Advertisement

The Preservation of Peace. June 1727–March 1728

  • A. Goslinga

Abstract

The Preliminaries had been concluded in spite of Elizabeth Farnese. She would have preferred war, as then only could she impose on the Emperor the formal betrothal of her first-born son to his eldest daughter. Now, however, there was not only peace, but no chance of war in conjunction with him, as by the Preliminaries he had abandoned the Ostend Company, the only raison d’être for his alliance with her. Though not acknowledging it to herself, she nevertheless felt that he was breaking away from her, and henceforth the Court of Spain would no longer deliver herself unconditionally over to that of Vienna. This view was advocated by the Minister of Finance and Marine, Patino, a highly gifted man whose influence was increasing daily. As he was no longer inclined to send further subsidies to Vienna, the Austrians stopped at nothing in their efforts to get him removed, but he was retained in his position by the Queen.1)

Keywords

English Government States General Order Joint Declaration French Minister Dutch Minister 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III 339–41; Syveton, op. cit. 247–9; Ameth, op. cit. III, 227–32.Google Scholar
  2. 1).
    Eng. Hist Review XVI, 83; Villars, Mémoires V, 80.Google Scholar
  3. 2).
    Morville to Fénelon, 10 July 1727, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  4. 3).
    Arneth, op. cit. III, 226.Google Scholar
  5. 1).
    Coxe, R. W. I, 287–8, H. W. 151 et seq.Google Scholar
  6. 2).
    Horace Walpole to Fleury, 3 July 1727 (Baillon, Lord Walpole à la Cour de France 298–9).Google Scholar
  7. 3).
    Morville to Fénelon, 26 June 1727, A. E. Hl. 369.Google Scholar
  8. 1).
    Two despatches of 12 June 1727 from Morville to Fénelon and subsequent despatches from Fénelon to his Court, A. E. Hl. 369.Google Scholar
  9. 2).
  10. 3).
    Goslinga to d’Huxelles, 26 March 1727; Fénelon to Morville, 18 April 1727; A. E. Hl. 368.Google Scholar
  11. 1).
    Morville to Fénelon, 12 June 1727. A. E. Hl. 369.Google Scholar
  12. 2).
    cf. the first instructions to Lord Waldegrave (26 May 1727, R. O. Germany 62), given by George I. shortly before his death. This exhortation of Fleury’s is not in disagreement with what we have said his aim was, viz: to keep England from entering into an alliance with the Emperor. He had very much regretted the rupture of March, and in the interests of peace wished to heal it.Google Scholar
  13. 3).
    Huisman, op. cit. 423 note.Google Scholar
  14. 1).
    Newcastle to Finch, 16 June 1727, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  15. 2).
    Townshend to Finch, 30 June 1727, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  16. 3).
    Finch to Townshend, 8 July 1727 R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  17. 4).
    Townshend to Slingelandt, 11 July 1727, R. O. Hl. 297.Google Scholar
  18. 5).
    Slingelandt to Townshend, 25 July 1727, R. O. Hl. 280.Google Scholar
  19. 6).
    Slingelandt to Townshend, 12 August 1727, in Vreede, Voorouderlijke Wijsheid 100–101.Google Scholar
  20. 1).
    The less so, if it be borne in mind that Townshend’s elevation on the late King’s accession, was in some measure due to the recommendation by the leaders of the Republic.Google Scholar
  21. 2).
    cf. the descriptions of the principal regents in Fénelon, op. cit. 165–191: at p. 188 he speaks of the “système de ceux qui supposent l’union avec l’Angleterre absolument nécessaire à la République, et il faut avouer que c’est un système fort général.” Google Scholar
  22. 3).
    Wagenaar, op. cit. XVIII, 448–9.Google Scholar
  23. 4).
    ibidem 438–9; Fénelon to Morville, 9 June, 2, 17, July ‘27, A. E. Hl. 369, 370; Slingelandt to Goslinga, 5 July ‘27, F. G.Google Scholar
  24. 1).
