² The standard account of Britain's conduct of the negotiations is in Trevelyan, G. M., England Under Queen Anne, vol. III, The Peace and the Protestant Succession (London, 1934).Google Scholar A great deal of information about the background to this subject in the wars of William III and Anne can be found in various articles by the late Thomson, Mark A., conveniently collected and indexed in William III and Louis XIV, Essays 1680–1720 by and for Thomson, Mark A., Hatton, Ragnhild and Bromley, J. S. (eds.) (Liverpool, 1968).Google Scholar

³ The reality of the two-party alignment at this time, largely as stated by Trevelyan, has been confirmed by the most recent studies: see Holmes, Geoffrey, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London, 1967),Google Scholar and Speck, W. A., Tory and Whig, the Struggle in the Constituencies 1701–1715 (London, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴ The Commons voted impeachment against Oxford, Bolingbroke, James Butler, second duke of Ormonde, and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford. See Roberts, Clayton, The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England (Cambridge, 1966), ch. 10, ‘The End of Impeachment (1715–1717)’.Google Scholar

⁵ From Aug. 1710 until he became Lord Treasurer in May 1711 Oxford (then Harley) was Second Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer but was generally recognized as leader of the Ministry and head of the Treasury.

⁶ Trevelyan, G. M., ‘The “Jersey” period of the negotiations leading to the Peace of Utrecht’, E[nglish] H[istorical] R[eview], XLIX (1934), 100–5. Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, held the office of Lord Chamberlain. His presence in the Ministry provided a moderate Whig element upon which Oxford relied to counterbalance the preponderance of Tories.Google Scholar

⁷ The Peace and the Protestant Succession, pp. 176–87 and 209–31.Google Scholar

⁸ The first to point this out appears to have been Fieldhouse, H. N., ‘A Note on the Negotiations for the Peace of Utrecht’, American Historical Review, XL (1934–1935), 274–8,Google Scholar who remarked (p. 275), ‘… it seems probable that Oxford was not so negligible a factor in them [sc. the negotiations] as has been assumed’. Later accounts amplifying this theme are: MacLachlan, A. D., ‘The Road to Peace 1710–1713’, in Britain after the Glorious Revolution 1689–1714, Holmes, Geoffrey (ed.) (London, 1969), pp. 197–215;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcInnes, Angus, Harley, Robert, Puritan Politician (London, 1970), pp. 131–7.Google Scholar

⁹ Trevelyan pointed out, with justice, that ‘Bolingbroke had a keener sense for his country's interests than for her faith and honour’, op. cit. p. 226. Apart from the sources which were available to Trevelyan I have used the Portland (Harley) papers not printed by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, which are now on loan to the British Museum, where they are known as Loan 29; the Marlborough papers at Blenheim Palace; and the reports of the Hanoverian Resident, Kreienberg, in the Niedersachsisches Staatsarchiv, Hanover.

¹⁰ On one occasion Bolingbroke wrote to him: ‘I enclose the draught of a letter to the States [General] together with theirs to the Queen. You will please to correct what may be amiss. It is a litde more flourished than usual, but I hope on this occasion that may be allowable’, no date [1712], Loan 29/156/1. Bolingbroke's correspondence with the British Plenipotentiaries at Utrecht was copied with marginal epitomes, for Oxford's benefit; the copies are in Loan 29/309.

¹¹ Thus the Secretary wrote to the queen, n Sept. 1711: ‘I have the honour to transmit to your Majesty, at the same time, a draught of my letter to Mr Scot, which I have shown this morning to my Lord Treasurer; and which, with your Majesty's approbation, is to be sent…’, Letters and Correspondence, Public and Private, of … Bolingbroke, Parke, Gilbert (ed.) (1798, the four-volume edition), I, 352.Google Scholar Cf. Queen Anne to Oxford, 6 Nov. [1711]: ‘Not knowing whether Mr Secretary has consulted you about the enclosed I send it for your approbation before I would copy it. Mr St Johns knows nothing of the little alteration there is made in the letter, therefore take no notice of it to him. He proposes the Secretary of the Embassy that is now at the Hauge (Hague) should cary this letter to the Emperour, I should be glad to know whether you think him a proper person to do it’, H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission, Manuscripts of the Marquis of] Bath, 1, 215. For instances of the Secretary delaying to write overseas until the Committee had been consulted, see his letters to the Plenipotentiaries, 16 Feb. and 19 Mar. 1712, B.M. Add. MSS 37,272, fos. 29 and 51, and to Strafford alone, 31 May 1712, Add. MS 31,136, fo. 352V.

¹² Matthew Prior's account of his interrogation by the Committee of Secrecy of the House of Commons, 1 Apr. 1715, The Miscellaneous Worlds of Matthew Prior, Drift, Adrian (ed.) (1740), 1, 427. See also the ‘Memorandum of what passed at the committee of managers appointed to make good the impeachment of Robert Earl of Oxford’, Bodleian Library, North MS, B2, fos. 99–100.Google Scholar

¹³ Trevelyan, ‘The Jersey Period …’, loc. cit. Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, held no office under Harley, but like Shrewsbury was a former Secretary of State. As a Jacobite he gave, as Trevelyan points out, a distinctly treasonous flavour to the early stages of the Anglo-French exchanges.

¹⁴ Gaultier to Torcy (the French Foreign Minister), 23 Dec. (N[ew] S[tyle]), ibid. p. 103. The event which encouraged the ministers to take this definite step was probably the evacuation of Madrid in November by the Allied forces, soon to be followed by the British defeat at Brihuega.

¹⁵ Masson, Fréderic (ed.), Journal inidit de Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Marquis de Torcy (Paris, 1903), pp. 347–55. 21 01 (N.s.) 1711.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. p. 356, 22 Jan. (N.S.) 1711. The pseudonym was derived from Harley's seat, Brampton Bryan, Herefordshire.

¹⁷ ‘The last and great sale of the British interest was made in the Barrier Treaty; under pretence of rendering Holland safe, we have done our parts to render it formidable’, St John to Lord Raby (later earl of Strafford), 20 Apr. 1711, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 156.

¹⁸ Gaultier certainly received the impression that Harley and Shrewsbury conducted the negotia- tions behind the backs of their colleagues to keep St John in the dark as long as possible ‘Memorandum du Marquis de Torcy’, 21 July (N.S.) 1711, P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], P.R.O. 31/3/197, fo. 349. (Baschet's transcripts of documents in the Correspondance Politique, Angleterre, of Le Ministere des Affaires Etrangères, Paris.)

¹⁹ Legrelle, Arséne, La diplomatic francaise et la succession d'Espagne (Gand, 1892), IV, 585–7. Transcripts by Baschet of the relevant documents are in P.R.O. 31/3/197, fos. 328–9: ‘Memoire envoyé en Angleterre’, 2 Mar. (N.S.) 1711, and ‘Memoire apporté par le Sieur Gaultier’, 25 Mar.-5 Apr. 1711.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Memoire pour l'Angleterre’, 16 Apr. (N.S.) 1711, P.R.O. 31/3/197, fos. 330–4.

²¹ The original of the French proposals dated 22 Apr. (N.S.) is in P.R.O., SP 78/154, fos. 103–4, printed in Cobbett, W., The Parliamentary History of England, VII (1811), app. 1 (Report of the committee of secrecy, 1715), col. CIII.Google Scholar

²² For Willem van der Huls (or Vanhuls) see Weber, Ottocar, Der Friede von Utrecht (Gotha, 1891), p. 109 and passim.Google Scholar

²³ Shrewsbury to Harley, 26 Apr. [1711], H.M.C., Bath, 1, 201.

²⁴ Same to same [later the same day], ibid. 1, 202. Another factor which may have influenced the decision to make the French terms more publicly known was the recent arrival of news of the death of the Emperor Joseph, leaving as his successor the Archduke Charles, soon to become the Emperor Charles VI (same to same, 17 Apr., ibid. 1, 200). As Habsburg claimant to the throne of Spain Charles thus stood, if his candidacy could be made good, to rule both the Imperial and Spanish possessions, a development unacceptable to Britain and likely to rally support for Harley's and Shrewsbury's intention of abandoning Charles’ pretensions to the Spanish inheritance.

²⁵ St John to Raby, 27 Apr. 1711, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 172.

²⁶ Harley's draft instructions for Vanhuls, 30 Apr. 1711, Loan 29/10/18.

²⁷ Geikie, R. and Montgomery, I. A., The Dutch Barrier, 1705–1719 (Cambridge, 1930), p. 188.Google Scholar

²⁸ Raby to St John, 25 May (N.S.) 1711, Add. MS 22,205, fo. 98. Raby later commented ‘I can easily perceive that the proposition I showed them is by no means agreeable to them, whatever countenance they keep’ (to St John, 2 June, loc. cit. fo. 126).

²⁹ John Drummond to Oxford, 12 June, 7 and 14 July (N.S.), H.M.C. [Manuscripts of the Duke of] Portland, v, 1, 24 and 28. Drummond, a British banker in Holland, was the British Ministry's chief source of information on Dutch financial and commercial affairs. During Strafford's absence he became their chief unofficial intermediary with Heinsius.

³⁰ L'Hermitage (Dutch resident in London), 14 July (N.S.) 171 I, Add. MS 17,677, EEE, fo. 255; John Drummond to Oxford, 17 and 24 July (N.S.) 1711, H.M.C, Portland, v, 32 and 47.

³¹ St John to Lord Raby (who became earl of Strafford in June), 29 May 1711, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 229.

³² 16 June 1711, Loan 29/10/17.

³³ ‘And that all things in America should continue in the possession of those they should be found to be in at the conclusion of the peace’, 1 July 1711, Parliamentary History, VII, app., cols, CIV-CV. The new form was apparently intended to provide for the conquest of Quebec by an expedition then widely known to be in preparation at Portsmouth but generally supposed to be intended for conquests in South America: L'Hermitage, 15 May (N.S.), Add. MS 17,677, EEE, fo. 194. Cf. Legg, L. G. Wickham, Matthew Prior (Cambridge, 1921), pp. 149–50.Google Scholar

³⁴ The accounts of the negotiations differ slighdy; what emerges concerning Prior's demands on the territorial question is that he was to obtain as much as he could get, but that the four ‘cautionary towns’ were the minimum he was to accept. See Matthew Prior's ‘Journal’, H.M.C., Portland, v, 36,Google Scholar and Legg, L. G. Wickham, ‘Torcy's Account of Matthew Prior's Negotiations at Fontainebleau in July 1711’, E.H.R., XXIX (1914), 531–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Torcy gave a shorter account in the Memoirs of the Marquis of Torcy … (trans. 1757), 11, 132–3. Cf. Legg, Wickham, op. cit. p. 153.Google Scholar

³⁵ Mesnager's instructions, 3 Aug. (N.S.) 1711, Legrelle, IV, 597–600. Mesnager was a merchant employed for diplomacy when commercial matters were concerned.

³⁶ Mesnager to Torcy, 28 Aug. (N.S.) 1711, ibid. IV, 601–2.

³⁷ Oxford to the queen, 16 Aug. 1711, Loan 29/12/4. Two words now completely illegible are probably in the sense of the words suggested in the extract as: [made plain].

³⁸ Mesnager to Torcy, 29 Aug. (N.S.) 1711, P.R.O. 31/3/197, no fo. number.

³⁹ Same to same, 3 Sept. (N.S.) and Torcy to Mesnager, 18 Sept. (N.S.) 1711, Legrelle, IV, 602–4.

⁴⁰ Legg, Wickham, op. cit. p. 160.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Oxford to Vh [Vanhuls], 17 Aug. 1711, Loan 29/10/17. St John sent an even less helpful account via Drummond, same date, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 316.

⁴² Shrewsbury to St John, 27 Aug. 1711, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 337.

⁴³ Oxford to Torcy, 29 Aug.-9 Sept. 1711, P.R.O. 31/3/197, fo. 391.

⁴⁴ Report by Gallas (the imperial Envoy), 18 Sept. (N.S.) 1711, Klopp, Onno, Der Fall des Houses Stuart und die Succession des Houses Hannover (Vienna, 1875–1888), XIV, 133.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Oxford to Marlborough, 5 Sept. 1711, Blenheim MSS, B2–19: ‘The sum of what is hitherto done is this: some in Holland have this summer by diverse ways endeavoured to set on foot a negotiation for peace, and France not being prevailed with to begin with them, the Queen declared she would enter into no separate treaty. [The French sent a general offer; the British ministry asked for further explanation; the French sent someone to give it.] He is ordered to prepare such a proposition as may be fit to be transmitted to Holland, which is not yet done. This is the substance of everything which hath yet passed. I suppose a very few days will know whether they are in earnest.’

⁴⁶ Anne to Oxford, 19 Sept. [1711], H.M.C., Bath, 1, 210.

⁴⁷ 20 Sept.-2 Oct. [recte, 1 Oct.], P.R.O. 31/3/197, no folio number.

⁴⁸ Torcy, Memoirs, 11, 171–162 [sic: the numbers 161–172 occur twice in the pagination of the 1757 edition].

⁴⁹ Mesnager to Torcy, 5 Oct. (N.S.) 1711, Legrelle, IV, 607.

⁵⁰ St John to Anne, 20 Sept. 1711, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 368; Torcy, , Memoirs, II, 166–8 (second set).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Anne to Oxford, 24 Sept. 1711, H.M.C., Bath, 1, 212.

⁵² Shrewsbury to Oxford, 27 Sept. 1711, ibid. 1, 212; Torcy, , Memoirs, 11, 169–70 (second set).Google Scholar

⁵³ For Shrewsbury's decision not to sign the articles, see his letter to Lord Stanhope, 5 July 1715, quoted by Somerville, D. H. in ‘Shrewsbury and the Peace of Utrecht’, E.H.R., XLVII (1932), 646–7, citing P.R.O. State Papers, Domestic, George I, 3/32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ The secret document, the ‘Preliminary Demands for Great Britain more Particularly’, specified as the main British gains the Assiento contract and the acquisition of Gibraltar, Minorca, Newfoundland and Hudson's Bay: Parliamentary History, VII, app., cols, CVII-CX. The other document, the ‘Preliminary articles on the part of France’, offered ‘reasonable measures’ to prevent the union of the French and Spanish crowns, acknowledgement of the Protestant succession in Britain, commercial security and advantage to Britain, Holland and other nations, unspecified ‘barriers’ for the Dutch and the House of Austria, and demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk: ibid. cols, CXII-CXIV. Attached to this latter document was a secret article, concerning the aggrandizement of the duke of Savoy, not to be communicated to the emperor, who was currendy in dispute with the duke: Dartmouth to [Paul] Methuen, 13 Sept. 1711, P.R.O., SP 44/112, p. 229. Methuen was the British arbitrator between the disputants.

⁵⁵ St John to Drummond, 3 Aug. 1711, Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 295.

⁵⁶ Gallas's report, 18 Sept. (N.S.) 1711, Klopp, XIV, 133.

⁵⁷ Oxford to Marlborough, 19 Oct. 1711, Blenheim MSS, B2–19.

⁵⁸ G. Clarke to A. Charlett, 3 Oct. 1711, Bodleian, Ballard MS 20, fo. 73.

⁵⁹ Anne to Charles VI, 7 Nov. 1711, Klopp, XIV, 682.

⁶⁰ L'Hermitage, 23 Nov.-4 Dec. 1711, Add. MS 17,677, EEE, fo. 374V.

⁶¹ Strafford's instructions are printed in Bolingbroke Corr., 1, 398–404, together with the open preliminary articles. If the Dutch refused to accept the latter, Strafford was to ‘solemnly declare that we can no longer bear that disproportionate burden which has every year been increased …’

⁶² Geikie, and Montgomery, , op. cit. pp. 219–29.Google Scholar

⁶³ Journals of the House of Lords, XIX, 336;Google ScholarTrevelyan, , The Peace and the Protestant Succession, p. 196.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The instruction is printed in Bolingbroke Corr., 11, 96, footnote.

⁶⁵ London Gazette, 4948.

⁶⁶ Oxford to Torcy, 17 Jan. 1712, Salomon, Felix, Geschichte des lezten Ministeriums Annas von England (1710–1714) und der Englischen Thronfolgefrage (Gotha, 1894), p. 140.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Torcy, , Memoirs, 11, 191.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gaultier to Torcy, (16-)27 Jan. 1712, cited by Fieldhouse, H. N., loc. cit. pp. 275–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Strafford to Oxford, 8–19 Feb. 1712, H.M.C., Portland, IX, 324: ‘[Buys, the Dutch Plenipotentiary, states] we must not expect a peace till they are let in for half the advantage of the commerce of Spain and the West Indies’.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Legg, L. G. Wickham (ed.), British Diplomatic Instructions, Vol. ii. France, 1689–1721 (1925), p. 12.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Mrs Montgomery has pointed out that unease felt among Whig ministers themselves concerning the inclusion of these commercial privileges in the Barrier Treaty of 1709 was concealed from the Dutch at the time and, by reason of Whig opposition tactics, for several years thereafter; and that after 1714 the Whig government refused the Dutch claims in which they had formerly acquiesced: Geikie and Montgomery, op. cit. p. 189.

⁷² Oxford to Buys, 8–19 Mar. 1711–12, Add. MS 20,985, fo. 171V.

⁷³ Drummond to Buys, 25 Jan., Geikie, and Montgomery, , op. cit. pp. 250–1.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Peter Wentworth to Strafford, 15 Feb. 1712, The Wentworth Papers, 1705–1739, Cartwright, J. J. (ed.) (1883), p. 266.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Trevelyan, , op. cit. p. 211.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Torcy, , Memoirs, II, 188–90, 210–12, 216–17.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Torcy to Oxford, 10 Mar. (N.S.), P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 20. Cf. same to St John, same date, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 204.

⁷⁸ ‘Réponse au Mémoire apporté par le Sieur Gaultier le 23me Mars, 1712’, included in Torcy's letter to St John, 28 Mar. (N.S.) 1712, ibid. 11, 221–6 and footnote.

⁷⁹ Oxford to Torcy, 23 Mar. 1712, P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 36. Cf. St John to the same, same date, Bolingbroke Corr., 11, 229.

⁸⁰ Torcy to St John, 8 Apr. (N.S.) 1712, ibid. 11, 246. Also Torcy to Oxford, same date, P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 42.

⁸¹ The further detail of the arrangement was that if Philip succeeded to France after giving up Spain, he would be allowed to keep the mainland territories but must give Sicily up to the Austrian House of Habsburg. See St John to Torcy, 29 Apr. 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 284.Google Scholar Cf. Trevelyan, , op. cit. p. 214.Google Scholar

⁸³ St John to Strafford, 29 Apr. 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 299–300.Google Scholar

⁸³ Salomon, , op. cit. p. 146,Google Scholar citing Oxford to Eugene, 17 Apr.; Steingens (Palatine Resident) to the same, 19 Apr.; Eugene to Oxford, 30 Apr.; and Eugene to Charles VI, same date (all N.S.), 1712, in Feldzüge dcs Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen, von Eberswald, H. S. E. (ed.) (Vienna, 1889), 11, ser. v, supp., pp. 114–16. The letters do not reveal the details of Oxford's suggestion, though it was evidently the same in substance as that made in St John's letter to Torcy of 29 Apr. 1712.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Oxford to Torcy, 1–12 May 1712, P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 66.

⁸⁵ Oxford to Thomas Harley, 3–14 May 1712, Add. MS 40,621, fo. 70.

⁸⁶ Torcy to St John, 13 May (N.S.) 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 314.Google Scholar Cf. Torcy to Oxford, same date, P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 74.

⁸⁷ St John to Ormonde, 10 May 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., 11, 320–1.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The same to Torcy, same date, ibid. II, 317.

⁸⁹ ‘The Answer of Robert, Earl of Oxford’, 3 Sept. 1715, art. 8, Parliamentary History, VII, 175.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Gaultier to Torcy, 21 May (N.S.) 1712, printed by Trevelyan, , op. cit. p. 230.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Oxford's ‘ Answer …’, 3 Sept. 1715, loo cit. p. 175. For St John's account to the first earl of Hardwicke, see Yorke, Philip, Miscellaneous State Papers jrom the Collection of the Earl of Hardwicke (1778), 11, 482.Google Scholar

⁹² St John to Torcy, 10–21 May 1712, P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 71. The postscript does not appear in the version printed from the copy in Bolingbroke Corr., II, 347.Google Scholar

⁹³ L'Hermitage, 22 Apr-3 May 1712, Add. MS 17,677, FFF, fo. 166.

⁹⁴ Gaultier to Torcy, 21 May (N.S.) 1712, Trevelyan, , op. cit. p. 230.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Kreienberg, 27 May-7 June 1712 [Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Hanover], C[alenberg] B[riefe] A[rchiv] 24 (England), 107A.

⁹⁶ L'Hermitage, 30 May-10 June 1712, Add. MS 17,677, FFF, fo. 220. Two days after this debate Oxford assured Kreienberg that Ormonde would fight if necessary; he added that the supposed restraining orders were a fiction invented in Holland: Kreienberg's report, 30 May- 10 June, loc. cit.

⁹⁷ Torcy to St John, 8 June (N.S.) 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 356. Same to Oxford, same date, P.R.O. 31/3/198, fo. 83.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Parliamentary History, VI, 1141–4.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ 12–23 Aug. 1712, Add. MS 40,621, fo. 112.

¹⁰⁰ Geikie, and Montgomery, , op. cit. pp. 278–83.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Oxford to Count Zinzendorff, 23 July 1712, A Catalogue of the letters and other Historical Documents exhibited in the Library at Welbeck, Strong, S. A. (ed.) (1903), p. 64.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Oxford to [Torcy], 21 July 1712, Catalogue of the Collection of Autograph Letters and Historical Documents formed by Alfred Morrison (privately printed, 1883–1902), V, 79; St John to the same, same date, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 474.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Torcy to Oxford, 19 June (N.S.) 1712, P.R.O. 31/3/199, fo. 157.

¹⁰⁴ St John to Oxford, 3 July 1712, H.M.C., Portland, v, 198;Google Scholar cf. Oxford's ‘A brief account of public affairs … 8th of June, 1714’, Parliamentary History, VI, app. IV, col. CCXLVI.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ To Bolingbroke, 4 Aug. (N.S.) 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., II, 492.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Torcy, , Memoirs, II, 347–8.Google Scholar According to Torcy, Bolingbroke ‘had counselled the queen to prefer a separate peace to a suspension of hostilities, and to secure to her subjects, as soon as possible, die enjoyment of those advantages which the king consented to grant them’ but ‘Boling-broke's advice was opposed by the lord-treasurer, cautious of offending the duke of Hanover, and apprehensive of being called to an account, whenever that prince ascended the British throne’.

¹⁰⁷ Bolingbroke to the Plenipotentiaries, 29 July 1712, continued on 1 Aug., Add. MSS 37,272, fos. 155–6.

¹⁰⁸ Bolingbroke to Dartmouth, 21 Aug. (N.S.) 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., III, 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Prior to Bolingbroke, 29 Aug.-9 Sept. and 12 Sept. (N.S.) 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., III, 53 and 57.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Oxford to Ormonde, 5 Aug. 1712, H.M.C., Fifteenth Report, app., pt. II, 213.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Kreienberg, 22 Aug.-2 Sept. 1712, C.B.A. 24 (England), 107A.

¹¹² Bolingbroke to Prior, 27 Aug. 1712, Bolingbroke Corr., III, 23.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Same to same, 10 Sept. 1712, ibid. III, 66–7.

¹¹⁴ Strafford to Oxford, 2–13 Sept. 1712, H.M.C., Portland, IX, 344.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Same to same, 5–16, 16–27 Sept., 24 Sept.-5 Oct., ibid. ix, 346, 349 and 352.

¹¹⁶ Kreienberg, 26 Sept.-7 Oct. 1712, C.B.A. 24 (England), 107A.

¹¹⁷ The same, 3–14 Oct. 1712, loo cit.

¹¹⁸ The same, 7–18 Oct. 1712, loc. cit.

¹¹⁹ Erasmus Lewis to Oxford, 13 Oct. and [14 Oct.] 1712, H.M.C., Portland, V, 234–5;Google ScholarBolingbroke Corr., III, passim.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Bolingbroke to the bishop of Bristol, 28 Oct. 1712, Add. MS 37,272, fo. 232.

¹²¹ Prior to Oxford, 16–27 Sept. 1712, Welbeck Letters, p. 276; Prior to Dartmouth, 16–27 Sept. 1712, and Dartmouth to Prior, 25 Sept. 1712, P.R.O., SP 78/154, fos. 166 and 174; Sir Nathan Lloyd to [Dartmouth?], 4 Sept. 1712, P.R.O., SP Dom. 34/19, fo. 103.

¹²² L'Hermitage, 14–25 Nov. 1712, Add. MS 17,677, FFF, fo. 410.

¹²³ The queen to Louis XIV, 14–25 Nov. 1712, Morrison Collection, I, 24.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Instructions to the Plenipotentiaries, 11 Nov. 1712, British Diplomatic Instructions, France, pp. 29–33.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Geikie, and Montgomery, , op. cit. p. 298.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Prior to Oxford, 1–12 Sept. 1712, Welbeck Letters, p. 272: ‘I thought Lord Bolingbroke who knows every step of the negociation was to have carryed it on, but I see it is transferred to the other office, and apprehend new difficulties will dayly arise from this change.’

¹²⁷ British Diplomatic Instructions, France, pp. 39–40: ‘Instructions for Charles, Duke of Shrewsbury … 11th December, 1712’.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ To Oxford, 19 Jan. (N.S.) 1713, H.M.C., Bath, I, 228–9.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Prior to Dartmouth, 19 Jan. (N.S.) 1713, P.R.O., SP 78/154, fo. 412: ‘I send my Lord Bolingbroke what his Grace of Shrewsbury and myself under his directions are doing here, as to the points of Newfoundland and Commerce, in order to accommodating those affairs at Utrecht.’

¹³⁰ To Oxford, 2 Feb. (N.S.) 1713, Miscellaneous Works of Prior, I, 383–4.Google Scholar Further letters may have been burnt by Prior; upon questioning by the Committee of Secrecy in 1715 he stated that he destroyed Oxford's letters as they came, but it seems likely that this was in fact done later to protect the sender, ibid. I, 421–2.

¹³¹ Bolingbroke to Shrewsbury, 19 Jan. 1713, Bolingbroke Corr., III, 313–14.Google Scholar

¹³² Trevelyan, , op. cit. pp. 228 and 255–8.Google Scholar For Bolingbroke's dispatch, see Bolingbroke Corr., III, 417–39.Google Scholar

¹³³ For the relations of Oxford and Bolingbroke over foreign policy between the conclusion of the peace and the death of Queen Anne, in Aug. 1714, an article by Derek McKay, published since the above was written, should be consulted: ‘Bolingbroke, Oxford and the Defence of the Utrecht setdement in southern Europe’, E.H.R., LXXXVI (1971), 264–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar