¹ Alberti to Doge and senate, 31 Oct./10 Nov. 1673, Calendar of State Papers Venetian, p. 170.

² Haley, K. H. D., William of Orange and the English opposition 1672–4 (Oxford, 1953), p. 90.Google Scholar

³ Haley, pp. 97–8, 220. John Miller has also recently claimed that the 1670s marked a watershed in the public awareness of foreign political developments. See John, Miller, Charles II (London, 1991), p. 221Google Scholar. Miller, it must be noted, claims that the public was susceptible to the Dutch propaganda campaign because of the conspicuous ‘lack of success’ enjoyed by the English navy (p. 210).

⁴ Jones, J. R., Britain and the world 1649–1815 (Glasgow, 1980), p. 12.Google Scholar

⁵ Ronald, Hutton, The Restoration: a political and religious history of England 1658–1667 (Oxford, 1985), p. 157Google Scholar and passim.

⁶ Maurice, Lee, The Cabal (Urbana, 1965), pp. 79Google Scholar (Arlington), 96 (Charles II), 213 (Shaftesbury).

⁷ Jones, J. R., Charles II: royal politician (London, 1987), pp. 97, 112.Google Scholar

⁸ Ronald, Hutton, Charles II (Oxford, 1989), pp. 308–17Google Scholar. Maurice Lee also makes this point, p. 226. Perhaps it should be emphasized that Jones, Lee and Hutton interpret the Restoration period very differently, but they do largely agree about the fundamental insularity of English public opinion.

⁹ Recently a new group of historians has argued that the English were concerned with international developments, but they understood them in exclusively confessional terms. See Conal, Condren, ‘Andrew Marvell as polemicist: his account of the growth of popery and arbitrary government’, in Conal, Condren and Cousins, A. D. (eds.), The political identity of Andrew Marvell (Aldershot, 1990)Google Scholar; Jonathan, Scott, Algernon Sidney and the restoration crisis 1677–1683 (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar. However, these scholars have not yet pushed their interpretation back into the early 1670s.

¹⁰ For the purposes of brevity I am restricting this article, on the whole, to 1670s material. For the 1660s see my ‘Popery, trade and universal monarchy: the ideological context of the outbreak of the second Anglo-Dutch war’, English Historical Review, CCCCXXII (Jan. 1992), 1–29Google Scholar; and Protestantism and patriotism (Cambridge, forthcoming). C. R. Boxer has also argued that the English ‘reading public’ was ‘reasonably well informed’ about the United Provinces, though he has not made clear how the English understood the totality of European power politics, or when the English became well informed. See his ‘Some second thoughts on the Third Anglo-Dutch war, 1672–1674’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, XIX (1969), 94.Google Scholar

¹¹ SirRaleigh, Walter, Judicious and select essays and observations (London, 1667), p. 20Google Scholar. See also SirEvelyn, John, Navigation and commerce, their original and progress (London, 1674), p. 15Google Scholar. This was the preface to his intended history of the second Anglo-Dutch war.

¹² John, Smith, England's improvement reviv[e]d (London, 1673), p. 2Google Scholar; The Advice of Charles the Fifth (London, 1670), pp. 26–7Google Scholar. One author proposed to Joseph Williamson, the earl of Arlington's secretary, that he publish a ‘dissertation on trade as the sinews of war and strength of a kingdom’. April 1673, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, p. 197.

¹³ Roger, Boyle, Earl of Orrery, ‘The Black Prince’, in Clark, William Smith (ed.), The dramatic works of Roger Boyle earl of Orrery (Cambridge, MA, 1937), 1, 372.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Evelyn, p. 16.

¹⁵ William De, Britaine, The Dutch usurpation (London, 1672), p. 18Google Scholar. The same point was made by the Venetian observer Pietro Mocenigo in his ‘Account of England’, 30 May/9 June 1671. CSPV, p. 59.

¹⁶ A familiar discourse, between George, a true-hearted English gentleman: and Hans a Dutch merchant (London, 1672), p. 4Google Scholar. See also Smith, , England's improvement, p. 2Google Scholar; , W. H., ‘The Dutch insolence’, in London drollery (London, 1673), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The emblem of ingratitude; a true relation of the unjust, cruel and barbarous proceedings against the English at Amboyna (London, 1672), sig. A7Google Scholar. See also A discourse written by Sir George Downing (London, 1672), pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Thomas, Jordan, London triumphant (London, 1672), p. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Poor Robins character of a Dutch-man (London, 1672), p. 2Google Scholar; William, Lilly, The dangerous condition of the United Provinces (London, 1672), p. 4Google Scholar; A discourse written by Sir Geroge Downing, pp. 3–4; John, Dryden, Amboyna: a tragedy (London, 1673)Google Scholar; Theophilus, Philalethes, Great Britains glory (London, 1672), p. 9Google Scholar; De, Britaine, Dutch usurpation, pp. 14–15Google Scholar; A prophecie lately transcribed from an old manuscript of Dr. Barnaby Googe (London, 1672), p. 3Google Scholar; A familiar discourse, between George, a true-hearted English gentleman: and Hans a Dutch merchant, pp. 8–9Google Scholar; MrsE.P., , On His Royal Highness his expedition against the Dutch (1672), broadsideGoogle Scholar; among Joseph Williamson's papers, dated 11 November 1672, appears an ‘Announcement of a representation, from 2 to 4 p.m., of the Dutch cruelties at Amboyna’, CSPD, p. 148.

