page 1 note 1. PRO, SP, Foreign, Sweden, 1655–56 (SP 95/5B). The ‘Proposicion for the manageing the Trade of Sweden’, and the ‘Propositions in Order to a Treaty with Sweden’ (fos. 152–156) are both—the former probably, the latter certainly—to be dated to 1657.

page 1 note 2. I.e. in 1655–56: it was a different matter in 1657–8.

page 2 note 1. Treffenberg, N.C.E., K. Carl X Gustafs instruction för Secreteraren Coijet under dess beskickning till England 1654, (Uppsala 1851).Google Scholar

page 2 note 2. Om Riks-Rådet Frih. Christer Bondes Ambassad till England 1655 (Uppsala 1851).Google Scholar

page 2 note 3. Carlbom, J. Levin, Sverige och England 1655–aug. 1656 (Göteborg 1900).Google Scholar

page 2 note 4. von Pufendorf, Samuel, Sju backer om Konung Carl X:s bragder, trans. Hillman, Adolf, (7 vols. Stockholm 1913–1915)Google Scholar: I have used this version.

page 4 note 1. Cf. Mémoires du Chevalier de Terlon pour rendre compte au Roy de ses Négotiations (Paris 1681), pp. 188, 197.Google Scholar

page 4 note 2. Fryxell, Anders, Berättelser ur svenska historien (new edn., 43 vols. Stockholm 1901), xi. 88–9Google Scholar; Landberg, Georg, in Den svenska utrikespolitikens historia, 1:3, 1648–1697 (5 vols. Stockholm 1956–1961), p. 46Google Scholar. But the authorship was also claimed by Edvard Ehrensteen: [S. Loenbom], Anecdoter af Namnkunniga och Märkwärdiga Swenska Män (3 vols. Stockholm 1770–1775), Iv. 71.Google Scholar

page 5 note 1. Details from Carlbom, Sverige och England, p. 9Google Scholar. n. 1.

page 5 note 2. Swedlund, Robert, ‘Krister Bonde och reduktionsbeslutet 1655’, Karolinska Förbundets Årsbok (1937)Google Scholar; Dahlgren, Stellan, Karl X Gustav och reduktionen (Uppsala 1964), PP. 38, 55.Google Scholar

page 5 note 3. Svenska riksrådets protokoll (Handlingar rörande Sveriges historia, 3rd Series) (18 vols. Stockholm 1873–1959), xvi. 6–7, 15, 18.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1. Calendar of State Papers (Venetian) 1655–1656 (1930), pp. 133, 152.Google Scholar

page 6 note 2. Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs (4 vols. Oxford 1853), iv. 270.Google Scholar

page 6 note 3. His name does not appear in Foster, J., ed., Alumni Oxonienses (2 vols. Oxford 1891–1892)Google Scholar: I am indebted to Dr G. D. Ramsay for checking this for me.

page 6 note 4. Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Journal of the Swedish Embassy (2 vols. 1855), i. 296Google Scholar; ii. 42.

page 6 note 5. Riksarkivet, Stockholm, Coyetska samlingen, E. 3400, Vol. 4 (unfoliated).

page 6 note 6. Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, ed. E. Erdmannsdorffer et al. (21 vols. Berlin 1864–1915), vii. 745.Google Scholar

page 6 note 7. Infra, no. IV (3 August 1655).

