to descend to subterfuge, when he held subterfuge to be expedient accusations difficult to be set aside.

In recording the events of this trying time, we cannot place out of view the strong temptation, to which all who were prominent in public life were exposed, from the powerful influence of the sovereign, and the unscrupulous tenacity of purpose with which it was exercised. The king always shewed great skill in the management of those political personages who he judged might be useful to him. Throughout his reign he obtained the support of men of undoubted ability, and made them perfect instruments of his will, so that he could influence the policy of the country to an extent which would not now be possible.

It can easily be conceived that an antagonism early arose between Fox and Shelburne, for Fox distrusted Shelburne. This feeling came more directly to the surface when the question arose, what form the negotiations to establish peace should take. Unfortunately the health of Rockingham was shattered. Indeed his days were numbered, and he was unable to exercise the influence attached to his position, and which his conciliatory character made possible. His intervention would have prevented many of the complications that ensued, and he would doubtless have dictated the policy to be followed, in which he would have been no little influenced by the views of Burke.

It is not my duty to relate the dissensions which happened in this short lived ministry, or to trace the influences to which they may be affiliated. Some acquaintance, however, with the events preceding the treaty is indispensable, so that its provisions may be correctly considered. Fox saw in the support given by Shelburne to Thurlow the chancellor, in his opposition to several of the measures discussed in the meetings of the cabinet, much that was dangerous to the stability of the ministry. He complained also, that Shelburne affected the tone of a first minister, with the confidence that the king intended so to constitute him. When parliament met on the 8th of April, North had obtained

1782]

FOX FOREIGN SECRETARY.

119

a pension of £4,000 a year; many members were desirous of having the grant set aside, but the constitution of the ministry made any such attempt in parliament impossible. The differences which existed soon became apparent. In the house of lords, Richmond accused Thurlow of resisting every measure of regulation and improvement, when Shelburne went out of his way to pay compliments to the chancellor.

The bill of economic reform was disliked by the king, for it threatened the system he had laboured to establish. With the view of preventing it from being carried, he wrote to Shelburne confidentially, stating his objections to many of its provisions. The letter was to be shewn to Thurlow, and the two made common cause to restrict its operations. It, however, became law, and, although curtailed, it was a beneficial measure and aided in the purification of public life.

One important act was introduced by Shelburne, that the future holders of offices in the colonies, granted by patent, should be compelled to reside in the country where their duties lay.

Fox at no period of his life appeared to greater advantage. He was now thirty-three, and was indefatigable in the discharge of his duty. His speeches abound with good sense, and his good nature to this day remains as a proverb. His reading and his ability were never pretentiously paraded. He seized the main points of a question to present them in their true light, while his frankness of manner and his undoubted sincerity, joined to a genuine kindness of heart, on all sides obtained for him respect. As foreign minister it was his duty to take a prominent part in the peace negotiations. His policy was to unite Russia and Prussia with Great Britain, and that vigorous endeavours should be made to detach Holland from accord with America. To attain this end he was prepared to revise the principles of maritime law. In this view he prepared a letter to be submitted to the king of Prussia. In all these propositions he was opposed by Shelburne. Fox desired to acknowledge unconditionally the independence of the United States, on

the theory that, this object attained, they would soon cease to take any part in the war, moreover, that the step would lead to negotiations with France, from her unwillingness to continue the contest alone. Shelburne acted upon the view of the king, that the recognition of the nationality of the United States must be made by treaty, and that it should be concluded simultaneously with peace with France.

There was likewise a difference of view as to the powers exercised by them in their respective offices. Fox, as secretary for foreign affairs, directed the negotiations with France; he also held that, as the United States were to obtain their national existence as a federal power, it was a part of his duty to determine the conditions on which peace should be granted. Shelburne, as secretary of the colonies, advanced the pretension that as the old provinces were still nominally colonies they remained under his official control, and it lay with him to conduct the negotiations by which their independence was to be acknowledged. This difference of view had great influence on subsequent events, especially from the circumstance that one minister was the confidant of the king, while Fox was regarded by the monarch with strong personal dislike, from the irregularity of his life and the political opinions he entertained. This matter was complicated by a letter written by Franklin to Shelburne, with whom in former times he had friendly relations. Franklin was the United States commissioner in Paris, and, mixing much in society, was in a position to form correct views of the political situation. That astute personage had seen that the time had come for the United States to make peace with England. The war had become an intolerable burden in America; it was even doubtful if it could be longer carried

on.

Such at least was the declaration made in the appeal to France to obtain an additional loan. The proceedings in the house of commons had given the fullest assurances of the recognition of the independence of the United States. There was nothing more to be gained by perseverance in the war, and if continued it would be to the advantage of France

1782]

PROJECTS OF FRANCE.

121

and Spain alone. It was not for the interest of the United States that France should gain a preponderating weight in Europe, and that Great Britain should be so depressed as to be unable to oppose her in any attempt to dictate her will to the continent. In the state of feeling known to exist with the majority of the French Canadian population, a powerful expedition directed from Europe to Canada could not have failed of success. The few imperial troops in the province could not have held it in possession, with the population disaffected. The French would then have re-taken Canada, unaided by the United States, to hold as a national possession; for any sentiment in that province in favour of congress was limited to some few score of men. It may be remembered, with what repugnance the project of the invasion of Canada by the French had been received, and that Washington intervened to prevent the expedition which Lafayette proposed.

The objection to the possession of Canada by the French was by no means a matter of sentiment, for such a consequence carried with it the limitation of the boundaries of the United States to the geographical extent of the thirteen provinces, as it was recognised at the declaration of independence. The proclamation of 1763 had defined the boundaries of Canada as extending to the Ohio, and no protest had been made against the declaration. It was an accepted fact. Spain, sustained by France, was in possession of the territory of both banks of the Mississippi; indeed, the claim was advanced with the repossession of Florida. Thus an arbitrary limit was threatened, by which the coveted Indian lands would become French and Spanish possessions.

Whatever language de Vergennes may subsequently have held, and whatever view United States writers may see fit to take of his friendly intentions, the course of events which followed the surrender of Cornwallis establishes the determination of France to persevere in the war, that England might be reduced to extremity. The acquisition of independence by the United States was not an important matter in

French consideration, beyond the fact that the loss of the provinces would cause England to be no longer formidable as a rival. France had no sympathy with the claims of selfgovernment put forth in America. Spain was opposed to them, for her ablest statesmen foresaw the extent to which the example would act upon her own colonies, as subsequently happened. France, in her own interest alone, had found money, ships and men to sustain the American revolution, and in her own interest, she desired the contest to be prolonged until the power of Great Britain should be shattered beyond recuperation.

The efforts put forth by France in the early months of 1782 furnish the warrant for this opinion. I have related the successful operations of the French in the West Indies, so that all the islands were in her possession except Jamaica, Barbadoes and Antigua. A powerful fleet, under de Grasse, had left France, designed in the first instance to operate against Jamaica, and, but for the crushing defeat experienced on the 12th of April, the island must have fallen. The smaller islands would have followed. De Grasse would then have been at liberty to sail for the Saint Lawrence. There was no force to prevent a triumphal promenade through Canada. By the majority of the French Canadians he would have been received with open arms, and the correspondence of that date tells us, that Canada was regarded at the time to have been as much an object of the expedition as Jamaica.

Another expedition of the French, in 1782, was directed against the extreme northern British possessions. With a line of battleship and two frigates, La Perouse entered Hudson's bay, his design being to make prizes of the ships annually returning to England with their valuable cargoes of furs, fish, and oil. Failing in this attempt he burned the forts "Churchill" and "York factory," and after the destruction of the property of the company sailed back to France. In this case, there was no ulterior object in destroying the resources of the enemy, as prevention against a threatened expedition. The proceeding has been ascribed