George II of Great Britain trades away 7 Years Wars gains for Hanover

Hanover falls in 1759 and George II ends involvement in the 7 Years War.

Desperate to get his homeland back, he offers Louis XV all/most of Britain's gains back.

How does the British Parliament respond when this Treaty is presented for ratification?

Many in Britain felt HIs Majesty's "other domain" dragged them down in continental commitments.

Could they flatly refuse to trade Canada, the Bengal trading forts, and whatever they may have conquered from France (most of the French West Indies weren't conquered until the next few years OTL) back for Hanover?
 
George II was mostly apolitical, and would influence politics through his government. He, of course, would not negotiate a treaty himself, but require a government to do so. The question is who? Pitt would not back such a treaty. Newcastle probably would not. I'm not sure who else could command a majority in the Commons.
 
If George II directly orders Pitt to make this deal, does he resign?

Would Newcastle be obligated to follow or would he attempt to convince Parliament to end the war with the Ante Bellum Status Quo?

I doubt it would be received well. Many in Britain would celebrate Hanover's loss.
 
If George II directly orders Pitt to make this deal, does he resign?

Yes, as Pitt did when George III ordered his government to sign the overly generous peace deal in our timeline.

Would Newcastle be obligated to follow or would he attempt to convince Parliament to end the war with the Ante Bellum Status Quo?

Newcastle is under no obligation to follow whatsoever. He would make his own decision based on a combination of his own views, and whether he thought royal support from an aging King was worth more or less to his political career than public approval. If he decides to support the King's position, he can probably swing it through parliament, as he controlled patronage at this time. (He inherited his brother's patronage network, who inherited it in turn from Walpole.) Reading Newcastle's own views on this suggest he could go either way. In his early career, he clashed with Townshend over whether Spain or Austria was the bigger threat, and he felt Spain was because colonial concerns were more important. But then he disagreed with Pitt over whether the war would be won in Europe or in the colonial theatre. But then again he opposed the peace in OTL, feeling we gave too much back to the French.
 
Yes, as Pitt did when George III ordered his government to sign the overly generous peace deal in our timeline.


Pitt actually resigned much earlier, nearly two years before the peace. George III wanted Bute as his Prime Minister and got the rest of the cabinet to oppose Pitt on some minor strategy issue and largely forced him to resign.

Pitt was an enemy of the treaty.
 
Yes, as Pitt did when George III ordered his government to sign the overly generous peace deal in our timeline.


Pitt actually resigned much earlier, nearly two years before the peace. George III wanted Bute as his Prime Minister and got the rest of the cabinet to oppose Pitt on some minor strategy issue and largely forced him to resign.

Pitt was an enemy of the treaty.

Yes, you're right. He resigned over whether or not to attack Spain - hardly a minor strategy decision, mind! But it demonstrates how Pitt was very willing to resign over things he did not agree with.
 
Top