historical Revision, ” Canadian Journal of History 13 (1978): 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 As Bedford prophetically wrote on May 9, “I fear the rock we may split upon will be the demanding of terms which to oversanguine minds our successes may seem to entitle us to, but which will be inadmissable by France even was she reduced much lower than she really is” (Letter to Newcastle, B.L. Add. MSS. 32922, f451).
7 Marshall, Dorothy, 18th Century England (New York, 1966), pp. 285–321Google Scholar, Browning, Reed, The Duke of Newcastle (New Haven, 1975)Google Scholar, Brown, Peter D., William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (London, 1978), pp. 148–213Google Scholar; Namier, England.
8 Frazer, Ewan, “The Pitt-Newcastle Coalition and the Conduct of the Seven Year's War, ” 1757-1760, ” (D. Phil. Thesis, Oxford, 1976).Google Scholar
9 See Browning, , Newcastle, p. 145fGoogle Scholar, and “The Duke of Newcastle and the Financial Management of the Seven Years War in Germany, “Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research 49 (1971): 20–35Google Scholar, and “The Duke of Newcastle and the Financing of the Seven Years War, ” Journal of Economic History 31 (1971): 344–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Frazer observed that, “Again and again Pitt cleverly exploited the weakness of his own position in the government while retaining Tory support by disclaiming any responsibility for the control of the Commons and retaining an apparently independent attitude. He took advantage also of Newcastle's favor in the closet as a means of forcing disagreeable policies on the King, and frequently continued to put the blame on Newcastle for decisions unpopular with his own supporters but which were in reality of his own devising” (The Pitt-Newcastle Coalition, ” p.v.) This view parallels closely that of Richard Pares, who considers Pitt “an exceedingly artful demagogue, always ready to take credit for anything popular but equally ready to shirk responsibility for things which were not” (War and Trade in the West Indies, 1739-1763 [London, 1963], p. 570 n.2Google Scholar).
11 On the nature, function, and importance of the patriot stereotype, see Brewer, , Party Ideology and Popular Politics, pp. 96–111Google Scholar, and Peters, Marie, Pitt and Popularity: The Patriot Minister and London Opinion During the Seven Years War (Oxford, 1980), pp. 63–65, 265ff.Google Scholar
12 See: Schweizer, Karl, Brown, Peter D., eds., The Political Diary of William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, 1757-1762 (Royal Historical Society, forthcoming) entry November 1760Google Scholar, January 23, 1761, February 9, 1761, February 25, 1761 (hereafter cited as Devonshire Diary).
13 Ibid, for October 31, 1760.
14 For Bute's attempts at reconciliation after the death of George II see: Namier, , England, pp. 120fGoogle Scholar. “An account given by Mr. (Thomas Walpole) of what passed with Mr. Pitt, 13 November 1762, ” B.L. Add. MSS. 32945, ff1-2. Hardwicke to Newcastle, October 29, 1760, B.L. Add. MSS. 32913, ff426-429.
15 Gilbert Elliot to Bute, March 25, 1761, Bute MSS/MT Stuart, nr. 161. Newcastle to Mansfield, March 18, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32920, f295. Symmer to A. Mitchell, March 17, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 6839, ff215-218.
16 For the events leading to Bute's appointment as Secretary of State see, Namier, , England, pp. 156–170Google Scholar, and Brown, , William Pitt, pp. 221–230Google Scholar. The relevant documents are in B.L. Add. MSS. 32917-32920; Devonshire Diary, for January-March, 1761.
17 He wrote to Bedford on July 12: “Your Grace cannot wish for a peace more sincerely than I do, but let that peace prove in some measure answerable to the conquests we have made. I join with you in wishing heartily for a peace a peace such as the bulk of the nation have a right to expect from such a triumphant war, ” (Bedford MSS. vol. 44, nr. 8, f 110), cf., Bedford Corr, 3:31–33.Google Scholar
18 Memo: “My conversation with Mr. Pitt, ” April 10, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32931, ff381-2; Devonshire Diary, for April 9, 10, 1761. For Pitt's minimum terms, see, Newcastle to Hardwicke, April 17, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32922, ff 19-22.
