Department in the place of Conway, while Shelburne retired within his now limited sphere. The preponderance of the Bedford party at once became marked. It meant peace with France and Spain, and a vigorous policy against the Colonies, and was understood in that sense by the representatives and agents of those countries.[1]
The victory of the Bedford party also affected the "western" policy of the Government in America with reference to the Indian Lands. The Grenville Ministry, in which the Duke of Bedford held a leading position, acting on the lines of the Proclamation of 1763, had devised a plan of management in July 1764, which proposed to run an Indian boundary line such as would open the Ohio Valley to immediate settlement, and would enable the Imperial Government to purchase tracts of territory according to the necessities of the time. But there was apparently no question of forming new settlements on a self-governing basis. No boundary line, however, was run, and the matter would seem to have fallen into abeyance. In 1766, Barrington, on behalf of the Rockingham Ministry, devised another plan which if adopted would have effectually barred all further settlements, even within the limits of the existing colonies, in order to cut down expenses as much as possible, owing to the necessities of the financial situation. In the debates of January and February 1767, on the army extraordinaries, Charles Townshend appears to have pledged the Grafton Ministry to this policy,[2] and to have received the support of George Grenville from the Opposition side of the House, though the attitude of the Bedford party does not clearly appear.[3] On this question Shelburne joined issue with Townshend,[4] and his views would seem to have prevailed, as in June Lord Northington speaks of his having "got the mastery"
- ↑ Durand to Choiseul, December 11th, 1767, January 11th, 1st February, 1768; Châtelet de Lomont au Chevalier de Modène, March 15th, 1768. Bancroft, vi. ch. xxxi.
- ↑ "Minutes of the Cabinet, March 30th, 1767"; "Reasons for not diminishing expenses this year," March 30th, 1767. (Lansdowne House MSS.)
- ↑ Lansdowne House MSS.
- ↑ Pitt Correspondence, iii. 210, note, 232-233; Caldwell Papers, Maitland Club Publications, Part II. ii. 106. Townshend and Conway contradicted one another in this debate.
