No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Polwarth Papers A Commentary upon the Historical Manuscripts Commissions Report (1911–1931
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
Extract
Alexander Hume-Campbell, Lord Polwarth, the third son and subsequently the successor of the first Earl of March-mont, belonged to a family which had earned Whig patronage by sufferings in the Whig cause under the later Stewarts. Like many other ambitious politicians, he began his public career in diplomacy. He was sent to Copenhagen in 1716 as Minister Plenipotentiary, and was later raised to the rank of Ambassador. He remained at the Danish capital, without any leave of absence, till 1721, and took an active part in bringing about the reconciliation of Denmark with Sweden, which was one of the most difficult tasks undertaken by British diplomacy in its endeavour to put an end to the long war in Northern Europe. After a short period of leave at home, he was sent to the Congress of Cambray as joint British plenipotentiary with Lord Whit worth. In accordance with the extraordinary custom that prevailed in those days, he carried away with him the official and private letters, both originals and copies, which he had amassed during his two missions. These papers were for a long time stored at the family home, Mertoun House in Berwickshire, but have recently and very properly been transferred to H.M. Register House in Edinburgh. The Historical Manuscripts Commission have issued three volumes of these valuable papers under the editorship of the Rev. Henry Paton. The first volume appeared in 1911, the second in 1916, and the third in 1931. It is understood that two more 243 volumes are to be published.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1932
References
page 249 note 1 The Danes equally hated the Swedes. Polwarth writes to Sunderland on 30 September, 1719, “There is such an inveterate enmity betwixt this Kingdom and Sweden that I am persuaded that most people here would have been extreamly well pleased that the Czar had entirely ruined it even at the hazard of making himself master of the greatest part of that Kingdom” (Vol. II, p. 314). It was this mutual animosity which made the task of Carteret and Polwarth, and especially of the latter, so difficult.
page 250 note 1 On 21 July, 1719, Polwarth wrote to Robethon that Count Bielke, the Austrian diplomatist, who had just left Sweden, declared that the Swedes “looked upon themselves to be masters of what they gave up to the Czar, and that they could recover it when they pleased, for that the rest of Europe, especially the English and Dutch, could not peaceably look on and see the Czar grow so great in the Baltick; but what was given up, on the other side, in the German provinces, they reckoned intirely lost and irrecoverable” (Vol. II, p. 321). Stanhope, in an important letter to Carteret of 22 July (o.s.), alludes as a reason for expecting the Swedes to come to terms with Russia, to “a certain way of reasoning, which I have often heard from them, as if they think it much more probable to recover in time what they shall part to the Czar than what they shall give up in Germany” ibid., p. 237). This letter of Stanhope is also printed in Diplomatic Instructions, Vol. I, Sweden, p. 113.
page 250 note 2 See Stanhope's letter to Carteret of 22 July, quoted above, in which he says that, if Sweden prefers peace with Russia, “His Majesty will equally contribute his best offices to save them that way.”
page 254 note 1 Robethon, from Hanover to Polwarth, 1 08, 1719, in Vol. II, P. 235Google Scholar.
page 254 note 2 See Norris to Stanhope, 7/18August, 1719, in Vol. II, p. 262.
page 255 note 1 The treaty, though actually signed on 14 August, was antedated to 4 August, in order to conceal the fact that it was concluded after the Hanoverian treaty, which made no reference to Stettin, had reached Berlin. Professor Basil Williams, in his admirable monograph on Stanhope (p. 373), says that this piece of sharp practice was suggested by Stanhope, and denounces it as “a blot on English diplomacy.”
page 257 note 1 On the ratification of the Convention of 30 October, 1719, Polwarth sent 5,000 dollars to two of the Danish ministers, and 3,000 to two others. He was rather disconcerted when all four returned the money on the ground that they had done nothing to earn it. Polwarth, in reporting this to Stanhope, adds that “this is the part of negotiating I like least.” Polwarth to Stanhope, 12 December, 1719 (Vol. II, p. 395).
page 258 note 1 See Protocol of a Conference between Polwarth and the Danish ministers on 31 October, of which an abstract is given in Vol. II, p. 358.
page 258 note 2 On 29 October, 1719, Stanhope sent to Polwarth an extract from a letter in which he had assured Carteret that “M. de Campredon will act conjointly with you as mediator, offering on his side the guarantee of Sleswick to the King of Denmark should the peace be concluded with Sweden” (ibid., p.354).
page 259 note 1 Polwarth to Carteret, 15 October, 1719: “The Danes are not to be persuaded but in the present condition of Sweden it ought to yield them something. They look upon Sleswig as what the Swedes have no concern in, and a sum of money for Pomerania and Rügen as of no consequence.”
page 259 note 2 In Stanhope's letter to Carteret of 22 July (o.s.), 1719, he says: “His Majesty has all along wished that Denmark might have been made easy by the cession of Rgen and Stralsund, having ever been apprehensive… that, being disappointed of that expectation, they would join the Czar” (Vol. II, p. 236; Diplomatic Instructions, Vol. I, Sweden, p. 113).
page 259 note 3 The strongest expression of French views on this subject is to be found in a letter from Dubois to Campredon, which is quoted in Chance, J. F., George I and the Northern War, p. 386Google Scholar.
page 260 note 1 See his Rescript to the Kings of Great Britain and Prussia on 9 November, 1719, in Vol. II, p. 365.
page 261 note 1 ProfessorWilliams, Basil (Stanhope, p. 436)Google Scholar, says that “Carteret took up shares to the tune of £12,000.” But Robethon, writing to Polwarth, expressly includes Carteret among those who were prevented by residence abroad from sharing in the profitable speculation, from which he (Robethon) expected to make £10,000 (II, p. 582).
page 262 note 1 W. Stanhope to Carteret, 14 December, 1722 (Vol. III, p. 211). Sir Luke Schaub, writing from Paris to St. Saphorin at Vienna on 18 November, 1722 ibid., p. 194), gives as one reason for the exasperation of Philip V against the Emperor, “the extreme repugnance which he feels to have his sons vassals, that is in his opinion slaves of the Emperor.” Schaub wrote in French, but the quotation is from the editor's translation.
page 262 note 2 Polwarth to Whitworth and Schaub, 2 October, 1722 (Vol. III, p. 175).
page 264 note 1 E.g. the letter of Stanhope to Carteret and Polwarth of 8 July, 1720, printed in Vol. II, p. 584, is to be found in R.O. Denmark, 43.