    Grovestins and Pesters to Fagel, 28 May 1727, R. A., S. G. 7317; Villars, Mémoires V, 66–70; Finch to Townshend, 3 June 1727, R. O. Hl. 293.Google Scholar
  25. 2).
    Fagel to Goslinga, 30 Sept. 1727, F. G.Google Scholar
  26. 3).
    Fénelon to Morville, 30 July 1727, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  27. 1).
    Horace Walpole to Van der Meer, 22 June 1727, R. A. S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  28. 2).
    Van der Meer to Horace Walpole, 8 July ‘27 with en cls., copy, R. A., S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  29. 3).
    La Paz to Aldobrandini, 5 Juny ‘27, cf. Horace Walpole to Van der Meer, 26 July ‘27, and other papers enclosed with Van der Meer’s to Fagel, 1 Sept. ‘27, R. A. S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  30. 4).
    Newcastle to Horace Walpole, 13 July ‘27, Fleury to Massei, 25 July ‘27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  31. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 11 July ‘27, Finch to Townshend, 25 July ‘27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  32. 2).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 11 July ’27.Google Scholar
  33. 3).
    Res. S. G. 29 July ’27.Google Scholar
  34. 1).
    Fénelon to Morville, 30 July ’27, A. E. Hl. 370; Res. S. G. 30 July ’27; Wagenaar, op. cit. XVIII, 453–5.Google Scholar
  35. 2).
    Louis XV. to Fénelon, 14 August ’27, A. E. Hl. 370; Secr. Res. S. G. 19 August ’27.Google Scholar
  36. 3).
    Finch to Townshend, 12 Aug. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  37. 1).
    Fénelon to Morville, 5 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  38. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 25 July ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  39. 2).
    Townshend to Finch, 14 July ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  40. 3).
    Hop to Slingelandt, 12 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978; Secr. Res. S. G. 19 Aug. ’27.Google Scholar
  41. 4).
    Hop to Slingelandt, 9 Sept. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978; cf. Rosenlehner, op. cit. 331, 335.Google Scholar
  42. 5).
    Townshend to Finch, 25 July ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; memorial inclosed in Horace Walpole’s private despatch of 21 & 22 Aug. o. s. ’27, R. O. France 186.Google Scholar
  43. 1).
    Coxe, R. W. I, 349. Instructions to Waldegrave, 26 May ’27, R. O. Germany 62.Google Scholar
  44. 2).
    Droysen, Friedrich Wilhelm I, I, 442; of. the exaggerated information of De Broglie in Villars, Mémoires V, 77. Google Scholar
  45. 3).
    Droysen, op. cit. I, 443.Google Scholar
  46. 4).
    As was done by St. Saphorin, who believed that she continued tob e warlike, Pribram, op. cit. I, 456 note.Google Scholar
  47. 5).
    Hamel Bruynincx to Fagel, 9 Aug. ’27, R. A., S. G. 7191.Google Scholar
  48. 6).
    Eng. Hist. Rev. XVI, 310.Google Scholar
  49. 7).
    cf. Huisman, op. cit. 424.Google Scholar
  50. 1).
    cf. Cronstrom to Slingelandt, 7 Aug. ’27 and another letter, both enclosed in Finch to Townshend, 19 Aug. ‘27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  51. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 1, 12, Aug. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  52. 3).
    Finch to Townshend 19 Aug. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.; Pesters to Slingelandt 25 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  53. 4).
    “Articulen om te dienen voor instructie van N. N.”, enclosed in Pesters to Slingelandt, 26 Oct. ‘27; the questions are answered in the same paper; the spy’s second deposition is enclosed in the letter of 13 Nov. ’27 from Pesters to Slingelandt, R. A. Hl. 2981. As to Slingelandt’s thought cf. his letter to Pesters, burgomaster of Maastricht, 7 Oct. ’27, about a certain De Rougemont of Liege, who pretended that he had an important secret to divulge, R. A. Hl. 2994 k.Google Scholar
  54. 1).
    Blok, op. cit. III, 334, 429, 462, 472, 472, 502.Google Scholar
  55. 2).
    Blok, op. cit. IV, 65–6.Google Scholar
  56. 3).
    Slingelandt to Townshend, 11 July ’26, R. O. Hl. 280.Google Scholar
  57. 1).
    cf. F. Wachter, Ostfriesland unter dem Einflusz der Nachbarländer, Aurich 1904Google Scholar
  58. 1)a.
    H. Reimers, Die Bedeutung des Hauses Cirksena für Ostfriesland, Aurich 1905.Google Scholar
  59. 1).
    cf. Droysen, Friedrich Wilhelm I, I, 367.Google Scholar
  60. 2).
    R. Koser, Brandenburg-Preuszen in dem Kampfe zwischen Imperialismus and reichs”. ständischer Libertät, Hist. Zeitschrift 96, 212–20; cf. Droysen, op. cit. I, passim.Google Scholar
  61. 1).
    Slingelandt to C. Hop, 21 Aug. ’28; the project “Onvervankelijk projet van accommodement der verschillen in Oostfriesland” was an addition to this letter, R. A. LegatieGoogle Scholar
  62. 1).
    Slingelandt to Townshend, 11 July ’26, R. O. Hl. 280.Google Scholar
  63. 2).
  64. 1).
    Even as late as June 1726 the Emperor had conferred an “auxiliatorium” upon the Elector Palatine and on the Elector of Cologne, both of them Directors of the Westphalian circle, but not on the third director Frederick William, while he also conferred the same honour on George I. (Wiarda, Ostfriesische Geschichte, VII, 305–6).Google Scholar
  65. 1).
    Res. S. G. 15 May ’27; Finch to Townshend, 20 May ’27, R. O. Hl. 293; cf. Fénelon, op. cit. 156–7.Google Scholar
  66. 2).
    cf. Wiarda, op. cit. VII, 186; Rousset, op. cit. IV, 456.Google Scholar
  67. 3).
    Chauvelin to La Baune, 18 Apr. ’28, A. E. Hl. 374; Mémoire de Pecquet sur l’affaire d’Ostfrise, ibidem 375 f. 73–5.Google Scholar
  68. 4).
    Fénelon to Morville, 9 June ’27, A. E. Hl. 369.Google Scholar
  69. 1).
    Res. S. G. 15, 16, 20, 23, May ’27.Google Scholar
  70. 1).
    Fénelon to Morville, 2, 9, June ’27, A. E. Hl. 369. Fagel said it had been taken in spite of him. From this it would appear that Slingelandt, who was not yet Pensionary, was also against it, while expressions of opinion of his both in ’26 and ’28 regarding theEmperor’s conduct as to East Frisia would agree very well with this.Google Scholar
  71. 2).
    This aperçu about East Frisian affairs has been built upon Wiarda, Ostfriesische Geschichte, VII, Book XXX—XXXII; Fénelon, op. cit. 147–57; Rive, op. cit. 110—116; Wagenaar op. cit. XVIII 282 et seq., 511 et seq.Google Scholar
  72. 3).
    Rosenlehner, op. cit. 307–8.Google Scholar
  73. 1).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 5 June ’27.Google Scholar
  74. 2).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 12 June ’27.Google Scholar
  75. 3).
    Finch to Townshend, 8 Aug. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; H. Hop to Slingelandt, 12 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978; by Townshend’s influence only 1200 of the Landgrave’s soldiers were disbanded.Google Scholar
  76. 4).
    Rosenlehner, op. cit. 221–4.Google Scholar
  77. 1).
    ib. 255–6, 308.Google Scholar
  78. 2).
    ib. 272–310.Google Scholar
  79. 3).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 7, 28, July ’27.Google Scholar
  80. 4).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 30 June ’27; if he really did allude to an alliance, as Rosen lehner says (op. cit. 310—’11), he went beyond his instructions.Google Scholar
  81. 1).
