World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in
so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in
order to force an entrance for their trade, which the
Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This
question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by
the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as
their sole return for their victories what was known as the
Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use
had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege
of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their
homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese,
and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish
kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the
treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years
to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her
numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on
the business. The English Government committed the contract to
the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be
supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy,
merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or
over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a
provision for the trading of one English ship each year with
Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage
therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not
exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this
stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a
ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous
tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very
profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that
Captain Jenkins was accused. ... Walpole, always anxious for
peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the
growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer.
For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office,
but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and
most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a
declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received
throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. ... A
year and a day after this declaration of war an event
occurred--the death of the Emperor--which helped to swell the
volume of this war until it was merged into the European war,
called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes
within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between
Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war
went on until the general pacification in the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out
again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale
and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title
'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war
was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on
Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello,
and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous
voyage."
E. E. Morris,
The Early Hanoverians,
book 2, chapter 3.
"Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from
Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien,
December 1st--an exploit for which he received the thanks of
both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the
spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through
his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the
commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore
Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying
the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian
town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of
which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between
Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was
on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having
sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 3.
{923}
ALSO IN:
R. Walter,
Voyage around the World of George Anson.
Sir J. Barrow,
Life of Lord George Anson,
chapter 1-2.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapter 43 (volume 3).
See, also,
FRANCE, A. D. 1733,
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742.
Naval operations in the Mediterranean.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.
"Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his
retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had
conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account
of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the
general assault upon the late administration, but more
especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had
expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public
mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the
interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal
head of the new administration, which was looked on as little
more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character
was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded
Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,)
and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It
was about this time that he received a creditable and
convenient addition to his private fortune, which also
attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of
Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on
account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the
laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was
now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition
statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages
between members of their respective families and his own.
These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow
Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of
this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham,
the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke
of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret,
who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on
account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's
Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville,
were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed
Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to
enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr.
Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole--using in derision an epithet
soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country--'the great
Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';--but it was
found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and
after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were
persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance
from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day
be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.'
Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give
his support to the remodelled administration. ... On the
breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically
supported the ministry in their measures to protect the
established government. George the Second's prejudices
against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort
of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand
of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746,
he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland;
and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more
lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. ... In
his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then
rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held
what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for
the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands,
and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he
held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary
for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the
Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt
nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would
accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."
Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4.
"From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts
set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry
Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was
singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful
disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At
his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more
peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in
Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores,
the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of
conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new
type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from
Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble
Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new
statesman a new force, of which he was in part the
representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into
political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of
the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse,
William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The
characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his
career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that
conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the
objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a
strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully
weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an
Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals
from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal
enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow.
Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this
'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."
R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 24-28 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743.
The British Pragmatic Army.
Battle of Dettingen.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The second Bourbon Family Compact.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
The founding of British empire by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
War of the Austrian Succession:
Hostilities in America.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.
{924}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
Fontenoy.
See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
Last rising of the Jacobites.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession
British incapacity.
Final successes at Sea.
"The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by
land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we
are considering. ... Mismanagement and languor were general.
The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape
rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly
be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage,
and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added
little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the
expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of
plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the
Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. ... The overwhelming
superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually
to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which
commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the
Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In
1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior
English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near
Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were
taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most
efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were
enormously multiplied."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
Siege of Genoa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
the French.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America.
Preludes of the final contest.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1751.
Reformation of the Calendar.
See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1753.
The Jewish Naturalization Bill.
See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
The Seven Years War.
Its causes and provocations.
"The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe
ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and
the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family
that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortunately,
however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of
discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new
disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity
were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient
rivalry between France and England, which had formerly vented
itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of
maritime discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the
quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came
into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute
about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into
a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in
such state as they were before the war. This clause became a
copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the
limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the
12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England
'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were
had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed
them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French
pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only the peninsula
extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English
further included in it that part of the American continent
which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St.
Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New
Brunswick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the
British North American settlements. The English claimed the
banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as
forming part of Louisiana; and they attempted to confine the
British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana
to Canada. Commissaries were appointed to settle these
questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the
years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the
occupation by the French of the islands of St. Lucia,
Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared
neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could
terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war
inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say
who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the
other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to
hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French
navy. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister
of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller
vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten
years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly
the occasion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series
of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on
the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by
the mother countries. A French writer, who flourished about
this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare
to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking
gradually to recover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were
now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels
wherever found. ... It being known that a considerable French
fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for
America, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured
two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755.
Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. ...
A naval war between England and France was now unavoidable;
but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also
to be mixed up with a European war.
{925}
The complicated relations of the European system again caused
these two wars to run into one, though their origin had
nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay in
the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European
contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and
decided the fate of Canada on the plains of Germany. The war
in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly
caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity
of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a
royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of
these passions."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 5 (volume 3).
