Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:00:48.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Making of the Secret Treaty of Dover, 1668–1670

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. Hutton
R. Hutton
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few international agreements have provoked more controversy among historians than that concluded at Dover, on 22 May 1670, by representatives of the English and French Crowns. Its main provisions were for an offensive war against the Dutch republic of the United Provinces, leading to its destruction as a European power, and for the public profession by the English king, Charles II, of the Roman Catholic faith, which had been regarded by most English people for a hundred years as the bitterest enemy of their own church. The existence of this treaty was concealed not only from the other European states and the subjects of the respective monarchs, but from the greater number of their own ministers. The motives of Charles in making this amazing pact have remained a mystery. In the present century, they have been represented by Sir Keith Feiling as an attempt to unite Catholics and Protestant dissenters as a foundation for a stronger monarchy; by Cyril Hartmann, K. H. D. Haley, David Ogg and Lady Antonia Fraser as a decision to hitch England to the fortunes of Europe's strongest state, France; by Sir Arthur Bryant as a wish to ensure his country a share of the Spanish empire and his throne a dependable group of supporters in the form of the Catholics; by Maurice Lee and J. R. Jones as a grand design to make himself independent of his subjects in general and of parliament in particular; and by John Miller as a desire for vengeance upon the Dutch.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 297 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 All dates given are old style.

2 SirFeiling, Keith, British foreign policy 1660–1672 (London, 1930), p. 275Google Scholar, Hartmann, Cyril Hughes, The King my brother (London, 1954), pp. 207–317Google Scholar; Ogg, David, England in the reign of Charles II (London2nd edn 1956), 1, 326–7Google Scholar; Haley, K. H. D., The first earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar, ch. 13; Fraser, Lady Antonia, King Charles II (London, 1979)Google Scholar, ch. 17; SirBryant, Arthur, King Charles II (London, 1955 edn), pp. 154–68Google Scholar; Lee, Maurice, The cabal (Urbana, 1965), p. 3Google Scholar; Jones, J. R., Country and Court (London, 1978), pp. 164–73Google Scholar; Miller, John, Popery and politics in England (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 108–14Google Scholar. The summaries of historians' views given here do some violence to the sublety of the original statements. In particular, DrMiller's, theory, repeated in James II: a study in kingship (Hove, 1978), pp. 59–62Google Scholar, may be expressed more fully as follows – that Charles may have sincerely intended to become a Catholic in early 1669, but the question of his conversion soon became a device to win the friendship of France and was then shelved as he became more interested in a Dutch War Of all the interpretations outlined above, this comes closest to that proposed in this present piece, though there will still be important differences.

3 I am extremely grateful to the present Baron and Baroness Clifford of Chudleigh, and more immediately to Captain the Honourable T. H. Clifford and his lady, for their permission to inspect the documents at Ugbrooke House and for their hospitality while doing so. That work laid the foundation for this essay.

4 Burnet, Gilbert, History of my own time, ed. Airy, Osmund (Oxford, 1897), 1, 515Google Scholar. The story seems partially authenticated by the presence of the letter concerned among Shaftesbury's papers, Public Record Office, P.R.O. 30/24/4, fo. 180.

5 ‘All confidence among men is broken…there are scarcely any two that dare trust one the other’: Anglesey, to Ormonde, , 4 01 1668Google Scholar, Bodleian Library Carte MSS 217, fo. 433.

6 P.R.O., S.P. 29/253, fo. 6v, Williamson's journal.

7 Mignet, F. A., Négociations relatives à la succession d' Espagne (Paris, 1835–1842), 11, 505–46Google Scholar; Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 371–2Google Scholar; Courtenay, Thomas Peregrine, Memoirs of Sir William Temple (1836), 1, 133 40Google Scholar; Bebington, Thomas (ed.), The…Earl of Arlington's letters to Sir William Temple (London, 1701), pp. 189–90Google Scholar.

8 Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 342–55Google Scholar, and Rowen, Herbert H., John de Witt (Princeton, 1978)Google Scholar, ch. 33, for Dutch sources; Courtenay, Memoirs, 11, appendix B; Mignet, , Négociations, 11, 549–51Google Scholar; The works of Sir William Temple (Edinburgh, 1754), III, 99–100Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P. 103/74, Triple Alliance treaty papers.

9 Harris, F. R., The life of Edward Mountagu K. G., first earl of Sandwich (London, 1912)Google Scholar, ch. xi.

10 Mignet, 11, 562–630; Courtenay, 1, 192–7; Bebington, (ed.), Arlington's letters, pp. 201–37Google Scholar; Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 262–4Google Scholar and appendix vii; SirBryant, Arthur (ed.), The letters, speeches and declarations of King Charles II, 2nd edn (New York, 1968), pp. 215–16Google Scholar; Temple, , Works, III, 115–72, 172–247Google Scholar; P.R.O., ADM/106/15, fo. 407V, Matthew Wren to navy board, 20 Mar. 1668; P.R.O., S.P. 29/234/156–90, 235/7–123, passim, numerous papers on La Roche affair; Bod.L.Carte MSS/46, fos. 598–606, Arlington to Ormonde, 15 and 29 Feb. 1668; Bod.L. Rawlinson MSS A 255, fos. 47–50V, instructions to Sir John Trevor, Mar. 1668; P.R.O., P.C. 2/60, pp. 124, 153, 218, privy council register; P.R.O., S.P. 104/176, fos. 5–35, minutes of committee for foreign affairs; B.L. Add. MSS. 9796, fos. 45–6, instructions to Temple, 24 Jan. 1668.

11 Courtenay, , Memoirs, pp. 265–6, 276–83, appendix B, no. 5Google Scholar;Temple, , Works, III, 248–342Google Scholar; Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 347–77Google Scholar; Rowen, , De Witt, pp. 709–19Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P. 29/247/178, Sir Orlando Bridgeman to Joseph Williamson, 13 Oct. 1668; P.R.O., P.C. 2/60, pp. 387–8; P.R.O., S.P. 103/74, ‘Marine Treaty 1668’; B.L. Add. MSS 9796, fos. 102–3, papers of privy council, 15 July 1668.

12 To judge from the comments in Latham, Robert and Matthews, William (eds.), The diary of Samuel Pepys, IX (1976), 7, 38Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P. 29/243/111, Bridgeman to Williamson, 23 July 1668; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fo. 195, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, 13 April; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fo. 103, John Starkey to Sir Willoughby Aston, 6 June 1668; B.L. Add. MSS 28093, fos. 168–77, Temple's summary of commercial talks.

13 Mignet, III, 14–54; Bryant, (ed.), Letters, pp. 357–80Google Scholar.

14 P R.O., S.P. 104/176, fos. 78–119, minutes of committee for foreign affairs; Courtenay, appendix b, no. 5; Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 357–80Google Scholar.

15 Rowen, , De Witt, pp. 715–16Google Scholar, for Dutch sources.

16 Bryant, (ed.), Letters, pp. 227–31Google Scholar; Rev. Clarke, J. S. (ed.), The life of James II (1816), 1, 441–2Google Scholar; Ugbrooke House, STD papers, ‘First paper’, ‘Reply to third paper’.

17 Ugbrooke House, STD papers, ‘First paper’, ‘Second paper’, ‘Their reply to first paper’, ‘Third letter’, ‘Reply to third letter’, French memoir, 10 Sept. 1669, Arundel's instructions, Sept. 1669; de Ségur-Dupeyron, P., Histoire des négociations commerciales du regne de Louis XIV, n.d., pp. 246–54Google Scholar; C.S.P.V. (Calendar of State Papers Venetian) (1669–70), pp. 103–4; Westergaard, Waldemar (ed.), The first Triple Alliance (New Haven, 1947), p. 134Google Scholar.

18 Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 277–9Google Scholar, for Dutch and Spanish sources; Rowen, , De Witt, pp. 717–21Google Scholar, for Dutch sources; Courtenay, , Memoirs, 11Google Scholar, appendix B, no. 6; Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 391–402Google Scholar; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), pp. 37, 62–3; Bod.L. Rawlinson MSS A 255, fos. 85–90, instructions to Godolphin, 24 Feb. 1669.

19 Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 280–1Google Scholar, for German sources; B.L. Stowe MSS 191, fo. 16, instructions to envoy to Saxony, March 1669; B.L. Sloane MSS 1519, fo. 231, elector to Charles, 19 Apr. 1669; Dumont, J. (ed.), Corps universel diplomatique (Paris, 1726–1731), VII, part 1, 119–30, 126–30Google Scholar.

20 B.L. Add MSS 36916, fo. 124, Starkey to Aston, 28 Jan. 1669; B.L. Add. MSS 32094, fos. 212–13, list of ships; Pepys's diary, IX, 425; P.R.O., S.P. 29/259/20, Wren to Pepys, 20 Apr. 1669.

21 Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 389–417Google Scholar; Courtenay, , Memoirs, 1Google Scholar, appendix B, no. 7; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), p. 87; P.R.O., P.C. 2/61, fo. 145; P.R.O., S.P. 104/175, fos. 191–201, English note to Dutch, March 1669; P.R.O., S.P. 104/175, fos. 191–201, English note to Dutch, March 1669; P.R.O., S.P. 104/176, fos. 170–86, minutes of committee for foreign affairs; B.L. Sloane MSS 1003, fos. 1–55, Trevor to Temple, 11 May–21 Dec. 1669; P.R.O., S.P. 84/185, Temple's letters to Arlington, Apr.-Dec. 1669; Temple, , Works, III, 355–428Google Scholar.

22 Rowen, , De Witt, pp. 725–30Google Scholar.

23 A strategy suggested to Charles by Madame herself in September: Hartmann, , King my brother, pp. 284–5Google Scholar.

24 Mignet, , Négociations, III, 100–24Google Scholar; P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/123, fos. 49–72, dispatches of Colbert de Croissy and replies, 8 Nov.-8 Dec. 1669; Ugbrooke House, STD papers, memoir to Madame, memoir from Abbé Mountagu, commissions to Colbert de Croissy and Charles's representatives, ‘The Project’.

25 Mignet, III, 124–201; Bryant, (ed.), Letters, pp. 242–4Google Scholar; P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/124, fos. 44–99, Colbert de Croissy's correspondence, Feb.-Apr. 1670.

26 Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 298–9Google Scholar; Rowen, , De Witt, pp. 729–30Google Scholar; Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 423–30Google Scholar; Courtenay, , Memoirs, I, appendix B, nos. 7–8Google Scholar; B.L. Add. MSS 9797, fos. 95–112, papers concerning ‘concert’; P.R.O., S.P. 104/176, fos. 207–303, minutes of foreign affairs committee; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), pp.158–9; Dumont, , Corps universel, VII, parti, pp. 137–9Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P. 103/74, papers regarding ‘concert’ and French grant of arbitration; B.L. Sloane MSS 1003, fos. 44–82, Trevor to Temple, Oct. 1668-Mar. 1670.

27 The consecutive reports are in P.R.O., S.P. 29/236/144; B.L. Egerton Mss 2543, fo. 129; P.R.O., S.P. 29/243/102; B.L. Add. MSS 28078, fo. 14.

28 Robbins, Caroline (ed.), The diary of John Milward (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 179–285Google Scholar; Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the House of Commons (London, 1763), I, 70–150Google Scholar; Commons' Journals, IX, 53–95; Lords' Journals, XII, 181–247; Pepys's diary, IX, 25, 40–2, 93, 216–17, 222, 248; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fo. 104, Starkey to Aston, 13 June 1668; Shaw, W. A. (ed.), Calendar of treasury books (1669–72), p. xGoogle Scholar; Statutes of the realm, v, 630–5; Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 310–11Google Scholar.

29 Bebington, (ed.), Letters, pp. 372–5, 390Google Scholar.

30 Chandaman, C. D., The English public revenue 1660–1688 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 218–21Google Scholar.

31 Mignet, III, 242–52.

32 P R. O., S.P. 29/284/22.

33 Commons' Journals, IX, 97–141; Lords' Journals, XII, 315–51; Statutes, V, 653–6.

34 P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/118, fo. 210; 123, fo. 2, dispatches of Ruvigny and Colbert de Croissy, 1667–9; C.S.P.V. (1666–8), passim; P.R.O., S.P. 29/233–66, passim, letters to Williamson and Sir John Finch; Sylvester, Matthew (ed.), Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), book I, part III, pp. 50–1Google Scholar.

35 Feiling, , Foreign policy, pp. 275–6Google Scholar; The collection of autograph letters and historical documents formed by Alfred Morison: the Bulstrode papers, I (1897), 61Google Scholar; P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/118, fo. 221, Ruvigny Lo Louis 12 Jan 1668 fo. 252 V, to Lionne, 31 Jan.

36 P.R.O., S.P. 44/30, fo. 37, warrent to Newport and Clifford; de Beer, E. S. (ed.), The dairy of John Evelyn (Oxford, 1955), IV, 18Google Scholar.

37 Apart from diplomatic records quoted above, see P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/118, fo. 210, Ruvigny to Louis, 26 Dec. 1667.

38 Mignet, , Négociations, III, 203Google Scholar.

39 Feilling, , Foreign policy, pp. 267–70Google Scholar, reviews evidence.

40 Bebington, (ed), Letters, pp 227, 250, 300, 305–7, 336, 407–9, 417Google Scholar

41 Longleat House, Covertry MSS LXV, fo 5 (to Henry Coventry)

42 One satirist compared him rudely to a mastiff dog quoted in Wilson, John H, A rake and his times (New York, 1954), p 216Google Scholar

43 Temple, , Works, III, 248–53, Ugbrooke House, memoir upon Second Anglo-Dutch War, n d but clearly from late 1665Google Scholar

44 The evidence is considered in Feiling, Foreign policy, pp 267 9, and Hartmann, Cyril Hughes, Clifford of the Cabal (London, 1937), p 137Google Scholar

45 Pepys's diary, IX, 425, P R O, S P 29/245/74, newsletter to Saunders, 27 Aug 1668, Bod L Carte MSS 48, fo 266, Ormonde to Ossory, 16 June 1668, P R O, S P 104/176 fos 1–225 V, passim minutes of commitee for foreign affairs

46 P R O, S P 63/325/20, Orrery to Viscount Conway, 27 Feb 1669, Browning, Andrew, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (Glasgow, 1951) II, 21–2Google Scholar, Bod L Carte MSS 36, fo 406, Knight to Ormonde, n d but clearly summer 1668, B L Add MSS 28040, fo 4, Osborne's dairy, 17 July 1668

47 This process is traced, and documented, in Hutton, Ronald, The Restoration (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar

48 P.R.O., S.P. 29/240/160, patent of office; H.M.C. (Historical Manuscripts Commission), Le Fleming MSS, p. 56; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fo. 218, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, 22 May 1668.

49 Mignet, III, 56–230; Bryant, (ed.), Letters, pp. 233–4Google Scholar.

50 Though the men were exceptionally gifted: Sir Thomas Osborne and Christopher Wren. They both swiftly cut loose from Buckingham. See Buckinghamshire Record Office, M 11/22, William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 26 Aug. and 4 Nov. 1668; P.R.O., S.P. 44/30, fo. 87, warrant for office; Pepys's diary, IX, 491. A possible third was John Wilkins, made bishop of Chester, but he was already a churchman of considerable note, Bod.L. Tanner MSS 314, Robert Littlebury to William Sancroft, 29 Sept. 1668.

51 It was discussed with horror as far away as Caernarvonshire: National Library of Wales, Wynn MSS, Lady Sarah to Sir Richard Wynn, 22 Mar. 1668.

52 The Cabal, pp. 104, 167.

53 Pepys's diary, IX, 26, 293–5, 335–6, 360, 466–8; P.R.O., S.P. 29/234/215, John Morland to John Tempest, 18 Feb. 1668; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fo. 124, Starkey to Aston, 2 Dec. 1668.

54 Pepys's diary, IX, 7, 40–2, 205, 323, 386–7.

55 Ibid. pp. 462–91; P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/121, fos. 198–200, Colbert de Croissy to Lionne, 1 Mar. 1669; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fos. 327–31, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, 3 and 9 Mar. 1669; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fo. 129, Starkey to Aston, 2 Mar. 1669.

56 Calendar of treasury books (1669–72), part 1, pp. 1–77.

57 P.R.O., S.P. 29/245/8, 74, newsletters 8 and 27 Aug. 1668, S.P. 29/239/55, commission of inquiry, Aug. 1668; Browning, , Danby, II, 21–4Google Scholar; Carte, Thomas, An history of the life of James, duke of Ormonde (1736), III, 62–5Google Scholar; Bod. L. Carte MSS 36, fo. 418; 48, fos. 237–82; 49, fos. 555–612; 51, fos. 86, 396; 52, fo. 183; 217, fo. 439; 220, fos. 341–91, letters from Ormonde, earl of Ossory, Richard Jones, Anglesey and privy council, Jan.–Aug. 1668; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fos. 238–60, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, July-Aug. 1668.

58 Pepys's diary, IX, 340–1; P.R.O., S.P. 44/18, fos. 345, 608, Anglesey to king, 5 Dec. 1668, and reply; Bulstrode papers, pp. 71–2; Bod.L. Carte MSS 36, fo. 367; 48, fos. 280–313, letters from the commission of inquiry and from Ormonde; National Library of Scotland, MS 3136, fo. 48, Lauderdale to Tweeddale, 12 Nov. 1668; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fo. 279, 10 Nov. 1668.

59 Pepys's diary, IX, 310.

60 Rev. Morrice, Thomas (ed.), A collection of the state letters of the first earl of Orrery (London, 1742), pp. 314–20Google Scholar; Carte MSS 36, fos. 351–2; 48, fos. 155–327; 49, fos. 537–612; 69, fos. 138–40; 70, fos. 419–20; 141, fos. 74–200; 220, fos. 360–418, letters of Ormonde, Ossory, Orrery and Archbishop Boyle. If Carte's Ormonde is too much of a panegyric, the life of Orrery by Morrice, preserved in full as National Library of Ireland MS 473, seems utterly untrustworthy when read alongside contemporary sources for the events described.

61 Rev. Berwick, Edward (ed.), The Rawdon papers (London, 1819), pp. 232–4Google Scholar; Carte, , Ormonde, III, 60, 66–9Google Scholar; Bod.L. Carte MSS 46, fos. 594–632; 48, fo. 254; 49, fos. 560–86; 51, fos. 390–419; 70, fos. 415–18; 220, fos. 331–66, letters from Ormonde, Ossory and Arlington.

62 H. M. C. Le Fleming MSS, fo. 61; Carte, , Ormonde, III, 69Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P. 29/271, note by Williamson, 14 Feb. 1669; S.P. 63/325/103, King to Ossory and Irish privy council, 7 May; P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/121, fos. 182–3, Colbert de Croissy to Louis, 15 Feb. 1669. Such an interpretation overlaps with that of McGuire, J., ‘Why was Ormonde dismissed in 1669?’, Irish Historical Studies, XVIII (1972–1973), 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Both versions reject the traditional notion that the event resulted from Buckingham's powers over the king. Mine also finds problems with Dr McGuire's alternative explanation, that it derived primarily from Charles's desire to pursue a more liberal religious policy in Ireland, which Ormonde would have opposed, as part of the attempt to woo France. As I hope to show, royal policy was not, in fact, to be that ‘liberal’, the overture to Louis had not been made when Ormonde was dismissed (let alone responded to) and Robartes was not a likely agent for a strategy of favour to Catholics. It seems to me most likely that the duke was replaced as part of Charles's general determination to ensure himself the widest freedom of action, with wholly subservient ministers. These issues become rather plainer in the manuscript material cited above, which Dr McGuire did not employ.

63 P.R.O., S.P. 106/176 onward, minutes of committee for foreign affairs; S.P. 63/325/23, Sir George Rawdon to Conway, 3 Mar. 1669, and 106, Ormonde's comment on instructions to Robartes.

64 P.R.O., S.P. 63/325/20, Orrery to Conway, 27 Feb. 1669; National Library of Ireland, MS letters of duchess of Ormonde, letter to Captain George Mathew, n.d. but clearly Feb. 1669; Carte MSS 48, fos. 338–46, Ormonde to Ossory, Mar.–May 1669 and 220, fos. 445–6, Ossory to Ormonde, 23 Feb. 1669.

65 Such as the failed bill of 1663.

66 Carte MSS 37, fo. 488, Lord Ranelagh to Ormonde, 22 Mar. 1670 and 48, fos. 350–4, Ormonde to Ossory, May–July 1669; P.R.O., S.P. 63/324/14–327/108, letters of Sir George Lane, Henry Ford, Lord O'Brien, Lord Herbert, Robert Leigh, Sir Nicholas Armourer, Philip Frowde, Orrery, Robartes, Arlington and the king, October 1669–May 1670.

67 P.R.O., S.P. 63/318/224, 327/14–121, letters of Leigh, Frowde, Sir Ellis Leighton, Berkeley and the king, Jan.–May 1670.

68 P.R.O., S.P. 63/327/44, Orrery to Conway, 12 Mar. 1670.

69 P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/121, fos. 247–8, Colbert de Croissy to Louis, 15 Apr. 1669; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), p. 60.

70 As seems proved by the king's letters: Bryant, (ed.), Letters, pp. 227–30Google Scholar.

71 As edited by Clarke, 1, 441–3, and in Bod.L. Carte MSS 198, fo. 47. The best discussion of the surviving versions of these memoirs is in Miller, , James II, appendix, though my comments upon their reliability are intended to represent my own views, based upon use of them for the period 1658–1970Google Scholar, and not necessarily Dr Miller's.

72 The Cabal, p. 102.

73 P R.O., S.P. 29/235/140, letter to Sir John Finch, n.d. but clearly early 1668; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fo. 292, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, 4 Dec. 1668; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), pp. 79–80; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fo. 121, Starkey to Aston, 12 Dec. 1668; H.M.C. 10th Report, appendix. IV, p. 114. Burnet, , History, 1, 469–74Google Scholar, tells some much more colourful and less credible stories about the intrigues surrounding the matter.

74 Bryant, E.g. (ed.), Letters, pp. 212, 214Google Scholar, P.R.O., S.P. 44/30, fo. 7 and 34, fo. 22, warrants for gifts, 12 Feb. 1668 and 4 May 1670.

75 Lords' Journals, XII, 311, 329; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), pp. 174–5; Harris, Sandwich, II, appendix 1; P.R O., P.R.O. 31/3/123, fos. 55–66, Colbert de Croissy to Louis, Mar.–Apr. 1670; Berwick, (ed.), Rawdon papers, pp. 239–41; P.R.O., S.P. 63/327/44, 51, 66, Orrery to Conway, Mar.–Apr. 1670; Margoliouth, H. M. (ed.), The poems and letters of Andrew Marvell, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1971), 11, 313 16Google Scholar.

76 P.R.O., S.P. 44/31, fo. 35, commission, 3 Oct. 1669.

77 Pepys's diary, IX, 438; Westergaard, (ed.), First Triple Alliance, p. 32Google Scholar; Berwick, (ed.), Rawdon papers, pp. 236–8Google Scholar; Bod.L. Carte MSS 221, fos. 116–17, Arlington to Ossory, 31 Oct. 1668 and 36, fo. 593, Broderick to Ormonde, 1 Dec. 1668.

78 The various subsidiary offices of the dead general were divided: P.R.O., S.P. 44/20, fo. 205, 44/30 fo. 188.

79 Roseveare, Henry, The treasury 1660–1870 (London, 1973), documents 1–8Google Scholar.

80 Pepys's diary, IX, 253–360, 446–7, 525; Magdalene College, Pepys Library, MSS 2867, fo. 401, and 2242, ‘An inquisition by H.R.H. the Duke of York’.

81 For military commissions see Dalton, Charles (ed.), English army lists and commission registers 1661–1714 (London, 1892), 1, 97–8Google Scholar. The Scottish Militia Act of November 1669, which has been interpreted as a preparation for the possible use of Scottish forces to impose the royal will upon England, was nothing of the kind. It merely gave effect to an act of 1663, as part of a transfer of internal security from a standing army to county militias, a reversal of the process a prospective despot would require. Lauderdale was surprised by contemporary fears that it signified more: Airy, Osmund (ed.), The Lauderdale papers (London, Camden Soc., 1885), pp. 101–3, 140–1, 150–64Google Scholar; Brown, P.Hume (ed.), The register of the privy council for Scotland (1665–9) (London, n.d.), pp. 389–548Google Scholar; The acts of the parliaments of Scotland, VII (London, 1820), pp. 554–5Google Scholar; SirMackenzie, George, Memoirs of the affairs of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1821), pp. 165–7Google Scholar.

82 Such as the dissolution of parliament (P.R.O. P.R.O 31/3/121, fo. 235, Colbert de Croissy to Lionne, 1 Apr. 1669) or the question of conventicles, discussed below.

83 For English policy see Hutton, , The Restoration, and Bryant, (ed.), Letters, pp. 214–15Google Scholar. For the Scots see Cowan, Ian B., The Scottish Covenanters 1660–1688 (London, 1976), chs. 3–5Google Scholar.

84 Robbins, (ed.), Milward's diary, pp. 179–80, 201, 207, 214–25, 248, 258, 282, 293Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, 1, 97, 110–31, 148–50Google Scholar; Commons' Journals, IX, 60, 66; Lords' Journals, XII, pp. 237–40; Pepys's diary, IX, 30, 60, 95–6, 112; Cobbett's, Parliamentary history of England, IV (1808), 413Google Scholar; H.M.C. 8th Report, part 1, no. 126; Margoliouth, (ed.), Marvell's letters, 11, 69–70Google Scholar; Simon, W., ‘Comprehension in the age of Charles II’, Church History, XXXI (1962), 442–5Google Scholar; Steele, Robert (ed.), Tudor and Stuart proclamations (Oxford, 1910), no. 3514Google Scholar; H.M.C. Portland MSS 11, 147; B.L. Egerton MSS 2539, fos. 162, 168, 170, 208, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, 3 Mar. 24 Apr. 1668; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fo. 59, Starkey to Aston, 23 Jan. 1668.

85 P.R.O., S.P. 29/232/70, 187, 234/35, 245/20> 247/133, letters from Yarmouth, Staffordshire, Westmorland; Airy (ed.), Lauderdale papers, 11, 103–5, 113–15, 125, appendix A, pp. lxii–lxiv; Bod.L. Carte MSS 36, fo. 493, Archbishop Boyle to Ormonde, 26 Sept. 1668 and 141, fo. 98, Ormonde to Archbishop, 8 Mar. 1669; P.R.O., S.P. 63/324/44, Rawdon to Conway, 17 Mar. 1668.

86 Pepys's diary, IX, 278; B.L. Add. MSS 36916, fos. 107, 119, Starkey to Aston, 4 July and 18 Nov. 1668 and 10117, fo. 225V, Rugge's Diurnall, Nov. 1668.

87 Sylvester, (ed.), Reliquiae Baxterianae, book 1, part III, p. 36Google Scholar.

88 H.M.C. 8th Report, pp. 389, 439: P.R.O., P.C. 2/61, pp. 26–42.

89 Durham Cathedral Library, Hunter MS 137, notes by Basire, 25 Nov. 1668; P.R.O., P.C. 2/60, p. 107, P.R.O., S.P. 44/25, fo. 78, king to Newcastle corporation, 7 Dec. 1668; Rev. Ornsby, G. (ed.), The correspondence of John Cosin (Surtees Soc. IV, 1872), pp. 197–201Google Scholar; Airy, (ed.), Lauderdale papers, 11, 96–Google Scholar; Brown, (ed.). Register of privy council (1665–1669), PP. 389–533Google Scholar; Bod.L. Carte MSS 49, fo. 667, Ormonde to Lord Dungannon, 29 Dec. 1668; B.L. Add. MSS 23128, fo. 252, Scottish privy council to king, 9 Jan. 1668, and fo. 280, Tweeddale to Lauderdale, 28 Jan. 1668; Bod.L. Add. MS C305, fo. 205, Bishop Sparrow to Archbishop Sheldon, 29 July 1668; National Library of Scotland MSS 3136, fos. 31, 94, 100, 107, letters of Lauderdale, Jan. 1668–Mar. 1669: Quintrell, B. W. (ed.), Proceedings of the Lancashire Justices of the Peace, CXXI (Lancashire and Cheshire Record Soc. 1981), 126Google Scholar.

90 Barclay, A. R. (ed.), Letters, etc. of early friends (London, 1811), p. 165Google Scholar; Friends House Library, Swarthmore MSS 4, fo. 103, Thomas Salthouse to Margaret Fell, 19 May 1668.

91 John Wilkins was given Chester, Isaac Barrow St Asaph and Robert Creighton Bath and Wells William Sancroft was offered Chichester, but declined Bod L Tanner MSS 44, fo 161, Bishop Henchman to Sancroft, 7 Oct 1669.

92 P R O, S P 104/176, fos 139–45v B L Add MSS 36916, fo 311, Starkey to Aston, 1 Apr 1669

93 P R O, S P 104/176, fo 181, P R O, P R O 31/3/121, f0 338, Colbert de Croissy to Louis, 19 July 1669, Bod L Tanner MSS 44, fos 121, 127, 140, Bishop Hacket to Archbishop Sheldon, July–Aug 1669, Steele, Proclamations, no 3529, Turner, G Lyon (ed), Original records of early nonconformity (1911), III, 69–140Google Scholar, P R O, P C 2/61, fos 348–415

94 Brown, (ed), Privy council register (1669–1672), pp 1 160Google Scholar, Airy, (ed), Lauderdale papers, II, 137–75, 191 8Google Scholar, appendix A, pp lXIV IX, Wodrow, Robert, The history of the sufferings of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1721), 1, 303 9Google Scholar, appendices nos 32–7, Burnet, , History, 1, 496–513Google Scholar, National Library of Scotland MSS 597, fo 214, Lauderdale's speech to 1669 parliament, B L Add MSS 36916, fos. 139, 144, Starkey to Aston, 13 July and 14 Oct 1669, H M C 15th Report, part VII, p 103, P.R O, S P 29/262/91, 105, 107, 115, letters from Hull and Chester, and the ruling of the judges, July 1669, C S P V (1669–1670), pp 84–5, Sylvester, (ed), Reliquiae Baxterianae, book 1, part III, PP 48–51Google Scholar

95 P R O, S P 63/325/95–7 and 318/190–6

96 P R O, S P 29/263/54–127, 265/15, letters to Williamson from Cumberland, Coventry, Lincoln, Portsmouth, Yarmouth, Chester and Bristol, July–Sept 1669

97 Commons' Journals, IX, 102–11, 122–36, 148–54; Grey, , Debates, 1, 160–75, 220–65Google Scholar; Lords' Journals, XII, 305–40; H.M.C. Kenyon MSS, fos. 84–5; H.M.C. 8th Report, part 1, no. 142b; P.R.O., S.P. 29/274/126, John Lerie to king, 8 Apr. 1670; Margoliouth, (ed.), Marvell's letters, II, 101–2, 313, 17Google Scholar;Bod.L. Carte MSS 77, fo 592, Lord Wharton's notes; Westergaard, (ed.), First Triple Alliance, p. 205Google Scholar; Barclay, (ed.), Letters, pp. 169–71Google Scholar; Friends House Library, Swarthmore MSS 1, fo. 386, Elias Hooke to George Fox, 15 Feb. 1670; Statutes of the realm, v, 648–51, C.S.P.V. (1669–70), pp. 173–80.

98 H.M.C. 6th Report, p. 367; Airy, (ed.), Lauderdale papers, II, 168–71Google Scholar.

99 Nickalls, John L. (ed.), Journal of George Fox (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 168–71Google Scholar; B.L Egerton MSS 2539, fo. 141, Sir John to Sir Edward Nicholas, 26 Aug. 1669.

100 Bod.L. Carte MSS 45, fo. 366, Ormonde to Archbishop Boyle, 21 Apr 1670; P.R O., S.P, 63/318/222, Arlington to Robartes, 6 Nov. 1669, and 327/36, Berkeley's instructions, Feb. 1670, 327/64, summary of division within Catholics, 1670, and 327/121, Leighton to Williamson, 28 May 1670

101 B.L. Add. MSS 25116 and Stowe MS 303, entries erased from parliamentary journals; Commons' Journals, IX, 97–126; Grey, , Debates, 1, 189–210Google Scholar; Lords' Journals, XII, 252–90, 313–16; Harris, , Sandwich, II, 202–4Google Scholar; C.S.P.V. (1669–70), pp. 164–5; Margoliouth, (ed.), Marvell's letters, II, 97Google Scholar; John Rylands Library, Legh MSS, Richard Legh to wife, 22 Feb. 1670; P.R.O., P.R.O. 31/3/123, fo 43–124, fo. 41, Colbert de Croissy to Louis, 11 Nov. 1669–23 Feb. 1670.

102 Magdalene College, Pepys Library, MSS 2874, fos. 388–505, Pepys's notes on debate; B.L., Stowe MSS 489, fos. 255–60, other notes; Commons' Journals, IX, 121–2.

103 The committee for foreign affairs agreed ‘to frame an entire scheme of all the matter’ on 9 Jan. P.R.O., S.P. 104/176, fo. 225V.

104 John Vaughan was knighted and made chief justice of the common pleas in May 1668, William Garroway was made one of the commission of inquiry into the Irish revenue in August (though he refused to serve) and Sir Thomas Lyttleton a vice-treasurer of the navy in November. Sir Richard Temple was to be given office after he joined the court party in late 1670.

105 As alleged by Marvell in his Letters, 11, 313–16. This is directly contradicted by Bryant, (ed.), Letters, p. 241Google Scholar; Steele, (ed.), Proclamations, no. 3531Google Scholar; Commons' Journals, IX, 123 (for the division figures).

106 C.S.P.V. (1669–70), p. 171; Marvell's letters, 11, 316; B.L. Sloane MSS 1003, fo. 81, Trevor to Temple, 27 Feb. 1670; Airy (ed.), Lauderdale papers, 11, 163–4.