^{page viii note 1} B.M. Add. 32751, fo. 29v. Robinson to Newcastle, Paris, 17 July N.S. 1727.

^{page viii note 2} Ibid. fo. 205. Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 16 Aug. N.S. 1727.

^{page viii note 3} Ibid. fo. 251. Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 16 Aug. N.S. 1727, very private.

^{page viii note 4} Ibid. fo. 294v. Walpole to Townshend, private, 26 Aug. N.S. 1727. “Therefore I think His Majesty has no reason to be the least uneasy at the various surmises and reasonings that may be made to the disadvantage of England on account of this change, by some as Jacobites, by others as naturally enemies and jealous of the happiness of our nation, and by all of them as entirely ignorant of the true state of matters here, which, I am persuaded, will still be carryed on with the same spirit and upon the same principles, but with greater vigour and dispatch, for Mr. Chauvelin is certainly, by the confession of his enemies, a person of ready parts, of quick apprehension and of great application in business ‥…” Contrast with this the story told by Coxe in his Memoirs of Horatio Lord Walpole, London, 1802, p. 164.

^{page viii note 6} Ibid. fo. 464. Walpole to Newcastle, Fontainebleau, 16 Sept. N.S. 1727. For his reasons at length, see Aff. Etr. Angl. 360, ff. 86–89, Walpole to Fleury, Fontainebleau, 15 Sept. N.S. 1727.

^{page ix note 1} B.M. Add. 32753, fo. 281. Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 17 Dec. N.S. 1727 (see ProfessorWilliams', Basil article in the English, Historical Review, Vol. XVI, 1901, pp. 314–315).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page ix note 2} Ibid. fo. 323v. Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 18 Dec. N.S. 1727, private.

^{page ix note 3} Ibid. fo. 404. Walpole to Newcastle (holog.), Paris, 21 Dec. N.S. 1727.

^{page ix note 4} Ibid fo. 404v.

^{page ix note 5} B.M. Add. 32754, fo. 203. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 13 Feb. N.S. 1728, private. Chauvelin's excuse was that it would shorten negociations.

^{page ix note 6} Ibid. fo. 247v. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 18 Feb. N.S. 1728, private.

^{page ix note 7} Ibid. fo. 276v. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 21 Feb. N.S. 1728, very private.

^{page x note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 187, fo. 10. Delafaye to H. Walpole, Whitehall, 8 Aug. 1727. In turn, the King's bellicose outbursts, as reported by Broglie, alarmed Fleury who held that the peace of Europe was essential to the interests of France (Aff. Etr. Angl. 361, fo. 178v. Fleury to Broglie, Fontainebleau, 11 Sept. N.S. 1727).

^{page xi note 1} The anxiety of the French to gain an assent to the retrocession of Gibraltar is very marked in their diplomatic papers of 1728 (see Aff. Etr. Angl. 362, 363 passim).

^{page xii note 1} B.M. Add. 32757, fo. 311v. Stanhope to Newcastle, Paris, 7 Aug. N.S. 1728.

^{page xii note 2} See Townshend's letter to Stephen Poyntz, Whitehall, 21 Feb. 1728–9. (Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. II, p. 638.)Google Scholar

^{page xii note 3} Aff. Etr. Angl. 365, fo. 165v. Broglie to Chauvelin, London, 7 March N.S. 1729.

^{page xiii note 1} The student who wishes to follow the history of Anglo-French relations from the Treaty of Seville to the fall of Walpole in full detail should consult Professor P. Vaueher's Robert Walpole et la politique de Fleury, 1731–42. My indebtedness to this remarkable study will be everywhere apparent.

^{page xiv note 1} See the letter of Horatio Walpole to Sir Robert, Paris, 7 July 1730 N.S., in Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. III, p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 2} See the correspondence in P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 194, and the intercepted despatch of Ossorio to the King of Sardinia (P.R.O., S.P. 107, no. 3) dated London 8 January N.S. 1731 : “La France ne cesse de prêcher de tous cotez la nécessité indispensable de faire la guerre et de la faire aussi par diversion hors d'ltalie, off rant à cet effet au delà de 100 m. hommes de ses troupes ; mais si elle persiste à demander que les alliez fournissent de leur côté un contingent proportionné, c'est comme si elle leur demandoit l'impossible.”

^{page xiv note 3} B.M. Add.32110, fo. 128, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 19 November 1730, private.

^{page xiv note 4} See Newcastle's letter to Stanhope, Whitehall, 22 May 1729, in Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. II, p. 641.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 1} Aff. Etr. Angl. 367, fo. 141. Chauvelin to Broglie, Versailles, 28 November N.S. 1729.

^{page xv note 2} Ibid. fo. 138v. Broglie to Chauvelin, London, 17 November N.S. 1729 : “Je ne tomberay pas dorénavant dans de pareils eas ayant la copie des articles secrets de M. de Chavigny que milord Townshend m'a donnés, dont il n'a fait aucune part à M. le due de Newcastle, non plus du projet du traité, qui par conséquent n'en a pu instruire M. Horace Walpole. Ainsy vous aurès la bonté de garder le secret de ce qui se passe entre Milord Townshend et moy non seulement pour le public mais même à l'égard des ministres d'Angleterre”.

^{page xv note 3} Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. I, p. 337Google Scholar, and II, pp. 680–5.

^{page xv note 4} B.M. Add. 32769, fo. 307v. H. Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 16 Sept. N.S. 1730.

^{page xv note 5} Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, p. 46Google Scholar. Chesterfield to Harrington, Hague, 26 December N.S. 1730.

^{page xvi note 1} The text is in A. F. Pribram, Oesterreichische Staatsverträge, Vol. I, together with the consequent treaties with Spain of 22 July N.S. 1731 and Holland of 20 February N.S. 1732.

^{page xvi note 2} B.M. Add. 32770, fo. 60v. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 3 November 1730, private. “The other day at dinner in a great deal of company, Dunkirk hapning to be mentioned, the Cardinal said: ‘ Ces Dunquerquois sont des grands sots ; ils sont sortis de leur port pour sauver un vaisseau anglois qui alloit périr dans leur rade, et l'ont sauvé. Les Anglois ne méritoient pas cela d'eux : pour moi, j'aurois laissé périr le vaisseau.’ This he repeated twice between jest and earnest, addressing himself to me. I contented myself with answering in a jesting way that the Dunkirkers were better Christians than His Eminency, which put an end to the subject”. ilbid.)

^{page xvi note 3} B.M. Add. 32769, fo. 255. Newcastle to the Plenipotentiaries, Windsor Castle, 28 Aug. 1730. This particularly exasperated the French (Aff. Etr. Angl. 371 passim), and their sensitiveness on this point should have been remembered in 1738.

^{page xvi note 4} An agreement was made in November 1730 for the evacuation of the islands of St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Dominico and providing for their neutrality, but the recriminations continued.

^{page xvii note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 192, 5 September N.S. 1729.

^{page xvii note 2} Cf. Aff. Etr. Angl. 369, fo. 141. Chauvelin to Broglie, Marly, 6 February N.S. 1730.

^{page xvii note 3} Aff. Etr. Angl. 370, fo. 182, gives interesting evidence of French feeling towards Britain two months after Townshend's fall. In the draft of a despatch to Broglie Chauvelin described the action of the British ministry as marked by “duplicity and bad faith.” In the margin Fleury wrote : “Je ne scais si uous deues aller jusques la auec un homme qui hait desia le ministere,” and the despatch was softened to an expression of surprise. Yet its tone is harsh throughout, and it is worth noting that Fleury must have passed it.

^{page xviii note 1} Aff. Etr. Angl. 371, fo. 305. Chauvelin to Broglie, Versailles, 29 December N.S. 1730.

^{page xviii note 2} Ibid. 373, fo. 104. Chauvelin to Chammorel, Versailles, 22 February N.S. 1731.

^{page xviii note 3} See the correspondence in Aff. Etr. Angl. 375, ff. 54, 63, 79, 95, 128, 131.

^{page xviii note 4} Aff. Etr. Angl. 375, fo. 95. Fleury to Walpole, Versailles, 14 March N.S. 1731.

^{page xviii note 5} See e.g. Waldegrave to Newcastle in B.M. Add. 32771, fo. 186v., Paris, 31 Jan. N.S. 1731 ; fo. 315, Paris, 15 Feb. N.S. 1731 ; fo. 380, Paris, 28 Feb. N.S. 1731 ; 32772, fo. 405, Paris, 16 May N.S. 1731 ; 32773, fo. 169, Fontainebleau, 25 June N.S. 1731, most private.

^{page xviii note 6} B.M. MS. Add. 32772, fo. 57, Paris, 22 March N.S. 1731, private.

^{page xix note 1} B.M. Add. 32772, fo. 402. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 16 May N.S. 1731.

^{page xix note 2} B.M. Add. 32774, fo. 165v. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 17 August N.S. 1731. Most private.

^{page xix note 3} B.M. Add. 32772, fo. 195. Newcastle to Waldegrave, Newcastle House, 1 April 1731, private. “Broglie is abominable and his behaviour indecent. If we remain on any tolerable terms with France, he must be recalled”.

^{page xix note 4} Ibid. fo. 181. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 10 April N.S. 1731, private.

^{page xix note 5} Ibid. fo. 547.

^{page xix note 6} Ibid. fo. 350. Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 24 April 1731.

^{page xix note 7} B.M. Add. 32773, fo. 175. Newcastle to Waldegrave, Hampton Court, 18 June 1731.

^{page xix note 8} Ibid. fo. 368v. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 10 July N.S. 1731, most private.

^{page xx note 1} B.M. 32775, fo. 100. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 14 November N.S. 1731, most private ; and fo. 257v. Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 8 Dec. N.S. 1731, most private.

^{page xx note 2} B.M. 32773, fo. 110. Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 3 June 1731.

^{page xx note 3} See e.g. ibid. fo. 429, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Hampton Court, 15 July 1731. Chauvelin even insinuated that the British were behind the Duchess of Parma (Aff. Etr. Angl. 374, fo. 144, Chauvelin to Chammorel, Marly, 30 Sept. N.S. 1731).

^{page xx note 4} Ibid. 32775, fo. 258, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 8 Dec. N.S. 1731, most private.

^{page xx note 5} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 202, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 16 June 1732 ; B.M. Add. 32778, fo. 192, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 19 September N.S. 1732, most private, and fo. 276, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Kensington, 12 October 1732.

^{page xx note 6} B.M. Add. 32777, fo. 480, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 9 August N.S. 1732, most private.

^{page xxi note 1} B.M. Add. 32779, fo. 173, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 6 December N.S. 1732.

^{page xxi note 2} It is no exaggeration to say that Chavigny's correspondence with Chauvelin reads more like that of a Jacobite conspirator than the representative of a friendly power, and Chauvelin's replies may be searched in vain for anything like the stern rebuke such conduct merited. (See Aff. Etr. Anql. 376–80 passim.) This applies not merely to letters sent through the post which were purposely abusive (cf. B.M. Add. 32789, fo. 399, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 30 Dec. N.S. 1735, most secret), but to their letters sent by courier.

^{page xxi note 3} This wretched affair took a new turn in September 1732, when, at the instance of the Anglophobe Pecquet, the British demands for the observance of the Treaty of Utrecht at Dunkirk were countered by claims on Britain for its observance in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in America. The object was to spin out negociations seeing that, as Pecquet impudently put it, “il ne nous convient pas d'achever de détruire un ouvrage qu'il nous faudroit peut-être dans peu ré-édifier ” (Aff. Etr. Angl. 378, fo. III, Fontainebleau, 29 September N.S. 1732).

^{page xxi note 4} B.M. Add. 32781, fo. 292v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Compiègrave;gne, 12 July N.S. 1733, most private.

^{page xxii note 1} Aff. Etr. Angl. 382, fo. 61, Chavigny to Chauvelin, London, 6 July N.S. 1733, gives an account of this interview. One would not gather from it that anything had been said to wound French amour propre beyond George II's refusal to say what his policy would be in purely hypothetical circumstances.

^{page xxii note 2} B.M. Add. 32782, fo. 164, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 9 Sept. N.S. 1733. “His Eminency is so peevish when one offers to expostulate with him upon the unreasonableness of attacking the Emperor for any steps taken by the Czarina that there is no more speaking to him upon that subject”. As George II had used this argument in June to Chavigny, it is not surprising Fleury had heard enough of it.

^{page xxii note 3} Ibid. fo. 74, Waldegrave to Harrington, Paris, 15 August N.S. 1733.

^{page xxii note 4} Ibid. 32783, fo. 146, Keene to Newcastle, Madrid, 29 November, N.S. 1733, most private.

^{page xxiii note 1} Delafaye to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 5 February 1733/4 (Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, p. 153).Google Scholar

^{page xxiii note 2} Fleury, it may be remarked, offered to “take the most solemn oath ” that there was nothing in the French treaties with Spain and Sardinia that “tended directly or indirectly to the prejudice of England or its commerce.” Yet one of the clauses of the family compact stipulated the recovery of Gibraltar. (B.M. Add. 32784, fo. 134, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 17 March N.S. 1734; and E. Armstrong, Elizabeth Farnese, p. 300.)

^{page xxiii note 3} B.M. Add. 32784, fo. 83, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 24 February N.S. 1734, most private.

^{page xxiii note 4} Ibid. fo. 182, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 30 March 1733/4.

^{page xxiii note 5} Aff. Etr. Angl. 386, fo. 56, Chauvelin to Chavigny, Versailles, 19 May N.S. 1734.

^{page xxiv note 1} B.M. Add. 32785, fo. 369v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 5 Sept. N.S. 1734, most private.

^{page xxiv note 2} Ibid. fo. 408, Newcastle to H. Walpole, Newcastle House, 3 September 1734, private.

^{page xxv note 1} B.M. Add. 32786, fo. 216, Sir Robert Walpole to H. Walpole, Houghton, 10 November 1734.

^{page xxv note 2} See Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. III, p. 187et seqq.Google Scholar

^{page xxv note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 84, No. 334, fo. 43, Walpole to Harrington, The Hague, 9 November N.S. 1734, most secret.

^{page xxvi note 1} See P.R.O., S.P. 84, No. 335, fo. 89. “Differences between the Pensionary's plan and the Cardinal's taken from His Eminency's letter to Mr. Walpole as reported by Lord Waldegrave in his Lordship's to the Duke of Newcastle of the 4th December 1734 N.S.”

^{page xxvi note 2} P.R.O., S.P. 84, No. 340, fo. 30v., Fleury to Walpole, Issy, 6 January N.S. 1735, particulière.

^{page xxvi note 3} Ibid. No. 341, fo. 51, Walpole to Harrington, The Hague, 8 February N.S. 1735, most secret.

^{page xxvi note 4} Ibid. fo. 52.

^{page xxvi note 5} Ibid. fo. 93, Walpole to Harrington, “Breille,” 11 February N.S. 1735, most secret.

^{page xxvii note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 207, fo. 108, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 9 March N.S. 1735, most private.

^{page xxvii note 2} P.R.O., S.P. 84, No. 341, fo. 70, Fleury to Walpole, Versailles, 1 Feb. N.S. 1735 ; lettre particulière, manu propria.

^{page xxviii note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 84, No. 341, ff. 136v. et seqq., Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 2 April N.S. 1735, most secret.

^{page xxviii note 2} Ibid. fo. 170, Walpole to Newcastle, Paris, 6 April N.S. 1735, most secret.

^{page xxviii note 3} B.M. Add. 32787, fo. 86, Walpole to Newcastle, same date, holograph.

^{page xxviii note 4} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 207, fo. 277, Newcastle to H. Walpole, Whitehall, 28 March 1735.

^{page xxviii note 5} Ibid. No. 207, fo. 265, Fleury to Walpole, Issy, 6 April N.S. 1735.

^{page xxviii note 6} B.M. Add. 32787, fo. 225 v., H. Walpole to Newcastle, Hague, 20 May N.S. 1735, private and holograph.

^{page xxix note 1} Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, p. 251Google Scholar, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 1 June N.S. 1735.

^{page xxix note 2} Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 2 August N.S. 1735, most private (Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, pp. 265–268).Google Scholar

^{page xxix note 3} This was one of the most substantial pieces of information that Waldegrave gleaned from François de Bussy, the French foreign office clerk, who was by now in British pay and is designated by the cipher 101.

^{page xxx note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 209, fo. 157, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 2 Sept. N.S. 1735, most secret.

^{page xxx note 2} See Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. III, pp. 262, 275, 290, 308, 309, 312–17.Google Scholar

^{page xxx note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 210, fo. 184 v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Fontainebleau, 5 November N.S. 1735, most secret.

^{page xxx note 4} Sir Robert Walpole to Waldegrave, London, 1 January 1735/6 (Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, 316).Google Scholar

^{page xxx note 5} Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 1 June N.S. 1735, private (Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, 251).Google Scholar

^{page xxxi note 1} Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, Vol. III, pp. 329et seqq.Google Scholar

^{page xxxi note 2} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 212, fo. 199, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 16 July 1736.

^{page xxxi note 3} Ibid. fo. 214v., Waldegrave to H. Walpole, Compiègne, 3 August N.S. 1736, most private.

^{page xxxi note 4} See also Sir Robert Walpole to Waldegrave, 29 Oct. 1736, private(Coxe, , Sir Robert Walpole, III, p. 384).Google Scholar

^{page xxxi note 5} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 213, fo. 62, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 23 September 1736. In cipher.

^{page xxxi note 6} B.M. Add. 32792, ff. 264–72, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 26 September N.S. 1736, private and particular.

^{page xxxi note 7} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 213, fo. 86v., Waldegrave to Keene, Paris, 16 Oct. N.S. 1736. “He wants Lorraine and has not a chance to get the present possession of it unless Spain evacuates Tuscany.”

^{page xxxii note 1} B.M. Add. 32793, ff. 327 and 329, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 2 and 3 January N.S. 1736/7, private and particular.

^{page xxxii note 2} For a discussion of the possible reasons for the dismissal see Vaucher, Robert Walpole, pp. 184 et seqq.

^{page xxxii note 3} The story is told with much humour by Waldegrave to Newcastle in his “most secret and particular ” holograph despatch in cipher dated Paris, 7 February N.S. 1736/7 in B.M. Add. 32794, ff. 109–11.

^{page xxxiii note 1} The fact was that Fleury was much more interested in the Jülich-Berg question (“la plus importante dont l'Europe soit occupée présentement ” (Aff. Etr. Angl. 394, fo. 92v.) than the British who, as Cambis remarked on his arrival in England, were far more occupied with internal than with foreign affairs (Aff. Etr. Angl. 395, fo. 257v., Cambis to Amelot, London, 10 Oct. N.S. 1737).

^{page xxxiv note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 217, fo. 257, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 10 May N.S. 1738, most secret.

^{page xxxiv note 2} Ibid. No. 218, fo. 170v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 11 June N.S. 1738, most secret.

^{page xxxiv note 3} Ibid. fo. 261, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 2 July N.S. 1738, most secret.

^{page xxxiv note 4} Aff. Etr. Angl. 397, fo. 71, Amelot to Cambis, Versailles, 8 Feb. N.S. 1738. “Un ouvrage … ‥ réellement trop opposé au retour d'amitié que Sa Majesté a lieu d'attendre de la part du Roy de la Grand Bretagne.” As this despatch was intercepted (P.R.O., S.P. 107, No. 21) it cannot be urged that ministers had no warning, though possibly they were deceived by the fact that the despatch came through the post.

^{page xxxiv note 5} Ibid. fo. 204, Amelot to Cambis, Versailles, 25 March N.S. 1738.

^{page xxxiv note 6} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 216, fo. 158, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 24 Nov. N.S. 1737, most private ; and Aff. Etr. Angl. 395, fo. 392, Cambis to Amelot, London, 22 Dec. N.S. 1737.

^{page xxxv note 1} Aff. Etr. Espagne, 447, ff. 196, 303, 340.

^{page xxxv note 2} P.R.O., S.P. 218, fo. 167, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 11 June N.S. 1738, most private.

^{page xxxv note 3} Ibid. 219, fo. 147, Newcastle to Waldegrave, Whitehall, 13 November 1738.

^{page xxxv note 4} Ibid. fo. 151.

^{page xxxv note 5} Permission was to be obtained first from the nearest commandant who might be “twenty leagues ” away, and objections were raised “uponthesilly pretence that we shall destroy all the wood in those places and leave none for the French.” (P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 219, fo. 219v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 10 December N.S. 1738, postscript in cipher. Cf. also Aff. Etr. Angl. 403, ff. 76 et seqq.)

^{page xxxv note 6} See Chance, Diplomatic Instructions, Sweden, Vol. II, pp. xii and 82.

^{page xxxvi note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 220, fo. 81, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 1 March N.S. 1739, private.

^{page xxxvi note 2} Aff. Etr. Angl. 404, fo. 297, Amelot to de Vismes, Versailles, 28 May N.S. 1739.

^{page xxxvi note 3} Aff. Etr. Angl. 405, fo. 139, Cambis to Amelot, London, 10 Sept. N.S. 1739, where is an account of the explosion of the Royal wrath on this occasion. The draft memorandum is on fo. 87 and is interesting because one half of it is in Fleury's hand and is much more strongly worded than the original proposal, which he remarked “nous engageroit presque à ne point prendre de parti contre l'Angleterre.”

^{page xxxvi note 4} Ibid. fo. 255v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Compiègne, 26 June N.S. 1739. The proposition does not need refutation, but reference may be given to La Marck's instructions in Recueil des Instructions, Espagne, ed. Morel-Fatio & Leonardon, Paris, 1899, Vol. III, p. 201.

^{page xxxvi note 5} B.M. Add. 32801, fo. 64v., Keene to Newcastle, Madrid, 22 June N.S. 1739.

^{page xxxvii note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 220, fo. 258v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Compiègne, 26 June N.S. 1739.

^{page xxxvii note 2} B.M. Add. 32801, fo. 12, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 5 June N.S. 1739, private and particular (in cipher). It will be remembered that it was just at this juncture that Walpole made his overture to the Pretender who had sufficient acumen to see through the device. (Aff. Etr. Angl. 405, fo. 17v., O'Brien to Fleury, Paris, 15 July N.S. 1739. Cf. also Vaucher, Robert Walpole, 455–8.)

^{page xxxvii note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 222, fo. 50v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 24 January N.S. 1740, most secret.

^{page xxxvii note 4} Ibid. No. 221, fo. 273, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 23 November N.S. 1739, most private.

^{page xxxvii note 5} Ibid. fo. 353, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 4 January N.S. 1740, most private. Cf. Van Hoey's report to Fagel (P.R.O., S.P. 107, No. 35) dated Paris, 30 Nov. N.S. 1739. “They expect here every day to hear of some considerable enterprise made by the English in the West Indies, and you may easily judge what uneasiness it must occasion here that that powerful nation shall extend itself more and more in that part of the world which is the source of riches, the sinews of power and the soul of trade.”

^{page xxxviii note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, No. 222, fo. 114, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 2 March N.S. 1740.

^{page xxxviii note 2} Ibid. fo. 157, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 12 March N.S. 1740, private.

^{page xxxviii note 3} Ibid. No. 222, fo. 241v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, 3 April N.S. 1740, private.

^{page xxxviii note 4} Ibid. No. 222, fo. 233, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 3 April N.S. 1740 private.

^{page xxxviii note 5} Ibid. No. 223, fo. 207, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 28 July N.S. 1740.

^{page xxxviii note 6} Ibid. No. 223, fo. 268v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Compiègne, 10 Aug. N.S. 1740, secret.

^{page xxxix note 1} Ibid. fo. 385v., Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 11 Sept. N.S. 1740. The French were very nervous about this expedition which was reported to be aimed at Havana, Buenos Ayres or the Canaries. The last objective, though denied by Bussy, was believed in at Versailles and was considered more detrimental to French interests than either of the others (Aff. Etr. Angl. 407 and 408).

^{page xxxix note 2} Bussy had returned to London as chargé d'affaires on the death of Cambis.

^{page xxxix note 3} Ibid. fo. 388, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Paris, 11 Sept. N.S. 1740. From the memorandum in Pecquet's hand in Aff. Etr. Angl. 408, fo. 30, dated 20 August N.S., it is clear that the news of the departure of the fleet was expected to provoke a declaration of war.

^{page xxxix note 4} Bussy received news of the sailing of the squadron from Amelot on 1 Sept., but on 30 August he had apparently had a talk on the subject with a ministerial confidant (Aff. Etr. Angl. 408, ff. 88 and 88v.). He apparently informed the British ministry of the fact (contrary to his express orders), on 3 Sept. (see below, p. 235) and on 4 Sept. the news of Fleury's declaration arrived from Waldegrave. Bussy's instructions to communicate the French declaration did not reach him till the 16 Sept., the post office at Calais having detained them until a sure hand could be found (Aff. Etr. Angl. 408, fo. 109, Amelot to Bussy, Fontainebleau, 27 Sept. N.S. 1740), and he handed over the declaration two days later.

^{page xl note 1} Cf., however, Pecquet's memorandum alluded to above : “10. Point de traité nouveau avec l'Espagne.”