the two Houses of Parliament. Pitt replying to Fox, and saying what was practically true, and also entirely in keeping with the policy of the Government, declared that the recognition of the independence of America, as it stood in the treaty, was irrevocable, and therefore as good as the preliminary recognition demanded by Fox;[1] Shelburne, tempted possibly by the wish to gain a debating triumph over Stormont, and alarmed at hearing that Franklin was threatening to bring forward fresh articles before the treaty was finally signed, anxious too to satisfy the susceptibilities of the King, reminded the House that the recognition was technically not final till it was enshrined in the Final Treaty, which the United States could not sign without the consent of France.[2] George III. was furious with Pitt. "By Lord Shelburne's account," he wrote, "it very clearly appears that Mr. Pitt on Friday stated the article of independence as irrevocable, though the treaty should prove abortive. This undoubtedly was a mistake, for the independence is alone granted for peace. I have always thought it best and wisest if a mistake is made openly to avow it, and therefore Mr. Pitt ought, if his words have been understood to bear so strong a meaning, to say so. It is no wonder that so young a man should have made a slip. This would do him honour. I think at all events it is highly material that Lord Shelburne should not by any language in the House of Lords appear to change his conduct, let the blame fall where it may. I do not wish he should appear but in that dignified light which his station in my service requires, and which can only be maintained by his conduct in the whole negotiation of peace having been neat, which would not be the case if Mr. Fox could prove that independence was granted otherwise than as the price of peace; besides Mr. Vaughan's letter shows further demands are to come from Franklin, which must the more make us stiff on this Article."[3]
Although unable to agree in their criticisms, the