page 7 note 1. Printed in Handlingar rörande Skandinaviens historia (40 vols. Stockholm 1816–1860), vi. 85–175.Google Scholar

page 7 note 2. Whitelocke, , Journal, i. 87.Google Scholar

page 8 note 1. Whitelocke, , Journal, i. 90.Google Scholar

page 8 note 2. Jacobson, Gustaf, Sverige och Frankrike 1648–1652. Alliansens upplösning efter Westfaliska freden (Uppsala 1911)Google Scholar; Sven Ingemar Olofsson, Efter Westfaliskafreden. Sveriges yttre politik 1650–1654 (Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens Handlingar. Historiska serien 4) (Stockholm 1957). On relations with the German protestant states the Brunswicker Schwarzkopf commented that the Swedish attack on Bremen had revealed them as ‘latrones, raptores et invasores alienarum ditionum’: Fahlborg, Birger, Sveriges yttre politik 1660–1664 (Stockholm 1932), p. 91.Google Scholar

page 8 note 3. E.g. Sveriges rikes ridderskaps och adels riksdags-protokoll (17 vols. Stockholm 1865–1902), v. 116Google Scholar; RRP., xiv. 307.Google Scholar

page 9 note 1. Lars Tersmeden, in Carl X Gustafs armé (Carl X Gustaf-studier, 7) (Stockholm 1979). PP. 10–12, 28, 75, 119.Google Scholar

page 10 note 1. See the full study in Wendt, Einar, Det svenska licentväsendet i Preussen 1627–1635 (Uppsala 1933).Google Scholar

page 10 note 2. The normal monthly rate on the continent was 6–9 rdr. for footsoldiers, 30 rdr. for cavalry: Carl X Gustafs armé, pp. 118, 120Google Scholar. But for Cranstoun's levies the askingprice was eventually 12 rdr. for a footsoldier—twice Coyet's original estimate: infra, nos. 37 (28 September 1655) and XXXVIII (29 February 1656). Bonde told Cromwell that whereas in previous times it had been possible to hire foot for 6 rdr., war was now so expensive that Philip IV had to pay 20 rdr. for men transferred from the imperial dominions: infra, no. XXXV (15 February 1656).

page 10 note 3. By August 1655 Charles had arranged with military enterprisers for 20,000 horse and 24,000 foot, Carl X Gustafs armé, pp. 128–9Google Scholar. Apart from the 2000 which Leven undertook to raise through his son-in-law Cranstoun, Charles hoped for permission to recruit some 5–6000 in Scotland: Carlbom, , Sverige och England, p. 22Google Scholar. The Scottish levies seem to have been taken special care of and put in garrisons—presumably from a belief in their reliability: in July 1656 Cranstoun's regiment was in Elbing and Marienburg, and a year later there were still 600 of them in Thorn: Carl Gustafs arme, pp. 256, 265.Google Scholar

page 11 note 4. For Mazarin's recruiting-efforts see Leltres du Cardinal Mazarin pendant son ministére, edd. A. Chéruel, G. d'Avenel (Collection des documents inédits pour 1'histoire de France, I Series) (9 vols., Paris 1872–1906), vii. 128, 177, 201–2Google Scholar. In March 1656 he was offering the Great Elector 15 rdr. for foot and 40 rdr. for cavalry.

page 11 note 2. Lindqvist, Åke, ‘Svenskarna och De Byes beskickningar 1654–1655’, Karolinska Föorbundets Årsbok (1941).Google Scholar

page 11 note 3. Åsard, Birger, ‘Upptakten till Karl X Gustavs anfall mot Polen 1655. Till frågan om krigets mål och medel’, Karolinska Förbundets Årsbok (1970).Google Scholar

page 11 note 4. Infra, no. 15 (18 May 1655).

page 12 note 1. Infra, no. 20 (8 June 1655).

page 12 note 2. Infra, no. 28 (11 July 1655).

page 12 note 3. Bonde, for one, was convinced of it; and so too were Schlezer and Sagredo.

page 12 note 4. See the perceptive and salutary essay by Crabtree, Roger, ‘The Idea of a Protestant Foreign Policy’, in Cromwell. A Profile, ed. Ivan Roots (1973).Google Scholar

page 12 note 5. The History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649–1656 (new edn. 4 vols. 1903), iii. 334–7Google Scholar; idem, Cromwell's Place in History (1897), p. 86Google Scholar; Hill, Christopher, God's Englishman (1970), p. 164.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1. See e.g., Calendar of State Papers (Domestic), 1657–8, p. 27.Google Scholar

page 13 note 2. A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, Esq., ed. Thomas Birch (7 vols. 1742), iv. 653.Google Scholar

page 13 note 3. Guizot, F. P. G., History of Oliver Cromwell and the English Commonwealth from the execution of Charles I to the death of Cromwell, trans. Andrew R. Scoble (and edn. 2 vols. 1854), ii. 505, 517, 519–520, 550, 552.Google Scholar

page 13 note 4. BL Add. MS 38100, fo. 20.

page 13 note 5. [Slingsby Bethel], ‘The World's Mistake in Oliver Cromwell’, in Harleian Miscellany; or a collection of scarce, curious and entertaining tracts … found in the late Earl of Oxford's library, ed. W. Oldys (10 vols. 1808–1813), i. 289.Google Scholar

page 13 note 6. E.g. Fiennes, Lawrence, Strickland, Thurloe.

page 14 note 1. Infra, no. 28 (11 July 1655), and no. 48 (7 December 1655).

page 14 note 2. On 28 September 1655 Coyet wrote: ‘What weighs most heavily on the lord protector is that he knows that he urged and insisted on the American venture singly, against the desire and consent of the whole council, and so can blame no one but himself: infra, no. 37. Possibly he had this from a member of the council who took the opportunity of disavowing responsibility. Apart from Montagu's notes (The Clarke Papers. Selections from the papers of William Clarke, ed. C. H. Firth, (4 vols. Camden Society 1891–1901) iv. Appendix)Google Scholar, the only other source is Thurloe, , i. 759–63.Google Scholar

page 14 note 3. Infra, no. 28 (11 July 1655).

page 14 note 4. Infra, no. XXI (9 November 1655).

page 15 note 1. Infra, no. XXIX (4January 1656).

page 15 note 2. Infra, no. XXX (11 January 1656).

page 15 note 3. Gardiner, , Commonwealth and Protectorate, iii. 443.Google Scholar

page 15 note 4. But when they made peace he cancelled the offer, Thurloe remarking that England could afford money only when protestantism was in danger—not when it made peace: Stern, Alfred, ‘Oliver Cromwell und die evangelische Kantone der Schweiz’, Sybels Historische Zeitschrift, Bd. 40 (1878), p. 95.Google Scholar

page 15 note 5. Infra, no. VII (23 August 1655).

page 16 note 1. Whitelocke, , Memorials, iv. 218Google Scholar; cf. infra, no. XXV (7 December 1655).

page 16 note 2. CSP (Dom) 1655–1656, (1882), p. 20Google Scholar. The audience of 2 November had turned on Bonde's attempt to dissuade Cromwell from attempting mediation between Charles X and the Dutch.

page 16 note 3. Whitelocke, , Memorials, iv. 221–2.Google Scholar

page 16 note 4. Infra, no. XXX (11 January 1656).

page 17 note 1. Infra, no. XXXIII (1 February 1656).

page 17 note 2. Infra, no. XXXV (15 February 1656). Whitelocke knew nothing of ‘the most secret side of the business’, and Bonde conjectured ‘that his highness follows the maxim that the best way is to deceive such of his ministers as are to act in the affair’: infra, no. XXXIII; and cf. Whitelocke, , Memorials, iv. 222.Google Scholar

page 17 note 3. Infra, no. XLV (11 April 1656).

page 17 note 4. Infra, no. XXXIX (7 March 1656).

page 17 note 5. Infra, no. XLII (28 March 1656).

page 17 note 6. CSP (Dam) 1655–56, p. 256.Google Scholar

page 17 note 7. In regard to the alliance, that is: on other matters Bonde was meeting the commissioners regularly, and no special resolution was required.

page 18 note 1. Infra, no. XLVI (18 April 1656).

page 18 note 2. Infra, no. XLVII (25 April 1656).

page 18 note 2A. For those orders see p. 36, infra.

page 18 note 3. E.g. infra, nos. LII (30 May 1656), LIV (13 June 1656), LV (20 June 1656), LVII (27 June 1656) in all of which references to ‘commissioners’ turn out to mean talks with Thurloe or Fiennes. Bonde described Fiennes as ‘the leading figure among my commissioners, and a very reasonable man’: infra, no. LII (30 May 1656).

page 19 note 1. That is not to say, of course, that there was not plenty of zeal for the Protestant Cause among Swedish statesmen: Schering Rosehane was ranting about the danger from Roman Catholicism in the approved style of puritan pulpit oratory: Stille, Artur, Schering Rosenhane som diplomat och ämbetsman (Lund 1892), p. 111.Google Scholar

page 19 note 2. For Anglo-Swedish relations in the early fifties, Heimer, A., De diplomatiska förbindelsema mellan Sverige och England 1633–1654 (Lund 1893)Google Scholar has now been supplanted by Sven Ingmar Olofsson, Efter Westfaliskafreden.

page 20 note 3. For a useful short survey of the subject in English, see Attman, Artur, Swedish Aspirations and the Russian Market during the seventeenth CenturyGoogle Scholar (Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum et Litterarum Gothoburgensis, Humaniora. 24). (Göteborg 1985).

page 20 note 2. The reports of these commissions are printed in the joint Swedish-Soviet Ekonomiska forbindelser mellan Sverige och Ryssland under 1600-talet, edd. A. Attman, A. L. Narotjintskij, et al., (Stockholm 1978)Google Scholar; and see Nyström, Per, ‘Mercatura Ruthenica’, Scandia (1937), pp. 255–94Google Scholar. But already in 1643 Axel Oxenstierna had recognized that such a diversion was possible only if Sweden lowered duties at her Baltic ports, even if that meant cancelling their guest-right: Mellander, K. R., Die Beziehungen Lübecks zu Schweden und Verhandlungen dieser beiden Staaten wegen des russischm Handels über Reval und Narva (Helsingfors 1903), pp. 42, 50, 53, 58.Google Scholar

page 20 note 3. Shipping to and from Narva, according to the records of the Sound Tolls, dropped from 25 in 1654 to 15 in 1656 and 1 in 1657; partly, no doubt, owing to the Russian invasion of Estonia in 1656: Bushkovitz, Paul, The Merchants of Moscow (Cambridge 1980), p. 76.Google Scholar

page 20 note 4. In the debate in the council on 11 December 1654 Bonde had spoken of the mercantile threat from the Russians and their desire for a Baltic harbour; though he had mistakenly supposed that their object was to replace the inconveniently located Archangel: RRP, xvi. 15.Google Scholar

page 21 note 1. During the negotiations for an Anglo-Swedish alliance in 1665 the Swedes proposed an additional secret article providing for a joint Anglo-Swedish occupation of Archangel: the English rejected it: Memoriën van den Zweedsche Resident Harald Appelboom, ed. Kernkamp, G. W. (Bijdr. en Mededeelingen van het Hist. Genootschap te Utrecht, vol. 26) (Amsterdam 1905), p. 366Google Scholarn. 4. The last Swedish attempt to take Archangel was in 1701: see Holmberg, E., ‘Sjöexpeditionen mot Arkangel 1701’, Karolinska Förbundet's Arsbok (1918).Google Scholar

page 21 note 2. His report is printed in Thurloe, iii. 713 ff.

page 21 note 3. Though the Greenland whale-fishery was evidently still alive: in February and March 1656 the Muscovy Company successfully petitioned for freedom from impressment for the crews of five ships that were to sail there: CSP (Dom) 1655–56, pp. 183, 214.Google Scholar

page 21 note 4. Bushkovitz, Paul, The Merchants of Moscow, 1580–1650, p. 44Google Scholar. And see Lubimenko, Inna, ‘The Anglo-Russian Relations during the first English Revolution’, TRHS, 4th Series, xi (1928), pp. 39–60Google Scholar; and Ashley, Maurice, Financial and Commercial Policy under the Cromwellian Protectorate (2nd edn. 1962), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

page 22 note 1. In August 1656 Barkman found that England would take no steps for any diversion against Russia (by which he probably meant, against Archangel), though Thurloe indicated that he had no objection to a purely private enterprise: BL Add. MS. 38100, fo. 4O5v.

page 22 note 2. Hinton, R. W. K., The Eastland Trade and the Common Weal in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge 1959), pp. 124–9Google Scholar; Ashley, , Financial and Commercial Policy, pp. 125–31Google Scholar; Report of the Committee of Trade and Plantations, 3 June 1656, in CSP (Dom) 1655–56, p. 346.Google Scholar

page 22 note 3. All that was conceded in the treaty of 1656 was the confirmation of former ‘prerogatives’, and most-favoured-nation treatment in future. Pufendorf (ii. 136) notes that Bonde's commissioners replied to his offers by remarking that they were valueless, since Denmark assured to the Dutch the same advantages at the Sound as Sweden could offer in Livonia and Prussia. This probably reflects Thurloe's suggestion (infra, no. IX, 31 August) that the Dutch might obtain advantages from Denmark in reply to Swedish advantages in Eastland. But the protectorate's peace with Denmark had guaranteed (art. VI) equality of treatment with the Dutch. One apparent exception to English indifference was the suggestion that a government company might be formed to buy up all Sweden's copper: this led to a preposterous proposal in 1657 (infra, p. 291 n. 2); but the only trace of the idea in Bonde's treaty lay in an attached convention whereby a conference was suggested with a view to agreeing upon a price for those Swedish exports to England which were now to be deemed contraband if supplied to Spain.

page 23 note 1. Harbour, Violet, ‘Dutch-English Merchant Shipping in the Seventeenth Century’, Economic History Review, I Series, ii (1929–1930), pp. 272, 290.Google Scholar

page 23 note 2. But the petitions of merchants for convoys as far as Norway and the Sound suggest that fly-boats may well have been used in this trade, convoys being almost essential to the operation of the unarmed fly-boats: a standing convoy was in fact agreed to in June 1656: CSP (Dom) 1655–56, pp. 203, 222, 242, 304, 345.Google Scholar

page 23 note 3. Printed in von Stiernman, A. A., Samling utaf kongl. bref, stadgar och förordningar etc. angående Sweriges rikes commerce, politie och oeconomie i gemen ifrån åhr 1523 (6 vols. Stockholm 1747–1775).ii. 669–76.Google Scholar

page 23 note 4. See Fahlborg, Birger, ‘Ett blad ur den svenska handelsflottans historia, 1660–1675’, Historisk tidskrift (1921)Google Scholar, and Grauers, Sven, ‘Sverige och den första engelska navigationsakten’, in Historiska studier tillägnade Ludvig Stavenow (Stockholm 1924), p. 57.Google Scholar

page 25 note 1. Infra, no. LVII (4 July 1656). This dispersal of the fleets had been determined on as early as January 1656: infra, no. 52 (18 Jan. 1656).

page 25 note 2. Infra, nos. VII (23 August 1655) and XXXIII (1 February 1656).

page 25 note 3. Hinton, , p. 127Google Scholar. The petition is printed in CSP (Dom) 1655–56, p. 97.Google Scholar

page 25 note 4. Compare Aitzema's argument disposing of the idea that Sweden could give, or England get, a monopoly of the Baltic trade: ‘money is master of commerce … and Amsterdam master of money’: Thurloe, iv. 333.

page 26 note 1. Infra, no. XIV (28 September 1655).

page 26 note 2. Beer, G. L., ‘Cromwell's policy in its economic aspects’, Political Science Quarterly, xlvii (1902), p. 47Google Scholar; Prestwich, Menna, ‘Diplomacy and Trade under the Protectorate’, Journal of Modern History (1950), pp. 103–21.Google Scholar

page 26 note 3. Infra, no. XXIX (4 January 1656); Thurloe, , iv. 389.Google Scholar

page 26 note 4. Brieven geschreven ende gewisselt tusschen de Heer Johan de Witt … ende de gevolmaghtigden van de Staet der Verenigde Naderlanden (6 vols.'s Gravenhage 1723–1725), iii. 4, 14, 93, 96.Google Scholar

page 26 note 5. Ibid., iii. 55; Thurloe, , iii. 544.Google Scholar

page 27 note 1. Brieven, iii. 110.Google Scholar

page 27 note 2. Ibid., v. 434.

page 27 note 3. Thurloe, , vi. 790–1, 818–19.Google Scholar

page 27 note 4. Thurloe, , vi. 609Google Scholar: Thurloe, to Cromwell, Henry, 10 11 1657.Google Scholar

page 27 note 5. CSP (Dom) 1655–56, p. 284.Google Scholar

page 27 note 6. Urk. und Act. vii. 744–5.Google Scholar

page 27 note 7. Vaughan, Robert, The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell (2 vols. 1839), i. 433–4Google Scholar, Morland, to Pell, , 1 07 1656, quoting Thurloe to Morland.Google Scholar

page 27 note 8. Brieven, iii. 336–7.Google Scholar

page 28 note 9. Thurloe, John, ‘Concerning the Forraigne Affairs in the Protector's Time’, in A Collection of scarce and valuable tracts … extracted from public as well as private libraries, particularly that of the late Lord Somers, ed. Sir W. Scott (and edn., 13 vols., 1809–1815), vi. 331Google Scholar. His views are better reflected in his report on the negotiations with the Dutch for a Marine Treaty, printed in EHR, xxvi (1906), pp. 327 ffGoogle Scholar., in which he wrote ‘And therefore though this state was very desirous of a neare and intimate conjunction with them, as well for the support of things at home [my italics], as for the managing of common designs abroad, yet it being evident that noe agreement could be made with them in these affairs without condescending to some things very prejuditiall to the kingdom in the great concernment of trade, the thoughts of such Allyances were even lay'd aside, and the considerations of preservinge the Comers and navigation of this state … were applyed to, least the English should be wholly eaten out by the people of the united Netherlands, but yet with a desire of holding a good Correspondence with them herein’.

page 28 note 2. Infra, nos. XXI (9 November 1655) and XXIX (4 January 1656).

page 28 note 3. See Roberts, Michael, ‘Cromwell and the Baltic’, in Roberts, Essays in Swedish History (1967), pp. 159–70Google Scholar. Thurloe explained Cromwell's refusal of Charles X's offers in 1657 as being based on his fear that if Charles were to conquer Denmark ‘he might engross the whole trade of the Baltic Sea wherein England is so much concerned’: Firth, C. H., The Last Years of the Protectorate (2 vols. 1909) i. 321.Google Scholar

page 29 note 1. Abbott's remark that Nieupoort prevailed over Bonde because he urged grounds of trade, but Bonde grounds of religion, is true neither for the one nor for the other: Abbott, , iv. 78.Google Scholar

page 29 note 2. He put his claim for unpaid wages at 2580 rdr.: RA. Anglica 515 (unfoliated). His desperate letter to Thurloe appealing for help, as being an Englishman, is printed infra, p. 101, n 1. But this kind of thing was one of the normal hazards of the diplomatic life: Magnus Dureel in Copenhagen was in the same straits: Gjörwell, C. C., Nya svenska biblioteket, (2 vols. Stockholm 1762–1763), ii. 177–9Google Scholar; so too was Harald Appelboom at The Hague: RRP. xvi. 334–5.

page 30 note 1. See Ahnlund, Nils, ‘Dominium maris baltici’, in his Tradition och historia (Stockholm 1956)Google Scholar, and Fahlborg, , Sveriges yttre politik 1660–64, PP. 25–32Google Scholar. Coyet and Bonde were not without nervousness lest England might by analogy raise similar claims in regard to the British seas.

page 31 note 1. Pufendorf, , ii. 133.Google Scholar

page 31 note 2. Infra, no. XVI (12 October 1655).

page 31 note 3. Brieven, iii. 60–1Google Scholar (7 May NS 1655), 62–3 (14 May NS 1655), 186–7 (25 February NS 1656).

page 31 note 4. Brieven, iii. 107Google Scholar (20 August NS 1655).

page 32 note 1. Thurloe regarded the Dutch-Brandenburg alliance as ‘an Orange triumph’: see de Witt's denial, Brieven, iii. 69Google Scholar (6 August NS 1655). For reports of the Orange revival, ibid., iii. 125–6, 170–2; Thurloe, , iv. 35, 203–4, 262–3, 312–13Google Scholar. Cf. Sir Henry de Vic to Nicholas, 1 November 1655: ‘You heare how the old Princess Dowager of Orange is returnd, and how made much of by those in Amsterdam for having gotten the Elector of Brandenbourg to doe what they desird of. How doe you thinke Mr Cromwell will looke upon this, both as it referrs to the Suedes and the howse of Nassau?’: The Nicholas Papers: correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, ed. Sir G. F. Warner (Camden Society, 4 vols. 1886–1920), iii. 103.Google Scholar

page 33 note 1. Infra, nos. VII (23 August), IX (31 August), XXI (9 November 1655).

page 33 note 2. Infra, nos. VII, IX, XXXVI (16 February 1656).

page 33 note 3. The instructions from Proszowice are summarized in Carlbom, Sverige och England, p. 47.Google Scholar

page 33 note 4. Infra, no. XXIV (30 November 1655).

page 33 note 5. Infra, no. XXVI (14 December 1655).

page 34 note 1. And he could not help wondering whether the phrase ‘the common cause’ might not be a cloak to conceal the unacceptable idea of mediation: infra, no. XXXII (25 January 1656).

page 34 note 2. The formulation was borrowed from the final clause of art. XV of the treaty of Uppsala, and the English might therefore reasonably suppose that it was precise enough.

page 34 note 3. Infra, no. XXXIII (1 February 1656); Thurloe, , iv. 486–7.Google Scholar

page 36 note 1. Infra, no. XLI (21 March 1656).

page 36 note 2. Infra, no. XLVI (18 April 1656).

page 37 note 1. Brieven, iii. 186–7Google Scholar: Cf. Nieupoort's own warning to de Witt that England would not agree to being tacked on to any existing alliance between Denmark, Brandenburg and the Dutch: ibid., iii. 62–3.

page 37 note 2. Infra, nos. LI (23 May) and LII (30 May).

page 38 note 1. Infra, no. LIV (13 June).

page 38 note 2. Infra, no. LVII (4 July).

page 39 note 1. Infra, no. LIX (18 July).

page 39 note 2. Infra, no. LX (1 August); Bondes Diarium, p. 52.Google Scholar

page 39 note 3. Carlson, F. F., Sveriges historia under honungarne af det Pfalziska huset (2nd edn. 7 vols. Stockholm 1883–1885), i. 316.Google Scholar

page 39 note 4. Carlbom, , Sverige och England, pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

page 40 note 1. Fries, Ellen, Erik Oxenstierna. Biografisk studie (Stockholm 1889), p. 304Google Scholar. A vivid impression of the distracted counsels that prevailed in Charles's headquarters is afforded in the chaotic minutes of the discussions printed in RRP xvi. 730–42.Google Scholar

page 40 note 2. Infra, no. LXI (8 August 1656).

page 40 note 3. Infra, no. LXII (13 August 1656).

page 41 note 1. Sveriges ridderskaps och adels riksdags-protokoll, vii. 131–54Google Scholar: the reference to England is at p. 151.

page 41 note 2. Roberts, , ‘Cromwell and the Baltic’, pp. 164–5.Google Scholar

page 41 note 3. This did not apply to ducal Prussia: by the treaty of Marienburg (15 June) Charles X agreed that the tolls in Prussian ports should be equal for all nations; and by the treaty of Labiau (10 November 1656) Sweden surrendered her share of the tolls in East Prussia for a lump sum of 120,000 rdr.: Wittrock, Georg, ‘Marienburg och Labiau’, Karolinska Förbundets Årsbok (1922), p. 68.Google Scholar

page 42 note 1. Brieven, iii. 260Google Scholar, v. 422.

page 43 note 1. Contrast, however, Firth's less favourable judgment: Last Years, i. 311–12.Google Scholar

page 43 note 2. Infra, nos. VII (23 August 1655), LI (23 May 1656), LIV (6 June 1656).

page 43 note 3. Infra, no. LVII (11 July 1656).

page 43 note 4. As Bonde confessed in a letter to Charles X of 1 October 1657: Carlbom, , Sverige och England, p. 128Google Scholar. The explanation of the failure to conclude the alliance which is put forward in the instructions to Jephson of 22 August 1657 (Thurloe, , vi. 478–9Google Scholar) is to the effect that Bonde, and after him Fleetwood, were not empowered to treat upon such terms as Cromwell thought necessary: i.e. they offered ‘no places of safe retreat for our men’, nor ‘secure harbours for our ships’, nor any understanding about payment of the cost by Charles X. This is a wholly fictitious construction, presumably designed to influence Charles in regard to Cromwell's demand for Bremen. With Bonde's negotiation it had nothing whatever to do: with him, none of these issues was ever raised.

page 44 note 1. Brieven, iii. 227Google Scholar; and cf. ibid. 216–19, and Thurloe, , iv. 650, 712.Google Scholar

page 44 note 2. As Nieupoort frankly told Thurloe: ‘We do indeed embrace the cause of religion, but we are also bound to have a regard to our temporal circumstances’: Brieven, iii. 108.Google Scholar

page 45 note 1. Bonnesen, Sten, Karl X Gustav (Malmö 1958), p. 176.Google Scholar

page 45 note 2. Pribram, A. F., Franz Paul von Lisola, 1613–1674 (Leipzig 1894), p. 100Google Scholar; Hirsche, Ferdinand, ‘Der österreichische Diplomat Franz von Lisola und seine Thätigkeit während des nordischen Krieges in den Jahren 1655–1660’, Sybels Historische Zeitschrift, p. 432Google Scholar. Gardiner understood this very well: Commonwealth and Protectorate, iii. 499.Google Scholar

page 45 note 3. Carlbom, J. Levin, Sveriges förhållande till Österrike under Ferdinand III:s sista regeringsår (Göteborg 1898), pp. 7, 12, 16, 21Google Scholar; Crohns, Hjalmar, Sveriges politik i förhållande till de federativa rörelserna i Tyskland 1650–1658 (2 vols. Helsingfors 1901), i. 200, 221Google Scholar; Landberg, , Den svenska utrikespolitikens historia, I: 3, 1648–1697 (Stockholm 1952) pp. 66, 85.Google Scholar

page 45 note 4. Crohns, , Sveriges politik, i. 244Google Scholarn.

page 45 note 5. Sveriges ridderska-s och adels riksdags-protokoll, vii. 322Google Scholar; and cf. ibid., 323–9.

page 45 note 6. RRP, xvi, 425.Google Scholar

page 46 note 1. See Odén, Birgitta, ‘Karl X Gustav och det andra danska kriget’, Scandia (1961).Google Scholar