    Rosenlehner, op. cit. 311.Google Scholar
  82. 2).
    Rosenlehner, op. cit. 113, 222, 312–4, 323–4; Fénelon to Chauvelin, 27 Feby. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373.Google Scholar
  83. 3).
    Rosenlehner, op. cit. 342.Google Scholar
  84. 4).
    Townshend to Finch, 15 Aug. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; cf. the conduct of Horace Walpole towards Grevenbroch, the representative of the Elector Palatine at Paris, Rosenlehner, op. cit. 314, ’18, ’23—’24 & ’25.Google Scholar
  85. 1).
    Townshend to Van Ittersum, 18 Aug. ’27, Van Ittersum to Townshend, 9 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296.Google Scholar
  86. 2).
    Townshend to Waldegrave, 7 Aug. ’27, R. O. Germany 62.Google Scholar
  87. 3).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 1 Sept. ’27; Fénelon to Chauvelin, 19 Sept ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  88. 4).
    Hop to Slingelandt, 12 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978.Google Scholar
  89. 5).
    Hop to Slingelandt, 9 Sept. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978.Google Scholar
  90. 1).
    Hop to Slingelandt, 12 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978; Res. Hl. 8 Aug. ’27; Res. S. G. 12 Aug. ’27.Google Scholar
  91. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 27 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  92. 3).
    Fénelon to Morville, 30 July ’27, Fénelon to Chauvelin 27 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  93. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 27 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  94. 2).
    Van Ittersum to Townshend, 12, 22, Aug., 9, 16, Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296; Finch to Townshend, 26 Aug. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; Fénelon to Morville, 20 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370; Fénelon to Fleury, 12 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 366; Hop to Slingelandt, 29 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978.Google Scholar
  95. 1).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 342–3; Van der Meer to Fagel, 30 June ’27, R. A., S. G. 7358; Van Ittersum to Townshend, Finch to Townshend, 25 July ’27, R. O. Hl. 296, 294.Google Scholar
  96. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 12 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  97. 3).
    Fénelon to Morville, 20 Aug. ’27, idem to Chauvelin, 27 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  98. 4).
    Louis XV to Fénelon, 14 Aug. ’27, A. E. Hl. 370.Google Scholar
  99. 5).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 4 Sept. ’25, ibidem.Google Scholar
  100. 1).
    Fleury to Fénelon, 23 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981; Fénelon to Fleury, 2 Sept. ’27, idem to Chauvelin, 5 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 366, 370; Res. S. G. 4 Sept. ’27.Google Scholar
  101. 2).
    Van der Meer to Horace Walpole, 30 Aug. ’27, R. A., S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  102. 3).
    Hop to Fagel, 29 Aug. ’27, R. A., S. G. 7348.Google Scholar
  103. 4).
    cf. Hop to Slingelandt, 12 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978.Google Scholar
  104. 1).
    Eng. Hist. Rev. XVI, 313.Google Scholar
  105. 2).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 21, 25 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  106. 3).
    Hop to Slingelandt, 29 Aug. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978.Google Scholar
  107. 4).
    Rousset, op. cit. III, 412–4; cf. Huisman, op. cit. 249.Google Scholar
  108. 1).
    Van Ittersum to Townshend, 9 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296.Google Scholar
  109. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 5, 11 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  110. 3).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 10 Sept. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  111. 4).
    Mémoires V, 94.Google Scholar
  112. 5).
    La Paz to Aldobrandini, 28 Aug. ’27, translation, R. A. S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  113. 1).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 348—’9.Google Scholar
  114. 2).
    Louis XV. to Richelieu, copy, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  115. 3).
    Pesters to Fagel, 20 Sept. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7317.Google Scholar
  116. 4).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 18 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  117. 5).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 21 Sept. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  118. 6).
    cf. Townshend to Finch, 5 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294. No sooner were they informed of the objections to be made to the list than they consulted the Directors of the East Ind. Co. about it (Hop to Fagel, 12 Sept. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7348).Google Scholar
  119. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 15 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  120. 2).
    Villars, Mémoires V, 96.Google Scholar
  121. 3).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 20, 21 Sept. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  122. 1).
    cf. Townshend to Finch, 5, 15 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; Hop to Slingelandt, 19 Sept. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2978.Google Scholar
  123. 2).
    Villars, Mémoires V, 96.Google Scholar
  124. 3).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 349.Google Scholar
  125. 1).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 18 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  126. 2).
    He told him, we have to be vigilant “sur ce que nous pourrions désirer et demander pour les interêts de notre commerce au lieu que l’Angleterre cherche de nous mettre en jeu par l’affaire d’Ostende qui nous regarde principalement, nous accusant d’etre trop mols et trop timides,” Pesters to Slingelandt, 25 Sept. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  127. 3).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 27 Sept. ’27.Google Scholar
  128. 4).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 18 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  129. 5).
    The account of the negotiations at the Hague from 24 Sept. till 3 Oct. ’27, is founded principally upon the dispatches from Fénelon to his court (30 Sept., 1, 2, 3 Oct. ’27 A. E. Hl. 371) and the resolutions of the States General (the secret ones of 27, 30 Sept. and 3 Oct. and the ordinary one of 30 Sept.)Google Scholar
  130. 1).
    Finch to Townshend, 23 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294 2) Fénelon to Chauvelin, 16 Sept. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  131. 3).
    Finch to Townshend, 16 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  132. 4).
    Finch to Townshend, 26 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; cf. Siingelandt to Pesters, 25 Sept. ’27, copy, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  133. 1).
    Van Ittersum to Townshend, 30 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296.Google Scholar
  134. 1).
    cf. Finch to Townshend, 9 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  135. 1).
    Finch to Townshend, 3 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  136. 1).
    cf. Finch to Townshend, 3 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  137. 2).
    Slingelandt toPesters, 3 Oct. ’27, extract in A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  138. 1).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 10, 12 Oct. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981; idem to Fagel on same dates, R. A. S. G. 7317.Google Scholar
  139. 2).
    Louis XV. to Fénelon, and Chauvelin to Fénelon, 13 Oct. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371; cf. Secr. Res. S. G. 18 Oct. ’27.Google Scholar
  140. 3).
    Hop to Fagel, 7 Oct. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7348.Google Scholar
  141. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 29 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  142. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 14 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  143. 3).
    Townshend to Finch, 19 Sept. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  144. 4).
    Finch to Townshend, 7 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  145. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 3 Oct. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  146. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 21 Oct. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  147. 3).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 12, 16 Oct. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981; Chauvelin to Fénelon, 5 Oct. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  148. 4).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 5, 10, 12 Oct. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  149. 1).
    idem to idem, 12, 13, 16 Oct. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  150. 2).
    cf. Chauvelinto Fénelon, 19 Oct. ’27, Louis XV. to Fénelon, 22 Oct. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  151. 3).
    Pesters to Fagel, 16 Oct. ’27, R. A., S. G. 7317.Google Scholar
  152. 4).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 20 Oct. ’27.Google Scholar
  153. 5).
    Pesters to Fagel, 26 Oct. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7317; Fénelon to Chauvelin, 14 Oct. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  154. 1).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 27 Oct. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  155. 2).
    cf. Pesters to Slingelandt, 26 Oct.’27, R. A. Hl. 2981 (enclosures).Google Scholar
  156. 3).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 361—’2.Google Scholar
  157. 1).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 26 Oct. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  158. 2).
    “différons donc cet article “in the draft from Chauvelin to Fénelon, 2 Nov. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  159. 3).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 27 Oct. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  160. 4).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 360; for further particulars cf. Horace Walpole to Newcastle, 31 Oct. ’27, enclosed in Townshend to Finch, 27 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  161. 5).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 2 Nov. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  162. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 31 Oct. ’27, 7, 11 Nov. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371, 372.Google Scholar
  163. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 31 Oct., 7, 18 Nov. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  164. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 28 Oct. ’27, A. E. Hl. 371.Google Scholar
  165. 2).
    Van Ittersum to Townshend, 28 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296; Finch to Townshend, 4 Nov. ’27, ib. 294; Fenelon to Chauvelin, 4 Nov. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  166. 3).
    Van Ittersum to Townshend, 25 Nov. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296.Google Scholar
  167. 4).
    Van Ittersum to Townshend, 25 Nov. ’27, R. O. Hl. 296.Google Scholar
  168. 5).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 8 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  169. 6).
    Res. S. G. 6 Nov. ’27.Google Scholar
  170. 7).
    Finch to Townshend, 31 Oct. 11, 14 Nov. ’27. R. O. Hl. 294; Van ïttersum to Townshend, 28 Oct ’27, ib. 296.Google Scholar
  171. 1).
    Newcastle to H. Walpole, 26 Oct. ’27, enclosed by Townshend to Finch, 27 Oct. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294. It is worthy of attention that it was not Spain who refused to ratify the Vienna preliminaries, as Pribram (Staatsverträge, England. I, 446) and Huisman (op. cit. 435) think. On the contrary Spain was as ready to do this as the Emperor, and just as the latter’s ministers Boumonville also complained to Hamel Bruynincx of the non-ratification by the Hanover allies (Hamel Bruynincx to Fagel, 17 Sept. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7191). But it was the allies of Hanover, in particular England, who refused to ratify preliminaries about the execution of which opinions differed so much, cf. the speech from the throne, 27 Jan. ‘28 (Cobbett, Parl. Hist. VIII, 634).Google Scholar
  172. 2).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 379—’80; Townshend to Finch, 7 Nov. ’27, R. O. H. 294; the above-quoted letter from Newcastle to H. Walpole.Google Scholar
  173. 1).
    La Paz to Rottembourg, 14 Nov. 27, copy and Dutch translation in Van der Meer to Fagel, 15 Nov. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  174. 2).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 26 Nov. 27, A. E. Hl. 372; cf. Secr. Res. S. G. 2 Dec. ’27.Google Scholar
  175. 3).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 4 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372; cf. Pesters to Slingelandt, 5 Dec. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  176. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 4, 8 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372; Finch to Townshend, 2 Dec. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; Res. Hl. 2 Dec. ’27; Res. S. G. 5 Dec. ’27.Google Scholar
  177. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 8 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  178. 2).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 18 Dec. ’27, ibidem.Google Scholar
  179. 3).
    Finch to Townshend, 9 Dec. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  180. 4).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 4 Dec. ‘27, A. E. Hl. 372. 5) Pesters to Slingelandt, 5 Dec. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  181. 1).
    Newcastle to Finch, 21 Nov. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  182. 2).
    Newcastle to Finch, 28 Nov. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  183. 3).
    Van der Meer to Fagel, 3 Dec. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7358.Google Scholar
  184. 1).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 380—’1.Google Scholar
  185. 2).
    Keene to Newcastle, 15 Dec. ’27, B. M. Add. 32753: Van der Meer to Fagel, 3, 8, 15 Dec ’27, 12 Jan. ’28, R. A. S. G. 7358. Baudrillart (op. cit. III, 379—’80) has ascribed too great a share in the negotiations to Van der Meer and Keene, in any case to the former. He was not consulted at all, and was not present at the conference of Dec. ist, as Baudrillart says he was. Nor was Keene. It was however not without the latter’s knowledge that Rottembourg agreed to the alterations made by La Paz, and he ought to have inquired for his authority before allowing it. Unexperienced as he was, he reposed too much confidence in Rottembourg, for this he was severely reprimanded (Eng. Hist. Rev. XVI, 315).Google Scholar
  186. 1).
    cf. the letters of Pesters and Van Hoey to Slingelandt (R. A. Hl. 2981, 2979) and Fagel (R. A. S. G., 7317), 14 Dec. ’27 and following dates.Google Scholar
  187. 2).
    Newcastle to Finch, 8 Dec. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  188. 3).
    cf. Michael, “Walpole als Premierminister”, Hist. Zeitschrift, Band 104 (1910), 504 et seq, especially 521.Google Scholar
  189. 4).
    Villars, Mémoires V, 112–3, 116–7; Pesters to Slingelandt, 19 Dec. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  190. 5).
    Newcastle to Finch, 8 Dec. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294; Chauvelin to Fénelon, 26 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  191. 1).
    Pesters and Van Hoey to Fagel, 26 Dec. ’27, R. A., S. G. 7317; Chauvelin to Fénelon, 26 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  192. 2).
    Pesters to Fagel, 22 Dec. ‘27, R. A. S. G. 7317; Van Hoey to Slingelandt, 26 Dec. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2979.Google Scholar
  193. 3).
    Townshend to Finch, 12 Dec. ‘27, R. O. Hl. 294; cf. Pesters to Slingelandt, 29, Dec. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981.Google Scholar
  194. 1).
    It was in vain; the ships had already left port: Vreede, Voorouderlijke Wijsheid, 102—’4.Google Scholar
  195. 2).
    Van Welderen, Sylvius and Hop to Fagel, 19, 23 Dec. ’27, R. A., S. G. 7348.Google Scholar
  196. 3).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 26 Dec. 27, A. E. Hl. 372; Pesters’ and Van Hoey’s letters during the last days of Dec. ’27 and 1 Jan. ‘28.Google Scholar
  197. 1).
    Baudrillart op. cit. III, 383; Van der Meer to Fagel, 15, 20 Dec, R. A, S G. 7358.Google Scholar
  198. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 19 Dec. ’27., A. E. Hl. 372; Finch to Townshend, 19, 23 Dec. ’27, R. O. Hl. 294.Google Scholar
  199. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 23, 25 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  200. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 25, 26 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372; Secr. Res. S. G. 25, 27 Dec. ’27; Van Welderen, Sylvius and Hop to Fagel, 19 Dec. ’27, R. A. S. G. 7348.Google Scholar
  201. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 30 Dec. ’27, 2 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 294, 299.Google Scholar
  202. 1).
    Pesters to Slingelandt, 26 Dec. ’27, R. A. Hl. 2981,Google Scholar
  203. 2).
    Slingelandt to Townshend, 26 Dec. ’27, in Vreede, Voorouderlijke Wijsheid 101—’2.Google Scholar
  204. 1).
    Townshend to Slingelandt, 22 Dec. ’27, ib. 102—’4.Google Scholar
  205. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 1 Jan. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373. In this same letter Fénelon records Slingelandt as having repeatedly expressed his fear lest Rottembourg after being disavowed would keep too scrupulously to the letter of Broglie.Google Scholar
  206. 3).
    Eng. Hist. Rev. XVI, 315.Google Scholar
  207. 1).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 382—’4; Chauvelin to Fénelon, 8, 19 Jan. ’28, A. E. Hl. 372, ’3; cf. Mémoires de Villars V, 118.Google Scholar
  208. 2).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 19 Jan. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373.Google Scholar
  209. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 17 Dec. ’27, 2, 9, 19 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 294, 299; Van Hoey to Slingelandt, 23 Jan. ’28, R. A. Hl. 2979.Google Scholar
  210. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 16 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299; cf. Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 382.Google Scholar
  211. 3).
    The same to the same, 2, 20 Jan. ’28, ib.Google Scholar
  212. 4).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 16, 27 Jan. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373.Google Scholar
  213. 5).
    Finch to Townshend, 20, 27 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299.Google Scholar
  214. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 16 Jan. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373.Google Scholar
  215. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 13 Jan. ’28, ib.Google Scholar
  216. 3).
    Secr. Res. S. G. 25 Dec. ’27; Res S. G. 3 Jan. ‘28.Google Scholar
  217. 4).
    Res. S. G. 15, 17, 24, 27 Jan. 28; Finch to Townshend, 16, 27 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299; Fénelon to Chauvelin, A. E. Hl. 373. We have looked in vain for confirmation of what Huisman says (op. cit. 430): les Hollandais reclamèrent même que les navires fussent désemparés et dématés. Google Scholar
  218. 1).
    Droysen, Friedrich Wilhelm I, II, 8 et seq.Google Scholar
  219. 2).
    Coxe R. W. I, 301—’2.Google Scholar
  220. 3).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 385 et seq. This author ascribes the 4th proposal to Rottembourg (p. 399), but it is proved to have originated with Horace Walpole from Chauvelin’s letter to Fénelon, 26 Jan. ’27, A. E. Hl. 373; cf. Slingelandt to Townshend, 3 Feby. ’28 R. O. Hl. 297, and Townshend to Slingelandt, 30 Jan. ’28, R. A. Hl. 2994.Google Scholar
  221. 1).
    Van Hoey and Pesters to Fagel, 27 Jan. ’28, R. A., S. G. 7317; Chauvelin to Fénelon, 26 Jan. ’28; Fénelon to Chauvelin, 2 Feb. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373; Finch to Townshend, 3 Feb. ’28, R. O. H1. 299.Google Scholar
  222. 2).
    Finch to Townshend, 3, 20 Feb. ’28, R. O. H1. 299; Secr. Res. S. G. 2 Feb. ’28. In spite of Slingelandt’s precautions the resolution was read in its entirety at a conference where Fénelon was present. Finch complained to Slingelandt, and as a result Fénelon was denied a copy of the resolution. Some difficulties with the latter concerning the giving of resolutions to foreign Ambassadors ensued, which, however, soon came to an end, Fénelon not daring to maintain his point too strongly.Google Scholar
  223. 1).
    Slingelandt to Townshend, 3 Feb. ’28, R. O. Hl. 297.Google Scholar
  224. 2).
    King, Notes 55–6; Cobbett, Parl. Hist. VIII, 634 et seq.; Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 401; Townshend to Finch, 21 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299; the same to Slingelandt, 26, 30 Jan. ’28, R. A. Hl. 2994.Google Scholar
  225. 1).
    Eng. Hist. Rev. XVI, 316–7; cf. Van Hoey to Slingelandt, 27 Feb. ’28, R. A. Hl. 2979; Townshend to Waldegrave, 15 Feb. ’28, R. O. Germany 62.Google Scholar
  226. 2).
    Baudrillart, op. cit. III, 401, 2nd note.Google Scholar
  227. 3).
    Ibidem, 405 and 3rd note. We see no reason to doubt, as Baudrillart does, the sincerity of Chauvelin in the compliments he paid to Rottembourg.Google Scholar
  228. 4).
    Finch to Townshend, 20 Feb. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299.Google Scholar
  229. 5).
    Townshend to Slingelandt, 26 Jan. ’28, R. A. Hl. 2994.Google Scholar
  230. 1).
    Townshend to Finch, 23 Jan. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299.Google Scholar
  231. 2).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 9 Jan. ’28, Goslinga to Fénelon, 2 Feb. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373.Google Scholar
  232. 3).
    Finch to Townshend, 20 Feb. ’28, R. O. Hl. 299.Google Scholar
  233. 1).
    Fénelon to Chauvelin, 30 Dec. ’27, A. E. Hl. 372.Google Scholar
  234. 2).
    Chauvelin to Fénelon, 5 Feb. ’28, A. E. Hl. 373.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 1915

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Goslinga

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations