- ReferenceL30/14/137/5
- TitleCorrespondence is marked secret and confidential:
- Date free text9 Dec 1782, received 15 Dec 1782
- Production dateFrom: 1782 To: 1782
- Scope and ContentSending letter by Mr. Beckford of Dorsetshire. Visited M. de Vergene [Vergennes]. to discuss St. Eustatia, but it was his "publick day, and he had an uncommon number of audiences to go through. "Did discuss French demand for indemnification for private property destroyed or plundered at St. Eustatia. If this is pressed, Britain will not relax demand in favour of her subjects who suffered from French expeditions to the coast of Africa and Hudson's Bay. The British claim might be more considerable than the French. M de [Vergennes] argued distinction between rights of private individuals, as the French merchants, and the Hudson Bay Company, whose property (like the East India Co's) should be considered `publick' property, which might lawfully be destroyed or confiscated in time of war. Fitzherbert strongly denied this for various reasons, stressed "forts", so-called, at Hudson's Bay, no more than ware-houses "the slender means of defence they were provided with being intended solely against the Indians [Vergennes]. Expects M de V[Vergennes] to stick to his argument though, as Grantham is right in thinking that his claim for indemnification at St. Eustatia's must fail without it. M de V.[Vergennes] expressed astonishment and anger at Grantham's reply to the Spanish proposals, especially the demand for a third West Indian Island (Trinidada or St. Lucia) in addition to those proposed to be exchanged for Gibraltar (Guedeloupe and Dominica). Claimed the deal had already been agreed. Would consider it madness to give us St. Lucia, as Martinique [?] would by that means be left isolated and unprotected in case of future war. Trinidada he absurdly insisted in calling the "key" to all the Spanish possessions on the American Continent, claiming that the British wanted it for that reason and not to convert into a sugar plantation. Says this impossible suggestion can only have been made from a desire to break off negotiations, confirmed by tone of Grantham's and Shelburne's conferences with M de Rayneval. Protested at hurry in which negotiations conducted, especially inconsiderate demand for early reply to Grantham's paper of 4 December. Fitzherbert defended the justice, moderation and sincerity of the King's ministers. Dined with Madame de Vergennes, found there a friend (the French minister at Brussels, a bosom friend of Madame de Polignoc) who said in confidence that the King had used exactly the same language that morning, in consequence of which everyone seems to think that the negotiations have been broken off. After dinner again spoke to M de V[Vergennes] on pretext of requesting passport for Mr Beckford. Raised subject again, was told that if M de V were the Spanish minister he would rather cut off his right arm than sign a treaty giving Trinidada to Great Britain on any pretext whatever. Suggests this may be because M de V[de Vergennes] is an artful courtier acquainted with the King's temper, and follows the King's latest whim. Thinks the King has been influenced by those Frenchmen opposed to peace, as is anxious for a chance to retrieve the glory of the French navy "so cruelly tarnished by Lord Rodney's Victory." 10 ships of the line, carrying 7,500 effective land forces, sailed from Brest for the West Indies on 3rd. With this, plus the force to sail from Cadiz some time later this month, the "Combined Fleets" in the W. Indies will have at least 60 sail of the line. The King may have been tempted to risk another campaign. Should this happen it is very desirable to have signed the American Treaty", if any confidence can be placed in the solemn declarations of these commissioners that America will not "feel obliged to continue the war for the sake of Spanish pretensions.” Adds that these conversations were private and confidential, and to be treated as such.
- Level of descriptionitem
- Persons/institution keyword
- Keywords
Hierarchy browser