"The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at
all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial
questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; but
the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe,
joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector
of Hanover, made it almost certain that a war between England
and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from
charging on the English Government of the time--for it was
they, and not the French, who forced on the war--as Macaulay
might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen,
of the Russians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown
down at Kunersdorf. The States of the Continent had many old
enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result; and
these would probably have given rise to a war some day, even
if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously
fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each
other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be
remembered that it was the work of England that the war took
place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous
suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and
arbitrary proceedings by which it was forced on, we may well
question whether English writers have any right to reprobate
Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral
in itself and disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were
highway robbers, the English were pirates. ... The origin of
the war between England and France, if a struggle which had
hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said
to have an origin, was the struggle for America."
A. R. Ropes,
The Causes of the Seven Years' War
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
new series, volume 4).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 31-32 (volume 4).
F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapters 1-7.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL).
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the
colonies by act of Parliament.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
Boscawen's naval victory over the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JULY).
Braddock's defeat in America.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
Victory at Lake George.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1756.
Loss of Minorca and reverses in America.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756;
and CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1759.
Campaigns on the Continent.
Defence of Hanover.
See GERMANY: A D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760.
The great administration of the elder Pitt.
"In 1754 Henry Pelham died. The important consequence of his
death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of
coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's
brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fox
for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the
Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield,
for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the
leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much
disliked by the King, to be available for the position. Fox
for a while refused to accept it, and Murray was unwilling to
do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the
professional path along which he was to move to such
distinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas
Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the
attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to
take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those
of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later
still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which
did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never
recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence
suffered by this amazing act. ... The Duke of Newcastle's
Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the
slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of
war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had
now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be
recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was
the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic,
gallant, and profligate Duc de Richelieu. The event is
memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the
trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate
Admiral Byng.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time
the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry
which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this
long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then
a coalition of another kind was formed, which included
Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position
of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own
way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung
himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance
with that great Frederick whose genius and daring were like
his own."
Justin McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
volume 2, chapter 41.
"Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State,
with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme
direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man
who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was
silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the
continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place
in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was
tempting. ... The first acts of the new administration were
characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions
were sent against different parts of the French coast with
little success. ... But soon conquests of a very different
kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession
of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought,
not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the
minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted.
{926}
In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton
was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had
confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The
captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington
Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church,
amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an
immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all
the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree
thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur,
supplies more than double of those which had been given during
the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the
conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga;
then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by
Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year
was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The
news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached
London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy
and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the
general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in
extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were
never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the
nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes
fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument
to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings.
The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to
sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke.
Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French
coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was
furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had
infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had
long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on
the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack
could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done
your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer
for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French
admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were
destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany.
The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph.
Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was
subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of
disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime
conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in
magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in
the East. In the space of three years the English had founded
a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of
India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to
Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the
authority of the East India Company was more absolute than
that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of
Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important
ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by
France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the
Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties.
Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising
foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than
Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and
able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance
as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against
his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with
so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the
Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show
of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to
suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in
an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should
be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in
Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost
no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such
was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high
situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for
him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had
been no example, and which have never since been imitated. ...
The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of
Hanover] were driven out. ... In the meantime, the nation
exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. ... The
success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his
[Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the
national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the
emergency, that the national resources were contributed with
unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The
ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. ... The
situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of
George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any
public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he
domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the
people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first
Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first
country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he
was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets
and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."
Lord Macaulay,
First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
(Essays, volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 33-36 (volume 4).
Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4.
England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Seven Years War.
Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.
Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military
and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have
thought the proper means by which England should assist in a
continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of
little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was
found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping
and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached
Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their
boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the
fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent
out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore
Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar
assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The
army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while
engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French
troops which had been hastily collected, and severely
handled."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, page 1027.
{927}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg
and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761.
Breaking of French power in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
Great victories in America.
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
British naval supremacy established.
Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.
"Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make
preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large
scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other
places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large
fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small
squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at
Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc
d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by
the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the
flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the
channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron,
under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a
diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The
design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably
have succeeded three or even two years before, but the
opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate
state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a
landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with
the support of the newly created militia, would probably have
been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was
found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast,
ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his
ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made
by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet,
under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was
compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in
water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon
M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast,
passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however,
though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase,
and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of
Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which
three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt.
The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded
till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the
coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The
discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was
even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke,
who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven
from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put
to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same
day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay,
where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay,
judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet
of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by
a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the
morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff
in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English,
recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on
their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter
among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running
mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little
known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no
peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all
sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship
was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy,
the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of
fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence
many of the English ships never got into action at all; but
the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was
needed if the enemy were not to escape. ... As long as
daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the
coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad
spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' ... By nightfall two
French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two,
the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil
Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did
that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore
in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and
four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the
river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in
the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the
Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever
got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought
he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with
the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the
Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and
could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the
victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded.
The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had
succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was
a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the
following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of
the war the French never ventured to meet the English in
battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly
while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their
rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval
and commercial supremacy of England was assured."
F. W. Longman,
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
chapter 12, section 3.
ALSO IN:
C. D. Yonge,
History of the British Navy,
volume 1, chapter 12.
J. Entick,
History of the late War,
volume 4, pages 241-290.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
Completed conquest of Canada.
Successes of the Prussians and their allies.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
{928}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
Accession of George III.
His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship.
Retirement of the elder Pitt.
Rise and fall of Bute.
The Grenville Ministry.
"When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had
been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig
families which had been brought into the foreground by the
revolution of 1688. ... Under Walpole's wise and powerful
sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than
the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition
to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of
Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been
impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this
simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his
education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant
king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as
general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly
correct. ... Nevertheless ... George III. was not destitute of
a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in
this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate
end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the
dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some
of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong
wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in
scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in
personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no
banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of
business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent
for administration, and he devoted this talent most
assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human
sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied
manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an
adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and
securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found
them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton
insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the
slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural
enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred.
As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and
short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad
views and independent character he nursed the bitterest
rancour. ... Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in
1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down
the growing system of cabinet government in England."
J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession,
afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary
connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting
while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the
court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their
return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the
ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even
encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to
be in his interest. ... Lord Bute, the originator of the new
policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful
promotion. He was not connected with the great families who
had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no
parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a
courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with
the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above
all, he was a Scotchman. ... Immediately after the king's
accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted
into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards
concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with
a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State.
It was now the object of the court to break up the existing
ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among
the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the
chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been
difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies
amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of
fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most
powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He
desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had
concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war
with this country.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues
except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
--declared that he had been called to the ministry by the
voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for
measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met
with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender
his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister
with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of
Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a
year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal
favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his
popularity. ... The same Gazette which announced his
resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension,
and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite.
On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most
influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief
management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole
direction of the House of Lords. ... His ascendency provoked
the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister,
the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. ... At
length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.
And now, the object of the court being at length attained,
Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as
First Lord of the Treasury. ... The king and his minister were
resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their
arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents
disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative.
Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king,
with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of
privy councillors. ... No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of
the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he ... resigned
his place in the household. A more general proscription of the
Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton,
and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of
Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were
dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. ...
Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of
the Whig party.
{929}
All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
peace, were dismissed. ... The preliminaries of peace were
approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in
the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of
England.' But her exultation was premature. ... These
stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an
organised opposition. ... The fall of the king's favoured
minister was even more sudden than his rise. ... Afraid, as he
confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his
royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7,
1763],--to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king
himself,--before he had held office for eleven months. ... He
retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
control of himself and his favorite."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 1-10 (volume 1).
The Grenville Papers,
volumes 1-2.
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 2-3 (volume 1).
G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The conflicting theories of their relations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
War with Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762.
Capture of Havana.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
"The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.
"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by
courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance
of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the
minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of
opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John
Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are
indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of
political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him
far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and
shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world,
with the manners of a gentleman, were among the
accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely
illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he
engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his
debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested
the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon
religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not
in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a
patriot. ... Wilkes' journal, which originated with the
administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was
happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and
personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed
in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the
political press of the present day; but at a time when the
characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public
estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from
the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. ... It
had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now
acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat
the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as
the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it
had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders
of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes
presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree
which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken
to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought
necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of
the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary
of State to seize--not any person named--but 'the authors,
printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the
North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons
were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as
it was found that none of them could be brought within the
description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of
the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for
false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these
actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff
under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a
Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to
justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the
legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by
name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the
presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of
King's Bench. ... The Court of King's Bench ... intimated a
strong opinion against the Crown upon the important
constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed
the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case
came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined
any further agitation of the questions. ... These proceedings
were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765,
long after the administration under which they were instituted
had ceased to exist. ... The prosecution of Wilkes himself was
pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of
Parliament, which extends to every case except treason,
felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the
vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a
servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative,
advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception,
as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this
perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought
before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary
demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of
State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been
proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the
Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was
brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. ... The argument
which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct
which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once
rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result
was the liberation of Wilkes from custody.
{930}
But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this
disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was
immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he
was deprived of his commission as colonel of the
Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided
the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from
the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy
Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first
business brought forward by the Government was this
contemptible affair--a proceeding not merely foolish and
undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and
decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged