^{page xi note 1} See, in respect of the opinion of each power for the other, the remarkable letter of Yorke to Newcastle, Compiègne, June 27/July 8, 1850. France “is a neighbour one should not wantonly provoke, and should be always guarding against by every possible method. They do us the justice to think that is our system ” (B.M., Add. MS. 32822, fo. 89).

^{page xii note 1} B.M., Add. MS. 32818, fo. 130 (Newcastle to Albemarle, private, Newcastle House, 24 Aug. 1749).

^{page xii note 2} B.M., Add. MS. 32827, fo. 46 (Memorandum of Newcastle in reply to Richecourt's mémoire instructif on Sweden and the north).

^{page xii note 3} The chief of these was that election to the Kingship of the Romans required unanimity, not as the Hanoverians held merely an “eminent majority.” All however were agreed that in the election of an Emperor a majority sufficed (pp. 22, 23).

^{page xii note 4} Encouragement of opposition by France (pp. 13–14), and of the constant rise of the demands of the Elector Palatine as the price of his vote (pp. 25–8, 31, 33). See also B.M., Add. MS. 32832, fo. 105 v. (Newcastle to Albemarle, Newcastle House, 5 Dec. 1751, very private).

^{page xiii note 1} For Kaunitz' behaviour towards the British embassy see Yorke's letter to Hardwicke, Paris, 7/18 Nov. 1750 (B.M., Add. MS. 32825, fo. 29 et seqq.).

^{page xiii note 2} B.M., Add. MS. 32830, fo. 191 (very private, Newcastle House, 4 Oct. 1751).

^{page xiii note 3} B.M., Add. MS. 32838, fo. 203 (Newcastle to Albemarle, private, Hanover, 8/19 July, 1752).

^{page xiii note 4} B.M., Add. MS. 32831, fo. 276 v. (Albemarle to Newcastle, Paris, Dec. 1/ Nov. 20 1751).

^{page xiii note 5} B.M., Add. MS. 32832, fo. 107 (Newcastle to Albemarle, very private, Newcastle House, 5 Dec. 1751).

^{page xiii note 6} B.M., Add. MS. 32830, fo. 188 (Newcastle to Albemarle, very private, Newcastle House, 4 Oct. 1751).

^{page xiv note 1} A good account of the Steuer controversy will be found in D. B. Horn, Sir Charles Hanbury-Williams and European Diplomacy, Harrap, 1930.

^{page xiv note 2} For the whole business see SirSatow, Ernest, The Silesian Loan and Frederick the Great, Oxford, 1915.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 1} On one occasion Canada is described as “the most ticklish and the most important point that we have almost ever had singly to negotiate with France.” See B.M., Add. MS. 32822, fo. 306 (Newcastle to Yorke, Hanover, 30 July/10 Aug. 1750).

^{page xv note 2} B.M., Add. MS. 32818, fo. 130 (Newcastle to Albemarle, private, Newcastle House, 24 Aug. 1749).

^{page xv note 3} B.M., Add. MS. 32821, fo. 448 v (Newcastle to Albemarle, Hanover, 15/26 June 1750).

^{page xv note 4} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 240, fo. lv. (Albemarle to Bedford, Paris, 2/13 January 1750/1).

^{page xv note 5} B.M., Add. MS. 32844, ff. 321 v. et seqq. (Newcastle to Albemarle, private, Newcastle House, 24 May 1753). “They make new pretensions every day upon us with regard to trade, prizes, limits, or something or other. They don't indeed push them to extremities, but they keep them all depending, in order to make use of them en tems et liews. They are now repairing, re-establishing or seeming to do it, the fortifications at Dunkirk. … The camps, the armaments at Toulon, and the continuation and augmentation of their foreign subsidies are all suspicious circumstances. …”

^{page xvi note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 237, fo. 5 (Newcastle to Albemarle, Göhrde, 31 August/11 September 1750).

^{page xvi note 2} Ibid., no. 240, fo. 331 (Albemarle to Bedford, Paris, 18/29 April 1751).

^{page xvi note 3} Cf. B.M., Add. MS. 32839, fo. 378 v. (Albemarle to Newcastle, Paris, 31 Aug./ll Sept. 1752). “[Puyzieulx] is a man of honour and principle, to be relyed on; this tool of Machaut's [St. Contest] is a shuffling lawyer adorned with French good manners.”

^{page xvii note 1} B.M., Add. MS. 32833, ff. 389–91 (Clinton to La Jonquière, New York, 12 June 1751, and La Jonquière to Clinton, Montreal, 10 August 1751, N.S.).

^{page xvii note 2} Cf. P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 244, fo. 158 (Albemarle to Newcastle, Paris, 4/15 June, 1752, apart) in which it is stated on the authority of Mildmay the commissioner that Crown Point being in a bottom could easily be commanded from any of the surrounding heights.

^{page xvii note 3} B.M., Add. MS. 32848, fo. 86 (Private, Newcastle House, 15 Jan. 1754).

^{page xviii note 1} All this can be seen in full detail from both British and French sources in R. Waddington, Louis XV et le renversement des alliances, Paris, 1896. Cf. also Corbett, Julian, England in the Seven Years War, Longmans, 1907, Vol. I, capp. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 2} The instructions and despatches to Bedford will be found on pp. 55–83.

^{page xx note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 287 (Stormont to Rochford, Paris, 31 March 1773, private).

^{page xx note 2} Ibid. (Stormont to Rochford, Paris, 4 April 1773, private).

^{page xx note 3} Ibid., no. 290 (St. Paul to Rochford, Paris, 28 Nov. 1773, no. 60 in cipher). See Paul's, St. correspondence in Colonel St. Paul of Ewart, ed. Butler, Gr. G., London, 1911.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 4} “For my part, my Lord, I shall consider His Most Christian Majesty's death as a real misfortune, and see the approach of it with deep concern “(to Rochford, Paris, 8 May 1774, in P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 292, holograph).

^{page xxi note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 292 (Stormont to Rochford, Paris, 8 June 1774, confidential).

^{page xxi note 2} See e.g. P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 243, fo. 209 v. (Albemarle to Holdernesse, Paris, 11/22 March 1752): “A sensible polite man, but having been bred up by his uncle Mo^r. de Chavigny, he has a great many of his ways in his ministerial qualities.” This is ministerial style; for the more intimate see BM., Add. MS. 32839, fo. 378 v. (Albemarle to Newcastle, Paris, 20/31 Aug. 1751): “He seems to be a compound of everything bad, for he is instructed by St. Contest, bred up by Chavigny, and now advised by him. C'est tout dire.”

^{page xxi note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 292 (Stormont to Rochford, Paris, 27 July 1774, holograph, private).

^{page xxii note 1} It had been a subject for despatches, but not for diplomatic action, for five years at least previous to this date. (See P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 279, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, 17 Dec. 1769.)

^{page xxii note 2} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 306 (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 15 March 1778, confidential).

^{page xxii note 3} Cf. Ibid., no. 300 (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 20 Nov. 1776, most confidential; Paris, 28 Nov. 1776, second most confidential; 11 Dec. 1776, holograph, private).

^{page xxiii note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 301 (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 5 Feb. 1777, most particular, no. 24 ; 5 Feb. 1777, holograph, confidential).

^{page xxiii note 2} Ibid., no. 300 (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 8 Oct. 1776, most secret, no. 87).

^{page xxiii note 3} Ibid., no. 300 (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 25 Dec. 1776, most confidential). He may, of course, have got the idea from Stormont.

^{page xxiii note 4} Ibid. (Stormont to Weymouth, 11 Dec. 1776, particular, no. 119). “As he is a subtle, artful man and void of all truth, he will use every means to deceive.”

^{page xxiii note 5} On this occasion Vergennes made one of his rare slips, for his comment on the news that Washington had been made dictator for six months was that it was “a dangerous measure dans une république naissante ”—a phrase which Stormont noted (Ibid., no. 301, Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 26 Mar. 1777, no. 54, secret).

^{page xxiv note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 302 (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 19 April 1777, holograph, secret).

^{page xxiv note 2} Ibid. (Stormont to Weymouth, Paris, 4 June 1777, no. 97, most secret).

^{page xxiv note 3} See Williams, Basil, Life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, London, Vol. II, p. 328Google Scholar.

^{page xxv note 1} See especially Mr. Cecil Headlam's chapter in the first volume of the Cambridge History of the British Empire. For the more specifically American negociations of Shelburne see Lord Fitzmaurice's Life of Shelburne, 2nd ed., Vol. II, where use has been made of the unofficial correspondence of Shelburne and FitzHerbert.

^{page xxvii note 1} P.R.O., F.O. 27, no. 6, p. 531 (Manchester to Fox, Paris, 18 June 1783, no. 14). He obtained security of property and mortgages and abolition of droit d'aubaine, together with permission to leave the island.

^{page xxvii note 2} Cf. J. Holland Rose, William Pitt and the National Revival, cap. xiv. A commercial treaty with France had been advocated in 1767 by Rochford (P.R.O., S.P. 78, no. 272. To Shelburne, Paris, 7 May, secret and confidential).

^{page xxix note 1} P.R.O., F.O. 27, no. 3, p. 292 (FitzHerbert to Grantham, Paris, 19 Sept. 1782, no. 56).

^{page xxix note 2} Ibid., p. 287.

^{page xxxi note 1} For all this, see P. Coquelle, L'alliance franco-hollandaise contre l'Angleterre, 1735–1788, Paris, 1902, cap. xviii.

^{page xxxii note 1} P.R.O., F.O. 27, no. 3, p. 104 (FitzHerbert to Grantham, Paris, 7 Aug. 1782, no. 51).

^{page xxxii note 2} He was not the ambassador en titre. According to Manchester, the ambassador, Prince Bariatinski “does not appear to have been much intrusted with the real views of his Court. Mo^r. Markoff seems to be the man of business.” P.R.O., F.O. 27, no. 6, p. 405 (to Fox, Paris, 11 May 1783, no. 2).

^{page xxxiii note 1} P.R.O., F.O. 27, no. 7, p. 5 (Manchester to Fox, Paris, 14 Aug. 1783, no. 35). See also G. F. Martens, Recueil der traites ‥ de l'Europe, Göttingen, 1818, Vol. III. pp. 523–4.

^{page xxxiii note 2} For all this in detail see Professor J. Holland Kose, William, Pitt and the National Revival. An excellent summary will be found also in Professor J. H. Clapham's chapter in the Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, Vol. I. For the commercial treaty see also Gomel, Charles, Les causes financières de la révolution francaise, Paris, 1893, cap. vii.Google Scholar