^{page vii note 1} That the first news of the negotiations was given by Peterborough is clear from Craggs' private letter to Sutton of 18 November 1720 in P.R.O., France, 169, but Sutton's answer, which is not in its proper place, seems to have allayed the suspicions of Whitehall. The French government were also informed by Destouches on 28 November (N.S.) that the British knew of the negotiations; and that British ministers were either successfully hoodwinked by the French or were deceiving Destouches is clear from a despatch of the latter subsequent to Stanhope's death in which he states that “Mylord Stanhope et M. Craggs nous croyoient brouillés irreconciliablement aveo l'Espagne, et sur cette idée ils nʼapprehendoient aucune variation de notre part.” (Destouches to Dubois, London, 23 April 1721, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 336, fo. 60.)

^{page viii note 1} “Mylord Stanhope est a votre egard, Monseigneur, tel quʼest vn amant delicat a l'egard d'une maitresse quʼil adore. II veut des marques frequentes d'amitié et d'attention. Quand elles manquent, il sʼinquiete, il sʼimpatiente, il boude mesme quelques fois; mais au moindre signe de votre part, il est plus satisfait que jamais, et si vous allegués vne excuse pour vous justifier, il y en ajouste vingt autres.” (Destouches to Dubois, London, 3 February 1721, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 335, fo. 90.)

^{page viii note 2} Even before Stanhope's death it had been intended to replace Sutton, and Carteret had been chosen for the post. His draft instructions, which are purely formal, may be seen in P.K.O., F.O. 90/13.

^{page ix note 1} See Aff. Etr. Angl. 336, ff. 17 et seqq., two letters from Dubois to Destouches dated 12 April 1721, N.S. Destouches seems to have not quite grasped the situation (see Emile Bourgeois, Le secret de Dubois, Paris, n.d., p. 269), which is expounded in Carteret's despatch to Schaub of 13 April 1721 (see below, p. 6).

^{page ix note 2} Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 22521, ff. 10–15., enclosed in Sutton to Carteret dated Paris, 2 May 1721, N.S. See also Destouches to Dubois, London, 3 March 1721, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 335, fo. 180 v.

^{page ix note 3} It may be worth referring to Newcastle's words to Horatio Walpole on this transaction six years later. “I send … the copy you desire of His Majesty's letter to the King of Spain of the 1st. of June 1721 about Gibraltar. You know so well the history of that letter that all I shall trouble you with concerning it is to observe that it was then universally lookt upon as a civil refusal, the condition of obtaining the consent of Parliament being what was hardly to be expected.” (Newcastle to Walpole, Whitehall, 6 March 1726/7. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32749, fo. 266 v.) The Spaniards can scarcely have been under any illusions. W. Stanhope, besides using the language above reported, told Maulevrier and Grimaldo that the restoration of the place was impossible (Maulevrier to Dubois, Madrid, 7 April 1721, N.S. Aff. Etr. Espagne 301, fo. 128 v., and ibid. 310, fo. 111, memorandum by Grimaldo); but it may be that the suggestion he threw out deceived them at the moment: “on ne pouvoit rien proposer a present pour le [Parliament] ramener et le faire consentir à cette restitution, mais quand il seroit dissous, on prendroit des mesures pour satisfaire à Sa Majesté Catholique (Maulevrier to Dubois ut sup., ibid. 301, fo. 130).

^{page x note 1} Schaub to Carteret, Paris, 21 May 1721, N.S., Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 22521, fo. 89 et seqq.

^{page x note 2} “Sʼil en consultoit le conseil de Regence, l'on resoudroit infailliblemenf de vous declarer la guerre sur le champ ” (ibid. fo. 93 v.).

^{page xi note 1} According to Destouches, Sunderiand and Carteret put the whole blame of this unfortunate proposal on Townshend and said that they had foreseen the consequences of advancing it. (Destouches to Dubois, London, 12 June 1721, N.S., Aff. Etr. Angl. 336, fo. 244.)

For an estimate of the value of the treaty of Madrid to France see Bourgeois, Le secret de Dubois, pp. 262–90, traversing the opinion expressed in Baudrillart, Philippe V et la cour de France, Vol. II, p. 463. Dom Henri Leclercq, Histoire de la Régence, Vol. III. cap. xlix., follows M. Bourgeios.

^{page xi note 2} Destouches to Dubois, London, 21 May 1721, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 336, fo. 176.

^{page xi note 3} Dubois to Destouches, 25 May 1721, N.S., ibid. ff. 181 and 187.

^{page xi note 4} Destouches to Dubois, London, 29 May 1721, N.S., ibid. fo. 213.

^{page xii note 1} Destouches to Dubois, London, 11 August 1721, N.S.

^{page xii note 2} See Carteret to W. Stanhope, 6 August 1721, B.M. Add. MS. 22515, fo. 235.

^{page xii note 3} Destouches to Dubois, 29 December 1721, N.S., Aff. Etr. Angl. 337, fo. 248.

^{page xiii note 1} At the meeting of Parliament in the autumn, the British made a request that the King's speech might reveal the fact that their source of information was France. Schaub, apparently without even consulting Dubois, said the request was hopeless (P.R.O., France, 177, fo. 275 v.). It may be observed that in June, Pentenriedter knew the essential parts of the story (Destouches to Dubois, London, 4 June 1721, N.S., Aff. Etr. Angl. 341, fo. 113 v.).

^{page xiv note 1} For all this see the papers in P.R.O., S.P. Dom. George I, 31, 38, and 71 and B.M. Stowe MS. 250. The aftermath of this plot was the bill for special taxation of Roman Catholics, which became law after long debates in 1723. This bill was perhaps the most serious subject of difference between the two courts during the end of 1722 and the summer of the following year.

^{page xiv note 2} See Chavigny's instructions dated 4 August 1723, N.S.in Aff. Etr. Angl. 345.

^{page xv note 1} Louis XV to Chavigny, 7 September 1723, N.S. (Aff. Etr. Angl. 345, fo. 334 v. “Votre objet principal qui consiste à gagner sur l'esprit de ce prince quʼil me voye tranquillement signer vn pareil traité, si de mon costé je ne puis gagner sur le Czar que le Roy dela Grande Bretagne y intervienne presentement.”)

^{page xv note 2} Carteret to Schaub, London, 18 April 1723. (B.M. Add. MS. 22519, fo. 41).

^{page xv note 3} See Carteret to Schaub, Hanover, 19 September 1723, N.S. Secret. (B.M. Add. MS. 22519, fo. 109).

^{page xv note 4} 10 October 1723.

^{page xv note 5} See especially Aff. Etr. Angl. 345, fo. 334 v.; 346, ff. 69 v. and 282. The last especially shows Chavigny's bewilderment at so many contradictory orders.

^{page xvi note 1} See Carteret to Schaub, Gohre, 24 October, 1723, N.S. “Ecrivez ponctuellement tous les ordinaires, quand ce ne seroit que nouvelles courantes. Jʼay mes raisons pour cela. Le Roy mʼa dit deux ou trois fois depuis peu: ‘Schaub ecrit fort rarement: il ecrit bien quand il sʼy met, mais il ne le fait pas ponotuellement. Aussi pouvez-vous compter quʼil ne passera point d'ordinaire, que Walpole nʼecrive quelque.’ Ainsi, mon cher Schaub, soyez fort assidu.” (B.M. Sloane MS. 4204, fo. 94 et seq.)

^{page xvi note 2} Coxe, W., Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, London, 1798. Vol. II, pp. 567–69Google Scholar. (Townshend to Sir R. Walpole, Hanover, 21 September 1723.)

^{page xvii note 1} A very full selection from his letters to the Secretaries of State can be found in Coxe's Memoirs of Lord Walpole, London, 1802.

^{page xvii note 2} H. Walpole to Townshend, 5 January 1724, N.S. B.M. Add. MS. 37634, fo. 214.

^{page xvii note 3} “My friend who is perfectly acquainted with the British cabinet, takes upon him, as I am well informed, to paint to the chief minister here the characters of the respective ministers in England: Walpole understands the domestick affairs, but is utterly ignorant of those abroad; Townshend has some knowledge and application, but is intirely devoted to the Imperial court; Lord Carteret is the minister of confidence and has the sole conduct of the foreign affairs. The consequence, if Schaub is supported and continues here, is plain, not only in regard to his credit and mine, but in regard to the opinion that the court here must have of His Majesty's ministers at home.” (ibid. fo. 215 v.)

^{page xviii note 1} For the Duke of Bourbon's relations with this country the best studyis J. Dureng, Le Due de Bourbon et l'Angleterre, Paris, 1911.

^{page xviii note 2} H. Walpole's consideration for Fleury on the occasion of the retreat to Issy in December 1725 merely confirmed the intimacy. Walpole's account of the incident is in his letter to Townshend of 13/24 December 1725 in B.M. Add. MS. 32744, fi. 623 et seqq.

^{page xix note 1} Whitworth at Cambray was full of suspicion as to French designs in the north. See the letter of the plenipotentiaries to Newcastle dated Cambray, 12/23 August 1724 in P.R.O., France, 175, fo. 94. “The conduct of the French court has for some time been very different from what it was about a year ago. There seems to be neither the same steddiness in their councillsnor the same judgement and exacteness in the dispatch of their orders. The Duke of Bourbon has yet little experience in forreign affairs nor has Mr. Morville who … has a trifling genius and a little misteriousness in his temper, with a love of chicane, which makes it difficult to act with him in confidence…. From several observations on his manner of proceeding at The Hague, I, Whitworth, when there, was oblidged to be on my guard with him…. It is farther plain that even whilst France was in the best dispositions for His Majesty, they never lost their views of preparing themselves against future accidents, but were laying out for an after game. For this end they took so much pains at first to establish the Czar on the Baltick in the neighbourhood of Germany, and they have taken no less now to keep him from being embroiled with the Porte, that he may have his hands at liberty to act by their directions…. Wee beleive the French are sincere in their desire to have these negotiations ended by a treaty; but wee are far from being convinced that they wish it to be on the footing of a good and lasting peace.”

^{page xx note 1} Newcastle to Walpole, Whitehall, 28 May 1724. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32739, fo. 63.

^{page xx note 2} The letter is printed in J. Dureng, Le Due de Bourbon, pp. 491–5.

^{page xxi note 1} See Newcastle to Walpole, 15 January 172⅘, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32742, fo. 54, and id. eid. 28 January 172⅘, ibid., fo. 132. See also G. Syveton, Une cour et un aventurier au dix-huitième siède, Paris, 1896, pp. 93 et seqq., and also Baudrillart, Philippe V et la cour de France, Vol. III, pp. 133–6.

^{page xxi note 2} See Walpole to Newcastle, Fontainebleau, 4 November 1724, N.S. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32741, fo. 118. See also Aff. Etr. Angl. 348 and 349, passim.

^{page xxii note 1} An instance of this propensity is reported in detail by Robinson to Delafaye oon 31 July 1726, N.S. (P.R.O., France, 184, fo. 89). “This illness was caused by an eating-debauch at the Muette, a little house belonging to the crown in the wood of Bologne near Paris where His Most Christian Majesty often comes in an afternoon to take a collation of his own dressing. This last entertainment was of that kind, and it is prodigious the great quantity of melons, figgs And unripe walnuts that are said to have been devoured, besides an omelet, that the King and Count Clermont drest themselves, in which they put no less, as is reported, than fourscore eggs.”

^{page xxii note 2} The idea was not exactly novel. See W. Coxe, Memoirs of Horatio Lord Walpole, p. 88, where reference is given to a letter of Newcastle to Walpole of 25 May 1724 as authority for the statement that Schaub on his return offended George I by proposing a match between Louis XV and a British princess.

^{page xxiv note 1} See the public despatch of Newcastle to H. Walpole of 1 March 1724/5, printed by Mr. J. F. Chance in English Historical Review, Vol. XXVIII (1913), p. 702 et seqq. and in Alliance of Hanover, pp. 20–3. See also subsequent despatches, below, pp. 98–101. At the beginning of April, the Comte de Brancas was nominated to go to Sweden, but he did not start, till the end of June.

^{page xxiv note 2} Newcastle to Walpole, Whitehall, 12 July 1725. (P.R.O., France, 181, fo. 215.)

^{page xxiv note 3} Morville to Broglie, Versailles, 15 April 1725, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 350, fo. 308.

^{page xxv note 1} For all this see Dureng, Le Due de Bourbon, pp. 315–23, and Aff. Etr. Angl. 351, ff. 326–344, for the despatch of Louis XV to Broglie of 12 August, N.S., covering the counter-project.

^{page xxvi note 1} Walpole to Morville, Paris, 16 August 1725, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 352, fo. 52.

^{page xxvi note 2} The reader who desires to study this period closely, will find the negotiations set forth in very full detail in Mr.Chance's, J. F.The Alliance of Hanover, London, 1923Google Scholar.

^{page xxvii note 1} It is clear that, in spite of the allegations of Ripperdà to Stanhope after his fall, the restoration of the Pretender was not provided for by any treaty concluded in 1725 between Austria and Spain, but it cannot be doubted but that had the Hanover allies been completely defeated in war, the Stuart Restoration would have been seriously attempted. The statements in George I's famous speech from the throne in 1727, though unwarranted in. fact, were probably not very far from what might have been the truth.

^{page xxviii note 1} How far George I went may be seen from Townshend's autograph postscript to his letter to H. Walpole of 10/21 July 1725, in P.R.O. Dom. Regencies 6. Unless France helps “we shall be all undone, the King having run his civil list so far in debt by the supplys he has given Sweden that we can do no more that way.”

^{page xxviii note 2} To H. Walpole, Hanover, 8/19 December 1725. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 38504, fo. 175.

^{page xxix note 1} The extremely severe French criticisms of Hedges' instructions may be found in Aff. Mr. Turin 145, ff. 153–156. The gentlest description of them is “waste paper.” (Ibid.Angl. 356, fo. 110.)

^{page xxix note 2} Hedges to Newcastle, Fontainebleau, 10 September and 15 October 1726, N.S. (P.R.O., Savoy and Sardinia, 32.) The French were determined that whatever happened, he was not to have Sicily, hence the difference between the two courts, though concealed, was deep. Cf. Memo, of 5 October 1726, N.S., in Aff. Etr. Angl. 356, fo. 110, after the interview with Walpole and Hedges. “L'on se garda bien de luy [Walpole] laisser penetrer les trop importantes raisons qui doiuent empecher la France de consentir a la conquests directe de la Sicile.”

^{page xxix note 3} Hedges to Newcastle, Turin, 9 November 1726, N.S. (P.R.O., Savoy and Sardinia, 32.)

^{page xxix note 4} See Chance, Alliance of Hanover, pp. 561–72

^{page xxx note 1} See Chance, Dipl. Instr. Sweden, p. 210.

^{page xxx note 2} It may be remarked that Count Hoym, the Polish minister at the court of Versailles, had no high opinion of British policy in the Baltic at this conjuncture. On 12 September 1726, N.S., he wrote to his master from Bourbon l'Archambaut: “L'ambassadeur de Sardaigne qui s'y trouve aussi … mʼa dit quʼil nʼy avoit aucune nouvello que celle de l'accession de la Czariene au traitté de Vienne et la signature du traitté de l'Empereur avec lʼElecteur palatin. La premiere avoit un peu allarm´ cette cour, mais les Anglois ont eu soin de la rassurer, et pourvu, dit-on, que lʼaccession de la Suede aille son train comme on lʼespere, on compte que celle de la Czariene sera sans effet. Jʼavoueray ingenuement a V.M. que je nʼay point encore pû comprendre la forceni la solidité de ce raisonnement.” (P.R.O., Confidential, 1 A.)

^{page xxxi note 1} Morville to Broglie, 5 September 1726, N.S. (Aff. Etr. Angl. 356, fo. 332.)

^{page xxxi note 2} H. Walpole to ? Tilson, Fontainebleau, 10 September 1726, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32747, fo. 271.)

^{page xxxi note 3} H. Walpole to Townshend, same date (ibid. fo. 280).

^{page xxxi note 4} See Droysen, J. G., Geschichte der preussischen Politik, Leipzig, 1870, Vol. IV, part 2, p. 404Google Scholar.

^{page xxxii note 1} See below, p. 170, and Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 26 June 1726, N.S. (B.M. Add. MS. 32746, fo. 296). “The nicest part of our affairs and what requires my greatest attention is the reconciliation between France and Spain, that it may not be brought about to His Majesty's prejudice.”

^{page xxxii note 2} Ibid.

^{page xxxii note 3} Memoranda and despatches to Broglie strongly criticising the action of the British in despatching Hosier, but applauding the mission of Wager, may be found in Aff. Etr. Angl. 355, ff. 144–61, dated 1 May 1726, N.S.

^{page xxxii note 4} “Nor,“he added, “can I see the great use of Sir John Jennings appearing off of Naples; it will make a noise, but when he comes home again without doing anything, I doe not think the laugh will be on our side either in England or in Europe, for I do not at all apprehend the Emperor's encampment in Silesia…. I must beg Mr St Saphorin's pardon if I think the sending a fleet into the Mediterranean to prevent an encampment in Silesia will appear ridiculous.” (B.M. Add. MS. 32746, fo. 296 v. Paris, 26 June 1726, N.S.)

^{page xxxiii note 1} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 13 August 1726, N.S. (B.M. Add. MS. 32747, fo. 131 v.)

^{page xxxiii note 2} “Thus I believe the correspondence and application from hence to Spain is entirely at an end, unless His Catholick Majesty shall declare that he is willing to be reconciled with this King without any mediation or conditions what-ever on either side, for I am persuaded the Bishop, now he has satisfyed his own conscience and is able to satisfye the whole nation here that he has done all that was reasonable on his part, will take no one step further in it, being convinced that the King of Spain is entirely under the absolute power of the Queen, and she under the directions of the Imperial Court “(to Newcastle, Paris, 30 July 1726, N.S., B.M. Add. MS. 32747, fo. 48).

^{page xxxiv note 1} That advances had been made in March seems clear from the language used by Louis XV to Broglie: “Quand la cour de Vienne voudroit, par vn impossible, me faire vn aussy grand sacrifice, je ne l'accepterois pas “(Versailles, 20 March 1726, N.S. Aff. Etr. Angl. 354, fo. 204).

^{page xxxiv note 2} Walpole to Townshend, Paris, 26 Aug. 1726, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32747, fo. 198.)

^{page xxxiv note 3} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 6 August 1726, N.S. (Brit, Mus. Add. MS. 32747, fo. 110).

^{page xxxiv note 4} Walpole to Newcastle, Fontainebleau, 2 September 1726, N.S. (ibid., fo. 219).

^{page xxxiv note 5} Fleury to Bermudez, 26 July and 1 September 1726, N.S. (Aff. Etr. Espagne, 343, ff. 409 and 426).

^{page xxxv note 1} Walpole to Newcastle, Fontainebleau, 9 October 1726, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32747, fo. 457).

^{page xxxv note 2} According to Hoym (P.R.O., Confidential, 1 A) the suspension of the galleons had already caused “several “bankruptcies both in France and Spain. He continues his report to the King of Poland (dated 12 September 1726, N.S.) that the British were likely to do what they could to prolong this confusion, for they alone profited by it, and would throw every obstacle in the way of reconciliation between the powers. On 25 October 1726 (N.S.) Broglie reported to Morville that although they would not admit it, the British ministers felt some qualms as to Hosier's proceedings (Aff. Etr. Angl. 356, fo. 159 v.).

^{page xxxvi note 1} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 1 Nov. 1726, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32748, fo. 192 v.)

^{page xxxvi note 2} Newcastle to Walpole, Whitehall, 14 November 1726 (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32748, fo. 323 v.).

^{page xxxvi note 3} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 3 December 1726, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32748, ff. 369–70).

^{page xxxvii note 1} Morville to Broglie, Marly, 9 March 1727, N.S. (Aff. Etr. Angl. 352, fo. 288).

^{page xxxvii note 2} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 10 March 1727, N.S. (Brit. Mus, Add, MS. 32749, fo. 21 6 v.).

^{page xxxvii note 3} ibid. fo. 218.

^{page xxxviii note 1} See the letters quoted in M. Huisman, La Belgique commerciale sous l'Empereur Charles VI, Brussels and Paris, 1902, pp. 414 and 421.

^{page xxxviii note 2} Louis XV to-Broglie, 19 February 1727, N.S. (Aff. Etr. Angl. 358, fo. 156 v.)

^{page xxxviii note 3} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 21 March 1727, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32749, fo. 296 v.)

^{page xxxviii note 4} Keeper of the Seals.

^{page xxxviii note 5} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 31 March 1727, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32749, fo. 364.)

^{page xxxix note 1} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 21 April 1727, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32750, fo. 51.)

^{page xxxix note 2} See Chance, The Alliance of Hanover, p. 694, where it is printed in full.

^{page xl note 1} Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 28 May 1727, N.S. (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32750, fo. 337.)