19 Bute to Bedford, July 12, 1761. Bedford Corr. 3:34.Google Scholar
20 Newcastle to Devonshire, April 2, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32921, ff271-273; Newcastle to Hardwicke, May 14, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32923, ff63-71; Hardwicke to Newcastle, May 16, 1761. Ibid., ff123-128. Devonshire Diary, for May 13, June 30, July 11, 1761. Rigby to Bedford, April 22, 1761 and Bedford to Bute, June 13, 1761, Bedford Corr., 3: 6–7, 14–17, 22–29Google Scholar. Lady E. Waldegrave to T. Calcraft, June 28, 1761, P.R.O. 30/8/86, f308; cf. Hyam, Ronald and Martin, Ged, Reappraisals in British Imperial History (Toronto, 1975), pp. 26–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pares, , War and Trade, pp. 576–578.Google Scholar
21 Newcastle observed to Devonshire in a letter of June 18, “As to public affairs, I mean the negotiation for peace, he [Bute] has done admirably well and with success. I found on Monday morning, Mr. Pitt in a very right way of thinking, I own contrary to my expectations. Lord Bute has had a good deal of conversation with him” (B.L. Add. MSS. 32934, ff157-159). See also the interesting observations in Knyphausen (Prussian envoy in London) to Frederick II, May 19, 1761, Deutches Zentral Archiv, Merseburg (hereafter cited as DAZ), Rep. 96.33. ff.243-244.
22 Jenkinson to Orenville, July 21, 1761, in Smith, Willian J., ed., The Grenville Papers (London, 1852), p. 376Google Scholar; Hardwicke to Newcastle, May 16, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32923, f125; Newcastle to Devonshire, August 5, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32926, f187.
23 Secondary studies concentrate on Choiseul's activities after the Seven Years War, (see the bibliography in Scott, Hamish M., “The Importance of Bourbon Naval Reconstruction to the Strategy of Choiseul after the Seven Years War, ” International History Review 1(1979): 17–35).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 As is clearly shown by his detailed instructions to Bussy, May 18, 1761, in Vaucher, Paul, ed., Recueil des Instructions (Angleterre) III (Paris, 1965), pp. 372–385Google Scholar. See also, “Mémoire sur la manière de procéder a la paix, ” January 6, 1761, Archives du Ministère des Affairs Estrangèrs. Paris (hereafter cited as A.E.), Correspondence Politique, p. 281, f47.
25 For the deliberations leading to the Treaty see, Bodin, André Soulange, La Diplomatie de Louis XV et le Pacte de Famille (Paris, 1894)Google Scholar; Rousseau, Francois, Regne de Charles III d'Espagne, 1759-1788, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907), 1Google Scholar; and the historiographical account by Ozanam, D. “Les Origines du Troisième Pacte de Famille, “Revue d'histoire Diplomatique 75 (1961): 307–340.Google Scholar
26 Choiseul to Ossun, February 3, 1761, A.E. Corres., Espagne, p. 531, ff 126-128. Soulange-Bodin, , La Diplomatie, pp. 242–243Google Scholar; Calmette, Joseph, ed., Mémoires du Duc de Choiseul (Paris, 1904), pp. 386–387.Google Scholar
27 French memorial enclosed in Stanley to Pitt, June 18, 1761, P.R.O. S.P.F. 78/251. Thackeray, , William Pitt, 1: 539–543Google Scholar. For Prussia's interest in these negotiations, see Schweizer, Karl W., “Frederick the Great, William Pitt and Lord Bute: Anglo-Prussian Relations 1756-1763 (Ph.D. diss. Cambridge, 1976), pp. 212–221.Google Scholar
28 “His excellency, ” Stanley observed on June 18, “will struggle hard for the Fisheries and had rather part with almost anything else.” Choiseul promised that Cape Breton would not be fortified, and since the Dutch, among other nations had a share in the fisheries “them being excluded would be a disgrace and an inconvenience which the Country could not bear” (Stanley to Pitt, June 18, 1761, P.R.O. S.P.F. 78/251); cf. Yorke, , Hardwicke, 3: 269Google Scholar. Thackeray, , William Pitt, 2: 574Google Scholar. On the Fisheries, see Lounsbury, Ralph G., The British Fishery at Newfoundland, 1634-1763 (London, 1934)Google Scholar, Grant, Ruth F., The Canadian Atlantic Fisheries (Toronto, 1934)Google Scholar, Bronkhorst, Louis, La pêche à la morue (Paris, 1927)Google Scholar. For complete statistics on the fisheries see, B.L. Add. MSS. 35913, 565: ff75-92. Hotblack, , The Peace of Paris, pp. 265–266Google Scholar; P.R.O. 30/8/85 (Chatham MSS), ff365-366.