²⁰ William De, Britaine, The interest of England in the present war with Holland (London, 1672), p. 1Google Scholar; A familiar discourse, p. 28.Google Scholar

²¹ The frog, or the Low-Countrey nightingale, sweet singer of Amsterdam. Based on Aesop's Fable of the Frogs (?1672), pp. 1–2; there was a broadside version of this poem which appeared in 1672 as well: John, Ogilby, The Holland nightingale or the sweet Singers of Amsterdam (London, 1672)Google Scholar. Another poetic fabulist made a similar point. See The fable of the sun and the frogs (London, 1672), p. 8.Google Scholar

²² Francis Gregory, rector of Hambleton, chaplain to Charles II, The right way to victory. Preached at the Guildhall 22 June 1673 (London, 1673), sig. A3V. Identical arguments were made in poems and plays as well. See Dryden, Amboyna, prologue, sig. ar; , T. S. (of Gray's Inn), Upon His Majesties late declaration for toleration, and publication of war against the Hollander (London, 1672), p. 2.Google Scholar

²³ As reported by Alberti to Doge and Senate, 19/29 April 1672, CSPV, p. 203. James, duke of York, was reputed to hold similar views: Alberti to Doge and Senate, 5/15 January 1672, CSPV, p. 145.

²⁴ The complaisant companion (London, 1674), part 11, p. 32.Google Scholar

²⁵ Robert, Wild, A panegyricke humbly addresst to the King's Most Excellent Majesty. On meeting of the parliament 4, 5 Feb. 1673 (London, 1673), p. 3.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hogan-Moganides: or, The Dutch Hudibras (London, 1674), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

²⁷ De, Britaine, Interest of England, p. 14Google Scholar. The same point was made in The fable of the sun and the frogs, p. 7. The Venetian ambassador explained this as the main cause of the war: Alberti to Doge and Senate, 24 May/3 June 1672, CSPV, p. 221.

²⁸ A discourse written by Sir George Downing, pp. 58–9.Google Scholar

²⁹ See for example, De, Britaine, Dutch usurpation, p. 25.Google Scholar

³⁰ Duke of Lauderdale's speech to the Scottish parliament, 12 June 1672, CSPD, p. 209; A discourse written by Sir George Downing, pp. 62–3Google Scholar. Significantly English royalists called Dutch republican heroes ‘Good-Old-Cause Martyrs’. See The frog, p. 3.

³¹ Theophilus Philalethes, p. 8; A discourse written by Sir George Downing, p. 30Google Scholar; Alberti to Doge and Senate, 24 May/3 June 1672, CSPV, p. 221; Annus prodigiosus (London, 1672), p. 4.Google Scholar

³² This, the Venetian secretary thought, was the perception of the English privy council. Alberti to Doge and Senate, 19/29 Jan. 1672, CSPV, p. 156. The Loevestein party – named after the Dutch prison where its leaders were incarcerated by Prince Maurice – were the Dutch republican and Remonstrant grouping, led in the period 1650–72 by the pensionary of Holland John De Witt.

³³ Hogan-Moganides, pp. 26, 51–2, 113–14.

³⁴ De, Britaine, Dutch usurpation, pp. 23, 33–4.Google Scholar

³⁵ De, Britaine, Interest of England, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

³⁶ A familiar discourse, p. 10.

³⁷ Dryden, Amboyna, prologue, sig. av.

³⁸ Sir John Birkenhead, 11 March 1668, in Anchitell, Grey, Debates of the house of commons from the year 1667 to the year 1694 (London, 1763), 1, 113.Google Scholar

³⁹ Hogan-Moganides, pp. 97–9.

⁴⁰ De, Britaine, Dutch usurpation, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Dr William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 28 Sept. 1671, Princeton University Firestone Library, Verney MSS (microfilm) reel 124 (unfoliated); Alberti to Doge and Senate, 10/20 Nov. 1671, CSPV, p. 121.

⁴² A discourse written by Sir George Downing, p. 50Google Scholar. See also Theophilus Philalethes, p. 8; Hogan-Moganides, pp. 97–8; , T. S., Upon His Majesties late declaration, p. 2Google Scholar; A panegyrick to His Highness Prince Rupert (London, 1673), broadsideGoogle Scholar; William Hunt (Dartmouth) to Williamson, 18 June 1672, CSPD, p. 249.

⁴³ De, Britaine, Dutch usurpation, pp. 11, 33.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Dryden, Amboyna, epilogue, sig. Kv.

⁴⁵ [Slingsby, Bethel], The present interest of England stated (London, 1671), pp. 30–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Bethel, , The present interest of England stated, p. 31Google Scholar; the same point was made by Thomas, Culpepper, Plain English (London, 1673), p. 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ MacWard, pp. 14–15, 30.

⁴⁸ Bethel, , Observations, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Joseph, Hill, The interest of these United Provinces, 30 Nov. 1672 (Amsterdam, 1673)Google Scholar, sig. G2.

⁵⁰ Bethel, , The present interest of England stated, pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

⁵¹ A free conference touching the present state of England both at home and abroad: in order to the designs of France (London, 1668), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

⁵² Roger, Coke, A discourse of trade (London, 1670), sig. BIVGoogle Scholar. The same point is also made in A free conference, pp. 48–9; Ludlow, ‘A Voyce’, Bodleian Library, MSS Eng. Hist. C 487, p. 1052.

⁵³ Algernon Sidney, ‘Court Maxims’, Warwick County Record Office, p. 177. The Venetian observer Pietro Mocenigo also noted ‘the spleen of the nation’ as the English viewed French commercial and naval expansion ‘with resentment’. ‘Account of England’, 30 May/9 June 1671, CSPV, p. 69.

⁵⁴ M. Appelbome to chancellor of Spain, 6/16 Oct. 1665, Bodleian Library, Clarendon MSS 83, fo. 251r. This point was, of course, classically made by the Baron de Lisola. He complained that ‘all the pretexts with which the French do labour to disguise the vast designs that they have in hand, are but false colours to mask the true spring which gives the motion to this machine, and to make an ambition which goes at a great pace to the Universal Monarchy pass under the veil of justice’. Francois, Lisola, The buckler of state and justice against the designs manifestly discovered of the universal monarchy, under the vain pretext of the Queen of France her pretension (London, 1673)Google Scholar sig. A6r.

⁵⁵ Bethel, , The present interest of England stated, sigs. A2–A3Google Scholar; Bethel, , The present state of christendome, pp. 11, 15Google Scholar; Bethel, , The French usurpation, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Bethel, , Interest of prince and statesGoogle Scholar, sigs. A3–A4, A6.

⁵⁶ Algernon Sidney, ‘Court maxims’, 1666, Warwick County Record Office, pp. 152, 155. See also A free conference, pp. 8–9.

⁵⁷ A free conference, pp. 61–2.

⁵⁸ Dr William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 20 April 1671, Verney MSS, Reel 24 (unfoliated).

⁵⁹ John Doddington to Joseph Williamson, 27 June 1670, Huntington Library, MSS STT 625.

⁶⁰ Andrew, Marvell, ‘Further advice to a painter’, 1670, in George de, F. Lord (editor), Poems on affairs of state (New Haven, 1963), 1, 165Google Scholar. My dating is based on that assigned by Sir William Haward in his collection in the Bodleian, MSS Don b. 8, p. 205.

⁶¹ Information of George Massey, East Horsley, Surrey, 22 May 1672, CSPD, p. 72.

⁶² The examination of Thomas Joyce by Henry Coventry, 26 Dec. 1672, Longleat House, Coventry MSS XI, fo. 5r.

⁶³ Edmund Verney was one such moderate who was extremely fearful of the French in the later 1660s and early 1670s, but supported the war. His ideological progression is discussed in the next section. Thomas Papillon, whom Margaret Priestley has described as violently anti-French in the later 1670s, clearly appreciated the threat from the United Provinces in this period. As a negotiator at Breda in 1667 he had castigated the Dutch for their economic greed. Throughout the third Dutch war he served as a victualler of the navy. See Margaret, Priestley, ‘London merchants and opposition politics in Charles II's reign’, in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXIX (1956), 205–19Google Scholar; Thomas Papillon's ‘Account of the negotiations at Breda’, Centre for Kentish Studies, MSS U1015/F16/1.

⁶⁴ Newsletter from London, 6 Feb. 1672, Library of Congress, MSS 18124, 3, fo. 148r. See also Newsletter from London, 10 Feb. 1672, Library of Congress, MSS 18124, 3, fo. 150r for a similar report from the west country. This account of naval recruitment in the early phases of the war is substantiated by the most recent and authoritative historian of the Restoration navy. See Davies, J. D., Gentlemen and tarpaulins: the officers and men of the Restoration navy (Oxford, 1991), pp. 160–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Arlington to Henry Coventry, 29 March 1672, Coventry MSS LXV, fo. 155r. The letter also emphasizes the enthusiastic support for the fast declared to implore divine support in the war. For the declaration itself: His Majesties declaration against the States General of the United Provinces of the Low-Countreys (London, 1672)Google Scholar. See also John Trevor to Henry Coventry, 2 April 1672, Coventry MSS LXV, fo. 159 V.

⁶⁶ Alberti to Doge and senate, 29 March/8 April 1672, CSPV, p. 195. See also Alberti to Doge and senate, 3/13 Nov. 1671, CSPV, p. 119. This was also the opinion of the French ambassador Colbert. Colbert's letter of 20 March 1672, quoted in Christie, W. D., A life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, first Earl of Shaftesbury (London, 1871), II, 83.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Miller, p. 188. The Essex clergyman Ralph Josselin was probably displaying his own partisanship, rather than accurately reporting popular sentiment when he noted in his diary on 17 April: ‘a fast on occasion of the Dutch war, which all are against’. Alan, MacFarlane (ed.), The diary of Ralph Josselin 1616–1683 (London, 1976), p. 563Google Scholar. C. R. Boxer has also claimed that there was no popular support for the war at its beginning, but his argument is based exclusively on Dutch newspaper reports, reports concerned above all in demonstrating that the English could not sustain the war. Boxer, , ‘Some second thoughts’, pp. 74–5Google Scholar. Ronald Hutton agrees with my position, arguing that ‘M.P.s who opposed the court in other respects seemed genuinely to accept that the Dutch deserved to be fought’. Hutton, , Charles II, p. 297.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Sir Thomas Clarges, 12 Jan. 1674, Grey, 1, 232. See also Major T. Fairfax to Williamson, 7 Nov. 1673, CSPD, p. 10.

⁶⁹ Henry Ball to Williamson, 19 Sept. 1673, in Christie, W. D. (ed.), Letters addressed from London to Sir Joseph Williamson (London, 1874), II, 20.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Alberti to Doge and senate, 24 Oct./3 Nov. 1673, CSPV, p. 163.

⁷¹ Sir Thomas Player to Williamson, 3 Nov. 1673, Christie, II, 56–7.

⁷² Alberti to the Doge and senate, 31 Oct./10 Nov. 1673, CSPV, p. 168. It should be noted that the sentiment of parliament came as no surprise. Well before the opening of the session M.P.s were known to be meeting and planning an assault on the French alliance. See Alberti to Doge and senate, 29 Aug./8 Sept. 1673, CSPV, p. 106; Alberti to Doge and senate, 10/20 Oct. 1673, CSPV, pp. 143–4; Robert Yard to Williamson, 17 Oct. 1673, Christie, 11, 48.

⁷³ Verbum Sapienti, Jan. 1674, CSPD, pp. 128–9.

⁷⁴ Sir John Hobart to Mr John Hobart, 1 Nov. 1673, Bodleian Library, Tanner MSS 42, fo. 56r.

⁷⁵ Sir Christopher Musgrave to Williamson, 3 Nov. 1673, Christie, II, 59.

⁷⁶ Henry Ball to Williamson, 1 Sept. 1673, Christie, II, I; see also Henry Ball to Williamson, 29 Aug. 1673, Christie, I, 194.

⁷⁷ ‘A litany’, in Lord, POAS, p. 190.

⁷⁸ Henry Ball to Williamson, 25 Aug. 1673, Christie, 1, 184–5. See also Ball to Williamson, 21 July 1673, Christie, 1, 122; Ball to Williamson, 10 Oct. 1673, Christie, II, 34.

⁷⁹ Robert Yard to Williamson, 29 Aug. 1673, Christie, 1, 194–5. See also William Bridgeman to Williamson, 16 Jan. 1674, Christie, II, 112; Sir Francis Chaplin to Williamson, 14 July 1673, CSPD, p. 437.

⁸⁰ Allan Wharton (Whitby) to James Hickes, 11 July 1672, CSPD, p. 330.

⁸¹ Richard Bower (Yarmouth) to Williamson, 24 June 1672, CSPC, p. 272. See also Captain T. Guy (Yarmouth) to Williamson, 30 Sept. 1672, CSPD, p. 671.

⁸² William Hurt (Dartmouth) to James Hickes, 5 Nov. 1672, CSPD, p. 127.

⁸³ Reports of French naval performance played a large role in turning opinion against the war. I will elaborate on this point in the next section.

⁸⁴ Nathaniel Osborne (Weymouth) to James Hickes, 10 Aug. 1672, CSPD, pp. 470–1.

⁸⁵ Sir Charles Lyttleton to Arlington, 23 July 1673, CSPD, p. 455.

⁸⁶ Henry Ball to Williamson, 18 July 1673, Christie, 1, 116.

⁸⁷ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 20 Nov. 1673, Verney MSS, Reel 27 (unfoliated) (my translation). Edmund Verney habitually wrote to his father in French.

⁸⁸ Grey, 5 Feb. 1673, II, 2. Significantly, Grey doubted his sincerity even at this juncture, noting that Shaftesbury ‘was in a secret management with another party’.

⁸⁹ Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, ‘Delenda Carthago, or the true interest of England in relation to France and Holland’, printed in SirScott, Walter (ed.), A collection of scarce and valuable tracts… particularly that of the late Lord Somers (London, 1812), VII, 37–9Google Scholar; Journal of the house of lords, 5 Feb. 1673, XII, 525–6Google Scholar. The comparison between the Anglo-Dutch rivalry and that between Carthage and Rome was a common trope in Restoration literature. Both were seen as naval conflicts in which ‘the empire of the universe’ was at stake. Thomas, Ross, The Second Punick War … from the latine of Silius Italicus (London, 1672)Google Scholar, sig. B2r. See also Dryden, Amboyna, sig. Kv; Roger, Palmer, A short and true account of the material passages in the First War between the English and the Dutch since His Majesties restauration, 2nd edn (London, 1672), pp. 103, 108–9Google Scholar; The Roman history of Lucius J. Florus (London, 1669), pp. 53, 60, 71–2.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Journal of the House of Lords, 27 Oct. 1673, XII, 589.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Indeed Hutton has claimed that Shaftesbury was dismissed from office because Charles thought he had turned against the war. Hutton, , Charles II, p. 308.Google Scholar

⁹² Shaftesbury's speech, 20 Oct. 1675, Two speeches (Amsterdam, 1675), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

⁹³ Shaftesbury's speech, Two speeches, pp. 10–11; Earl of Shaftesbury, , A letter from a person of quality to his friend in the country (1675), pp. 1, 7, 34.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ James, Jacob in Henry Stubbe, radical protestantism and the early Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 117–18, 131–2Google Scholar has suggested close ties between the two men. Stubbe was certainly commissioned to write his two Hollandophobic pamphlets by Joseph Williamson. Even when acting as a government propagandist, however, Stubbe made it clear that he was no absolutist, making it clear ‘that the security of the King against Holland or France (if occasion) lies in the affection of his people’. Henry Stubbe to Williamson, 8 July 1672, CSPD, p. 320.

⁹⁵ Henry, Stubbe, A justification of the present war against the United Netherlands (London, 1672)Google Scholar, sigs. A3–A4.

⁹⁶ Stubbe, , A further justification, pp. 9–10, 18–19Google Scholar; Stubbe, , A justification, sig. A2rGoogle Scholar. Significantly Stubbe claims to have derived his ideas from the Elizabethan virtuoso, and writer on navigation and empire John Dee. Stubbe to Williamson, 8 July 1672, CSPD, pp. 319–20. On Dee see William, Sherman, ‘A living library’: the readings and writings of John Dee (Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation, 1991)Google Scholar, especially chapter 7.

⁹⁷ Stubbe, , A further justification, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Stubbe, , A further justification, sig. BIVGoogle Scholar. This was in fact true. Francis Benson to Williamson, 9 July 1672, CSPD, p. 323.

⁹⁹ Henry, Stubbe, The history of the United Provinces of Achaia. Based on Jacobus Gothofredus, but significantly altered (London, 1673)Google Scholar, sig. A2r. The association of the Dutch republic with Achaia was not original, indeed I think it was a far more common identification than that of Venice. See Boccalini, pp. 222, 250; Martinus, Schookius, Belgium Federatum (Amsterdam, 1652)Google Scholar; Martinus, Schookius, Respublicae Achaeorum et Veientum (Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1664)Google Scholar. By this time Stubbe had apparently found a new patron, more sympathetic to his outlook, the earl of Anglesey. George Seignior to Dr. William Sancroft, 1 June 1673, Bodleian, Tanner MSS 42, fo. 12r. Stubbe was also said to have written against the Modena marriage in 1673. John Tillison to Dr William Sancroft, 27 Oct. 1673, Bodleian, Tanner MSS 42, fo. 48r.

¹⁰⁰ Stubbe, , Achaia, p. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Stubbe, , Achaia, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Stubbe, , Achaia, pp. 9, 27.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 10 July 1671, Verney MSS, Reel 24; Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 18 Dec. 1671, Verney MSS, Reel 24; Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 1 Jan. 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 24.

¹⁰⁴ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 24 June 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25; 28 Nov. 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25; 15 Jan. 1673, Reel 25; 29 Jan. 1673, Reel 25; 27 Nov. 1673, Reel 27; 1 Feb. 1674, Reel 27. All the translations are mine.

¹⁰⁵ William Coventry to Thomas Thynne, 23 Nov. 1672, Longleat House, Thynne MSS 16, fo. 24r; W. Coventry to Thomas Thynne, 1 Jan. 1673, Thynne MSS 16, fo. 53r.

¹⁰⁶ Sir William Coventry, 31 October 1673, Grey, II, 203. For William Coventry's opposition to the earlier war, see my Protestantism and patriotism.

¹⁰⁷ Sir William Coventry, 31 Oct. 1673, Grey, II, 204.

¹⁰⁸ Sir William Coventry, 31 Oct. 1673, Grey, II, 213; Sir William Coventry, 22 Feb. 1677, Grey, IV, 133; Sir William Coventry, 11 May 1678, Grey, V, 387. He expressed similar views – calling Louis XIV ‘a Match for all Europe’ – in a letter to Thomas Thynne, 4 Jan. 1675, Thynne MSS 16, fo. 212r.

¹⁰⁹ Sir William Coventry, 6 March 1677, Grey, IV, 188–9. On France's pernicious economic policies see Sir William Coventry, 27 Feb. 1668, Grey, 1, 97; Sir William Coventry, 10 May 1675, Grey, III, 125.

¹¹⁰ Sir William Coventry, 29 Jan. 1678, Grey, V, 18–20.

¹¹¹ Sir Philip Warwick, ‘Of government’, 28 Aug. 1679, Huntington Library, MSS HM 41956, fo. 182. See also Sir Philip Warwick, 14 March 1678, Grey, V, 230. Despite having harboured the great Anglican theologian, Henry Hammond, during the Interregnum, Warwick had come to support ‘some indulgence’ for dissenters: 11 March 1668, Grey, I, III. This was a position not dissimilar from that of his patron the earl of Southampton. For more on Warwick, see Henning (ed.), III, 674–7. I owe this reference to the kindness of Blair Worden.

¹¹² William, bishop of Lincoln, to Williamson, 22 June 1672, CSPD, p. 264.

¹¹³ Henry Robinson (Westminster) to Arlington, 19 June 1672, CSPD, p. 250.

¹¹⁴ Alberti to Doge and senate, 31 May/10 June 1672, CSPV, p. 225.

¹¹⁵ Henry Powle, 23 Oct. 1675, Grey, III, 334. Powle, significantly, was one of the leaders of the opposition to the Modena marriage: W. Bridgeman to Williamson, 20 Oct. 1673, Christie, II, 49.

¹¹⁶ Sir Thomas Meres, II May 1675, Grey, III, 136. For his moderation see Henning, III, 48–59. Similar views were expressed in Verbum Sapienti, Jan. 1674, CSPD, p. 131.

¹¹⁷ Sir William Coventry, 31 Oct. 1673, Grey, II, 203.

¹¹⁸ Alberti to Doge and senate, 28 Nov./8 Dec. 1673, CSPV, p. 182.

¹¹⁹ Alberti to Doge and senate, 7/17 April 1671, CSPV, p. 38; Alberti to Doge and senate, 19/29 April 1672, CSPV, p. 203.

¹²⁰ Alberti to Doge and Senate, 17/27 Oct. 1672, CSPV, p. 306.

¹²¹ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 10 Feb. 1673, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated).

¹²² Gilbert, Burnet, History of his own time (London, 1815), 1, 467Google Scholar. Henry Coventry made a similar point in parliament: Alberti to Doge and senate, 31 Oct./10 Nov. 1673, CSPV, p. 169. Sir Heneage Finch also pointed out that the Innsbruck marriage elicited no religious opposition: Speech of Sir Heneage Finch, 30 Oct. 1673, Leicestershire Record Office, D.G. 7/Box 4957p. 33.

¹²³ Robert Yard to Williamson, 17 Oct. 1673, Christie, II, 48; Miller, p. 210. Effigies of popes were burned as soon as she set foot on English soil: Thomas Derham to Williamson, 5 Dec. 1673, CSPD, p. 44; Walter Overbury to Williamson, 1 Dec. 1673, CSPD, p. 40.

¹²⁴ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 27 Nov. 1673, Verney MSS, Reel 27 (unfoliated).

¹²⁵ A relation of the most material matters in parliament relating to religion, property, and the liberty of the subject (1673), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Ralph, Josselin, Diary, 11 February 1674, p. 573Google Scholar; Alberti to Doge and senate, 1/11 Aug. 1673, CSPV, p. 85. See also Henry Ball to Williamson, 31 July 1673, Christie, 1, 137–8; Robert Yard to Williamson, 4 Aug. 1673, Christie, 1, 142–3; Henry Ball to Williamson, 4 Aug. 1673, Christie, 1, 144. This was how the marriage was recalled in popular verse. See ‘The Duke of York's farewell speech to his friends’, c. 1680, Folger Library MSS G, c. 2.

¹²⁶ Robert Yard to Williamson, 22 Aug. 1673, Christie, 1, 182.

¹²⁷ Henry Ball to Williamson, 10 Oct. 1673, Christie, II, 36. It was long known that Louis XIV hoped to gain political influence through the Duke of York's bride: Alberti to Doge and senate, 7/17 April 1671, CSPV, p. 38; Alberti to Doge and senate, 16/26 May 1673, CSPV, p. 52. Charles II was said to support the match for precisely those reasons: Alberti to Doge and senate, 8/18 Mary 1673, CSPV, p. 91.

¹²⁸ Alberti to Doge and senate, 7/17 Nov. 1673, CSPV, p. 174.

¹²⁹ SirTemple, Richard, ‘An essay upon government’, 1667?Google Scholar, Bodleian Library, MSS Eng. Hist. c. 201, fo. 13r.

¹³⁰ Alberti to Doge and senate, 25 March/4 April 1672, CSPV, p. 189; Arlington to Sir William Thompson, 21 May 1672, CSPD, p. 30; Silas Taylor to Williamson, 18 March 1673, CSPD, pp. 58–9; examination of George Verleken, 19 March 1673, CSPD, p. 66; examination of Nicholas Van Hull, 22 March 1673, CSPD, p. 74; W. Bridgeman to Williamson, 26 Dec. 1673, CSPD, p. 69.

¹³¹ ? to Marquess of Baden Hochberg, 3 April 1673, CSPD, p. 127; privy council minute, 18 June 1673, CSPD, p. 380.

¹³² England's appeal from the private cabal at White-Hall to the great council of the nation (1673), p. 34.Google Scholar

¹³³ England's appeal, p. 21.

¹³⁴ England's appeal, pp. 1–2.

¹³⁵ See MSS inscription in Bodleian Library, G Pamph. 1125.

¹³⁶ Henry Coventry to Worden, 2 Aug. 1672, Coventry MSS LXXXII, fo. 28r; Stephen Temple to Sir Richard Temple, 4 March 1672, Huntington Library, MSS STT 2200; newsletter, 9 June 1672, CSPD, p. 185; Arlington to Sunderland, 17 June 1672, in T. Bebington, Arlington's letters to Sir W. Temple, II, 374; Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 18 June 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 125 (unfoliated).

¹³⁷ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 17 June 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated).

¹³⁸ Henry Coventry to Duke of York, 17 July 1672, Coventry MSS LXXXII, fo. IIr; Stephen Temple to Sir Richard Temnple, 4 March 1672, Huntington Library, MSS STT 2200; Alberti to Doge and senate, 23 Aug./2 Sept. 1672, CSPV, p. 274; Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 22 Feb. 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated).

¹³⁹ Stubbe, A further justification, sig. CI.

¹⁴⁰ Alberti to Doge and senate, 6/16 Sept. 1672, CSPV, p. 281. See also Alberti to Doge and senate, 30 Aug./9 Sept. 1672, CSPV, p. 278; John Trevor to Henry Coventry, 12 Dec. 1671, Coventry MSS LXV, fos. 69v–70r; John Trevor to Henry Coventry, 5 Jan. 1672, Coventry MSS LXV, fo. 93. This was the hope expressed in much of the English propaganda. See for example, A letter out of Holland, 20/30 April 1672 (London, 1672), pp. 1–2, 4–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Dr William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 22 Aug. 1672, Verney MSS Reel 25 (unfoliated); newsletter from London, 17 Aug. 1672, Library of Congress MSS 18124, III, fo. 230r; Silas Taylor to Navy Commissioners, 17 Aug. 1672, CSPD, pp. 499–500; Henry Coventry to Earl of Essex, 29 Aug. 1672, Coventry MSS LXXXII, fo. 51.

¹⁴² Newsletter from London, 11 July 1672, Library of Congress MSS 18124, III, fo. 214r; newsletter from London, 22 Aug. 1672, Library of Congress MSS 18124, III, fo. 232r.

¹⁴³ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 24 June 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated). My translation.

¹⁴⁴ Henry Coventry to Sir Edward Wood, 19 Aug. 1672, Coventry MSS LXXXII, fos. 46–7.

¹⁴⁵ Arlington to Sunderland, 29 Aug. 1672, Bebington, II, 386.

¹⁴⁶ Verbum Sapienti, Jan. 1674, CSPD, p. 129. See also the comment in Williamson's newsletter, 3 Feb. 1674, Folger MSS L. c. II; and the 1670s poem in Huntington MSS EL 8826.

¹⁴⁷ Stephen Temple to Sir Richard Temple, 11/21 Oct. 1672, Huntington Library MSS STT 2201.

¹⁴⁸ Sir Thomas Player to Williamson, 6 June 1672, CSPD, p. 160; Alberti to Doge and senate, 14/24 June 1672, CSPV, p. 233. See also the similar reports in Richard Bower (Yarmouth) to Williamson, 10 June 1672, CSPD, p. 190; Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 6 May 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated); Sir Thomas Player to Williamson, 4 June 1672, CSPD, p. 149; Alberti to Doge and senate, 21 June/I July 1672, CSPV, p. 235; Burnet, p. 418.

¹⁴⁹ For government censorship see Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 6 June 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated); Henry Coventry to Sir William Curtius, 29 Aug. 1673, Coventry MSS LXXXII, fo. 130V; Henry Ball to Williamson, 5 Sept. 1673, Christie, II, 13; Sir William Temple to the Earl of Essex, 10 Sept. 1673, in Osmund, Airy (editor), The Essex papers (London: Camden Society, 1890), 1, 121Google Scholar. For some anti-French accounts see An exact relation of the several engagements and actions of his Majesties fleet (London, 1673)Google Scholar; ‘A relation of the battle’, II Aug. 1673, Bodleian Library, Tanner MSS 42, fos. 21–2. On all of this see Davies, pp. 172–4.

¹⁵⁰ Sir Thomas Player to Williamson, 9 Sept. 1673, Christie, II, 16. Player went on to assert that ‘though the wisdom of the state might think fit to stifle any public narrative wherein the French might be exposed, yet there were so many letters from the commanders and others of the fleet charging [them] with cowardice and treachery, that it was impossible to conceal it’.

¹⁵¹ Alberti to Doge and senate, 7/17 Nov. 1673, CSPV, pp. 173–4.

¹⁵² Rupert to Charles II, 17 Aug. 1673, CSPD, p. 498; Rupert to Arlington, 23 Aug. 1673, CSPD, p. 509; Alberti to Doge and senate, 22 Aug./I Sept. 1673, CSPV, p. 110; Alberti to Doge and senate, 12/22 Dec. 1673, CSPV, p. 187.

¹⁵³ Henry Ball to Williamson, 19 Sept. 1673, Christie, II, 21–2; William Coventry to Thomas Thynne, 18 June 1673, Longleat, Thynne MSS 16, fo. 136r; Yard to Williamson, 18 Aug. 1673, Christie, I, 174; Yard to Williamson, 29 Aug. 1673, Christie, I, 195; Ball to Williamson, 1 Sept. 1673, Christie, II, 2; Miller, p. 210; O'Malley, Leslie Chree, ‘The whig prince: Prince Rupert and the court vs. country factions during the reign of Charles II’, Albion, VIII (1976), 338–42.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Lisola, p. 13.

¹⁵⁵ Burnet, p. 456.

¹⁵⁶ Verbum Sapienti, Jan. 1674, CSPD, p. 130; Burnet, p. 414.

¹⁵⁷ Burnet, pp. 437–8; Dr William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 4 Oct. 1671, Verney MSS, Reel 24 (unfoliated).

¹⁵⁸ England's interest, p. 36.

¹⁵⁹ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 15 Jan. 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 24 (unfoliated). My translation.

¹⁶⁰ Burnet, p. 398.

¹⁶¹ Thomas, Shadwell, The humorists (London, 1671), p. 2Google Scholar. See also Shadwell, , ‘The miser’, in Montague, Summers (ed.), The complete works of Thomas Shadwell (London, 1927), II, 17.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Nathaniel, Lee, The tragedy of Nero (London, 1675)Google Scholar, prologue. (N.B. The play was first performed in 1674.)

¹⁶³ James, Howard, The English mounsieur (London, 1674), p. 48Google Scholar. This was a revival of a 1660s play.

¹⁶⁴ Thomas Shadwell, ‘Epsom-Wells’, Works, II, 150; Shadwell, ‘The virtuoso’, Works, I, 314.

¹⁶⁵ Remarques on the humours and conversation of the town (London, 1673), pp. 97–8.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Shadwell, ‘The miser’. Works, II, 17 (prologue).

¹⁶⁷ ‘A dialogue between Britannia and Rawleigh’, 1675Google Scholar, Sir W. Haward's Collection, Bodleian Library, MSS Don b. 8, fo. 536.

¹⁶⁸ This point was perceived by the Venetian secretary. See Alberti to Doge and senate, 22 March/1 April 1672, CSPV, p. 188.

¹⁶⁹ Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 18 June 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated); proclamation, 12 June 1672, CSPD, p. 214.

¹⁷⁰ Cary Gardiner to Sir Ralph Verney, 25 Nov. 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated). See also Richard Bower (Yarmouth) to Williamson, 4 Sept. 1672, CSPD, p. 567; John Wright (Ipswich) to Sir William Doyley, 19 Aug. 1672, CSPD, p. 509; Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 9 Dec. 1672, Verney MSS, Reel 25 (unfoliated).

¹⁷¹ ‘The history of insipids’, Huntington Library, MSS EL 8808.

¹⁷² ‘The christians gamball or a poem of the grand Caball’, 31 Dec. 1672, Public Record Office, SP 29/319/159.

¹⁷³ ‘Nostradamus' prophecy’, Poems on the affairs of state, 1, 188.

¹⁷⁴ Alberti to Doge and senate, 31 May/10 June 1672, CSPV, p. 225. Alberti clearly accepted this argument himself. ‘For the last fifty years’, he wrote, ‘a struggle has been going on between the sword, which is wielded by the king, and the purse, which is in the hands of the people’. Alberti to Doge and senate, 19/29 Dec. 1673; CSPV, p. 192; see also Alberti to Doge and senate, 8Jan./29 Dec. 1671, CSPV, p. 143; Alberti to Doge and senate, 26 April/6 May 1672, CSPV, p. 205.

¹⁷⁵ Burnet, pp. 388, 445–6.

¹⁷⁶ Lord Cavendish, 31 Oct. 1673, Grey, 1, 200.

¹⁷⁷ Lord Cornbury, 26 Jan. 1674, Grey, 1, 348.

¹⁷⁸ Alberti to Doge and senate, 2/12 Jan. 1674, CSPV, p. 196. I agree with Professor Miller that ‘by the end of 1673 that trust [in the King] had been shattered’. But I disagree with him ‘that the reasons for this lay less in the French alliance as such than in what many saw as its likely effects within England’. Since the French alliance was perceived to be the policy of absolutism, the two were inextricably intertwined. War with France would preclude the possibility of absolutism in England. See Miller, p. 175.

¹⁷⁹ Sir Heneage Finch, speech for supply, 31 Oct. 1673, Leicestershire Record Office, D.G. 7/Box 4957/ pp. 33.

¹⁸⁰ Edmund Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 25 Jan. 1674, Verney MSS, Reel 27 (unfoliated).