29 Hotblack, , The Peace of Paris, p. 265.Google Scholar
30 Even Bedford was opposed for fear such a concession might revive French naval power in that area (Bedford to Newcastle, August 10, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32926, ff358-359).
31 Newcastle to Devonshire, June 28, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32934, ff312-313.
32 Ibid., ff313-314, cf. Bedford to Gower, June 27, 1761. P.R.O. 30/29/14, ff526-528. Grenville Papers, 1: 371–373.Google Scholar
33 Newcastle to Devonshire, June 28, 1761. B.L. Add. MSS. 32924, ff318-319.
34 Criticizing the style of Pitt's letter, Newcastle observed to Devonshire: “I wish, we had not put too many sine qua non and that the letter had been wrote with more seeming confidence” (B.L. Add. MSS. 32924, f32). For the British memorandum of June 26 see, Thackeray, , William Pitt, 2: 546–547Google Scholar. Pitt to Stanley, June 26, 1761, Stanley Papers, 10M55/127 nr. 26.
35 Pares, , War and Trade, pp. 577–578Google Scholar. Rashed, , Peace of Paris, pp. 85–86Google Scholar; Yorke, , Hardwicke, 3: 269–271Google Scholar. Grant, , “La Mission de M. de Bussy”, pp. 362–363Google Scholar; Williams, , William Pitt, 2: 93–94.Google Scholar
36 Stanley to Pitt, June 18, 1761 in Thackeray, , William Pitt, 1: 542Google Scholar (“I do by no means conclude that these terms are the best that can be made with France, they are her first offer”).
37 Bute to Bedford, July 12, 1761, Bedford Corr., 3: 34Google Scholar; cf. Hardwicke to Newcastle, June 23, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32934, f221.
38 Waddington, , La Guerre de Sept Ans, 4: 600–661Google Scholar; Rashed, , Peace of Paris, pp. 85–86.Google Scholar
39 von Arneth, Alfred, Geschichte Marie Theresia's, 10 vols. (Vienna, 1863–1876), 6: 268–280Google Scholar. Count of Choiseul to Due de Choiseul, February 15, 1761, A.E. Corres., Autriche 281, ff256-258.
40 Stanley to Pitt, 12 July 1761, P.R.O.S.P.F. 78/251.
41 Memo, July 29, 1761, B.L.Add. MSS. 32926, ff47-49; Jenkinson to Grenville, July 21 and 25, 1761, Grenville Papers, 1: 376–377, 378–379Google Scholar. Knyphausen to Frederick II, July 23, 1761, DZA Rep. 96. 33, ff26-29.
42 The grievances were Britain's illegal capture of Spanish merchant vessels, Spain's claim to the Newfoundland Fisheries and Britain's encroachments on the coast of Honduras. Thackeray, , William Pitt 2: 552–553.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., pp. 553-554; see also, Kaunitz to Starhemberg, July 18, 1761, Von Arneth, 6: 269-270.
44 Memo, July 24, B.L. Add. MSS. 32925, f251. Pitt to Bussy, July 24, 1761, P.R.O. 30/8/85, f201.
45 Newcastle to Devonshire, August 2, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32926, ff187-193. Devonshire to Newcastle, August 9, 1761, Chatsworth MSS 260/329.
46 Pitt to Stanley, July 29, 1761, P.R.O.S.P.F. 78/251.
47 On July 27, three days after the cabinet council, Pitt wrote Bute requesting a meeting” to concert what may be necessary for the settling of the dispatch to Mr. Stanley, ” Pitt to Bute, July 27, 1761, Bute MSS. Mt. Stuart, cf. Bute to Pitt, July 24, 1761, p. R.O. 30/8/24 f326; Newcastle to Hardwicke, August 1, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32936 f125-126. Jenkinson to Grenville, July 21, 25, 28, Grenville Papers, 1: 376–380Google Scholar. “I must observe to your Grace, ” Newcastle wrote to Devonshire on August 5, “that in every conversation I have lately had, either with the King or my Lord Bute, I find them both less determined upon peace and more disposed to give into and support Mr. Pitt in his warlike notions …” (B.L. Add. MSS. 32925, f188).
48 Choiseul to Havrincourt, July 30, 1761 (intercept), B.L. Add. MSS. 32926, f67; Choiseul to Ossun, July 30, 1761, in Bourquet, , l'Alliance Espagnole, p. 225Google Scholar, A.E., Corres., Espagne, 533, ff176-178.
49 Thackeray, , William Pitt, 2: 566–569.Google Scholar
50 Devonshire Diary, for August 13, 14; Hardwicke to Royston, August 15, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 35352, ff183-184; Pitt to Bussy, August 16, 1761, Thackeray, , William Pitt, 2: 589–591Google Scholar; Bedford to Devonshire, August 17, 1761, Chatsworth MSS 286/8; Bedford to Bute, August 18, 1761, Bute MSS. Mt. Stuart.
51 Bedford Correspondence, 3: 36–39Google Scholar; Devonshire to Bute, August 18, 1761, Bute MSS/MT. Stuart, nr. 584. Devonshire to Newcastle, August 21, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32927, ff154-155. Devonshire to Bedford, August 16, 1761, Bedford MSS. 44, f128; same to same August 18, 1761, Bedford Correspondence 3: 41–42Google Scholar. Bedford to Devonshire, August 18, Chatsworth MSS. 286.9.
52 Devonshire Diary, for August 18, 1761; Bute to Pitt, August 14, 1761, Bute MSS. Mt. Stuart.
53 Devonshire Diary, for August 19, 1761. Hardwicke to Royston, August 22, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 35352, ff188-189.
54 Thackeray, , William Pitt, 2: 591–597.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., pp. 619-623. Stanley: notes on meeting with Choiseul, September 2, 1761, Stanley Papers, 10M55/124. Newcastle to Bedford, September 13, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32928, ff131-132.
56 Stanley to Pitt (private) September 2, 1761, P.R.O.S.P.F. 78/252.
57 Grimaldi to Fuentes, August 31, 1761, Chatham Corr., 2: 139–141Google Scholar. Minute, Cabinet Session, September 18, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 35870, ff304-305.
58 Grenville Papers, 1: 386–387.Google Scholar
59 Hunt, William, “Pitt's Retirement from Office 1761, ” English Historical Review 21 (1906): 119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Devonshire Diary, for September 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 1761.
60 Minute, September 19, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32928, ff248-250; Minute, B.L. Add. MSS. 33000, ff271-272; Newcastle to Hardwicke, September 20, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32928, ff259-260.
61 Yorke, , Hardwicke, 3: 280–281Google Scholar; Schweizer, Karl, “Lord Bute and William Pitt's Resignation in 1761, ” Canadian Journal of History 8 (1973): 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62 For examples see, Newcastle to Hardwicke, May 14, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32923, ff63-71; Newcastle to Devonshire, June 28, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 32924, ff313-314; Devonshire Diary, for August 19, 1761; Minute, August 24, 1761, B.L. Add. MSS. 35870, f301.
63 There are among the Bute MSS. at Mt. Stuart numerous draft dispatches and copies of official documents which Pitt submitted regularly for Bute's inspection and comment before they were communicated to the Cabinet. See, Pitt to Bute, April 4, 26, 28, May 31, June 30, July 12, and August 14, 1761, Bute MSS. nrs. 226, 320, 354, 448, 472, 509, and 570. See also Schweizer, “Frederick the Great, William Pitt and Lord Bute, 198 n.4.
