^{Page 19 note 1} Cornelius Van Bynkershoek, De Foro Legatorum Liber Singularis. A Monograph on the Jurisdiction over Ambassadors (reprinted Oxford and London, 1946, ed. G. J. Laing), p. 10.

^{Page 19 note 2} Picavet, , La Diplomatic Française au temps de Louis XIV, p. 74Google Scholar; Krauske, O., Entwickelung d. ständigen Diplomatie, pp. 162–3Google Scholar.

^{Page 19 note 3} Krauske, , op. cit., pp. 165, 174Google Scholar.

^{Page 19 note 4} These are dealt with ad nauseam in Wicquefort and Calliéres.

^{Page 19 note 5} Satow, , Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 4th ed., p. 165Google Scholar.

^{Page 19 note 6} Vitale, , La Diplomazia Genovese, pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

^{Page 19 note 7} Histoire de l' administration des affaires étrangéres de Suéde, ed. Tunberg, S. and others, pp. 235 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 20 note 1} H.C. (1850), XV, xv.

^{Page 20 note 2} De la Manière de négocier avec les souverains, English translation ed. Whyte, A. F. (1919), pp. 71–6Google Scholar. Pecquet, , Discours sur l' art de négocier (Paris, 1737), p. 135Google Scholar, recognizes only three clear grades: (1) ambassador; (2) envoy; and (3) resident.

^{Page 20 note 3} De Foro Legatorum, p. 64.

^{Page 20 note 4} Excluding mere chargés d' affaires. These and subsequent figures are based, with a few adjustments, on the lists published in British Diplomatic Representatives 1689–1789, Camden Third Series, no. 46 (1932). They do not include diplomatic representatives sent to international conferences who were not accredited to the sovereign in whose territory the conference was held, nor do they include occasional embassies to non-European countries, especially the Barbary states. For some purposes I have also left out of account agents who received credentials but did not take up the appointment.

^{Page 20 note 6} Picavet, , op. cit., pp. 78–9Google Scholar.

^{Page 21 note 1} ‘The commission of Plenipotentiary’, Dartmouth, wrote to Prior, , ‘does not give you a representing character’ (Bolingbroke Correspondence, ed. Parke, G., ii. 324)Google Scholar. Cf. the difference in treatment accorded at the French court in the early eighteenth century to envoys who were also plenipotentiaries and to mere ministers plenipotentiary (Coxe, , Memoirs of Lord Walpole, i. 136–7Google Scholar).

^{Page 21 note 2} Callières regards the title of plenipotentiary as occasional, given chiefly to ministers accredited to the Diet, German at Ratisbon, and Pecquet regards it as ‘un titre passager, sans autre décoration que le relief attaché naturellement à un emploi de confiance, qui ne peut rien exiger, mais qui attire de la considération et du respect’ (Discours, p. 136)Google Scholar. Similarly he excludes minister from the hierarchy of ranks as being a vague description ‘qui naît de la commission qu'un particulier a d'administrer dans un pals étranger les affaires de son maître. Ce n'est même que depuis peu que l'usage s'en est établi: on l'a jugé plus commode, parce qu'il n'assujettit à aucun cérémonial, et parce qu'il peut être porté par des personnes de différente naissance, sans qu'on puisse en rougir ou s'en trop glorifier' (Ibid., pp. 135–6).

^{Page 22 note 1} Including some who are more accurately described as ‘plenipotentiary’.

^{Page 22 note 2} Only those commissaries and agents who actually undertook diplomatic work are included.

^{Page 22 note 3} On which see Wood's, A. C. article, Eng. Hist. Rev. xl (1925), 533–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 23 note 1} Strang, Lord, Home and Abroad, p. 309Google Scholar.

^{Page 23 note 2} Those secretaries were paid at a uniform rate of £I a day (46 C[ommons] J[ournals], 592), Berlin 1785, St. Petersburg 1787, Vienna 1789, and Copenhagen 1790. According to Lord Whitworth the experiment was not a success at St. Petersburg since the secretary was excluded from Petersburg society. He advocated instead appointment of unpaid attachés (H[ist.]M[SS.] C[omm.], Fortescue MSS., ii. 226).

^{Page 23 note 3} See Satow, , Guide to Dip. Practice, p. 256Google Scholar, for the continuation of this practice into the twentieth century. It was anticipated to some extent under George II (Chesterfield, , Letters, ed. Bradshaw, , i. 433, 465–6)Google Scholar.

^{Page 23 note 4} Particulars of payments to foreign ministers can readily be obtained from the Treasury records preserved in the P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice] (general reference E. 403). Much information is available in print for the period 1689–1745 in the three series of official publications, Calendar of Treasury Books (1689–1714), Calendar of Treasury Papers (1714–30) and Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers (1731–45). For the middle period (1752–69) statements of civil list payments, etc., to foreign ministers and consuls are printed in 32 C.J. 466–603. After Burke's Bill for Economical Reform came into operation ‘the salaries of the ministers to foreign courts being resident at the said Courts’ are grouped in one class and the amounts paid to each are printed annually in the Commons Journals, e.g. 40 C.J. 328–33. Some additional information may be gleaned from the Calendar of Home Office Papers for the years 1761–75.

^{Page 24 note 1} Mahon, Lord, History of England, i. 30Google Scholar, suggests that in Anne's reign the higher rate was paid to ambassadors to France, Spain and the Emperor, the lower to other ambassadors, but this is because he thinks that the regulation of 1669 remained in force in Anne's reign. In the mid-eighteenth century the lower rate seems to have been paid only to two ambassadors to Russia and one to Venice.

^{Page 24 note 2} The payment of £10 a day in this rank to William Eden as envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to France is anomalous (46 C.J. 592). The appointment of a minister in this rank might be a tribute to the sovereign to whom he was accredited or a reward to the man appointed.

^{Page 24 note 3} Wood, A. C., History of the Levant Company, p. 134Google Scholar.

^{Page 24 note 4} Pell General Posting Books (E. 403 general reference) in P.R.O.

^{Page 24 note 5} Wood, , Levant Company, pp. 177–8Google Scholar.

^{Page 24 note 6} Infra, p. 36.

^{Page 25 note 1} Irregular additions or perhaps merely anticipations of ordinary payments (H.M.C., Bath MSS., i. 235) were occasionally made, as to the dukes of Shrewsbury, and Hamilton, in 1712, ‘without account’, Cal. Treas. Books, xxvi (1712), 427, 530, 532; cfGoogle Scholar. for a similar proposal affecting Matthew, Prior H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 216Google Scholar. I think George III was wrong when he wrote: ‘The giving an audience to foreign ministers is now become customary. It used only to be to ambassadors’ (Correspondence, ed. Fortescue, , iv. 101)Google Scholar.

^{Page 25 note 2} Cal. Treas. Papers, xxvii (1713), 62, 450.

^{Page 25 note 3} 3rd edition, 1768. There was in fact a gap of nearly eighteen months at Madrid, nearly five years at Turin, and over a year at St. Petersburg.

^{Page 25 note 4} See for example Clark, Ruth, Sir William Trumbull in Paris, pp. 173–6Google Scholar. A considerable number of other accounts of this nature have been printed in Cal. Treas. Books. At a time of crisis in the Balkans Sir R. M. Keith at Vienna spent £300 on postages alone in the six months July 1773–January 1774 (Brit. Mus., Add. MSS. 35506, fos. 240–1).

^{Page 26 note 1} Cal. Treas. Books, iii, part i (1669–72), 188.

^{Page 26 note 2} Cal. Treas. Papers, i (1557–1696), 6: printed in Bolingbroke Correspondence, ed. Parke, , i. 114Google Scholar.

^{Page 26 note 3} Cal. Treas. Books, iii, part i (1669–72), 324.

^{Page 26 note 4} The influence of French practice may reasonably be inferred here.

^{Page 26 note 6} Cal. Treas. Books, iii, part i (1669–72), 169–70.

^{Page 27 note 1} Cal. Treas. Books, iii, part i (1669–72), 347.

^{Page 27 note 2} Baxter, S. B., Development of the Treasury 1660–1702, p. 55Google Scholar.

^{Page 27 note 3} Copy in Add. MSS. 31150, fos. 23–5 (Strafford Papers).

^{Page 27 note 4} Hist, de l' Admin, des Aff. Etrangères de Suède, pp. 355–6.

^{Page 27 note 5} P.R.O., Warrants, not relating to Money XIII, pp. 1–2, summarized in Cal. Treas. Books, ix, part ii (1689–1692), 443Google Scholar, and perhaps more accurately in H.M.C., Downshire MSS., i, part i. 330. No regular extraordinary allowance was paid to the ambassador at Constantinople (cf. The Despatches of Sir Robert Sutton, ed. Kurat, , Camden Third Series, no. 78, pp. 49–50)Google Scholar.

^{Page 28 note 1} H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 24Google Scholar.

^{Page 28 note 2} Cal. Treas. Books, xx (1705–6), 108. In 1691, however, the Cabinet Council had allowed Consul Lodington's extraordinaries (H.M.C., Finch MSS., iii. 404)Google Scholar.

^{Page 28 note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 71. 11. It was easier to make bills for extraordinaries than to get them paid by the Lord Treasurer (Cal. Treas. Papers (1708–14), p. 557).

^{Page 28 note 4} E.g. Consul Hudson's from Algiers after his dispatch of 21 September 1720 in S.P. 71. 6.

^{Page 28 note 5} S.P. 71. 20 and 22, especially 22, fo. 683.

^{Page 28 note 6} 40 C.J. 328–33.

^{Page 28 note 7} 46 C.J. 598.

^{Page 29 note 1} 41 C.J. 645.

^{Page 29 note 2} But not, as a rule, journeys to and from the foreign court to which he was accredited. Thus when Lord Rochford put in a claim for his journey to Turin via Paris, the Lords of the Treasury recommended ‘that no allowance be made for the future to ambassadors, envoys and ministers employed abroad for their journies to and from the respective courts to which they are commissioned, but in cases where His Majesty gives particular orders for a journey to be made for a particular service’ (Minutes T. 29. 31, fo. 236, 7/11/49). Under William III and Anne, however, if the costs of these journeys were exceptionally heavy, claims were often allowed (Cal. Treas. Books, passim). Pulteney, Daniel probably summed up the earlier practice not unfairly when he said, referring to claims for travelling charges and public mournings, that ‘these extraordinary demands have, or have not, been allowed as the minister had friends at the Treasury, at least they have remained upon the foot of a pretension which may be obtained on some favourable turn’ (H.M.C., MSS. in Various Collections, viii. 361)Google Scholar. Under William III the decision whether to pay the bills drawn by a foreign minister was often made by the king himself (e.g. H.M.C., Downshire MSS., i. 739)Google Scholar, but this tended to become a matter for decision at the Treasury. In accordance with the Treasury Minute of 7/11/49 R. M. Keith received £500 as expenses of removal from Dresden to Copenhagen and Sir T. Wroughton £400 as equipage money on being posted from Warsaw to Stockholm (S.P. 88. 103 and S.P. 88. 114).

^{Page 29 note 3} Cal. Treas. Books, xxiv (1710), 535.

^{Page 29 note 4} More often this class of extraordinary payment seems to have been dealt with in the manner described in Cal. Treas. Books and Papers, iv (1739–1741), pp. viii–ixGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 29 note 5} Eng. Hist. Rev., xliii. 610–11, prints Hyndford's bill of extraordinaries, which largely consists of such items.

^{Page 30 note 1} Report from the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service, , H.C. (1861) viGoogle Scholar, question 540.

^{Page 30 note 2} Ibid., question 1009.

^{Page 30 note 3} H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 39Google Scholar.

^{Page 30 note 4} Mahon, Lord, History of England, i. 30Google Scholar, argues that the only difference between an ambassador-extraordinary and an ambassador in ordinary was that the former received a sum for equipage determined by the sovereign on each occasion, whereas the latter received £1,500 or £1,000 according to the court to which he was accredited. This does not square with figures given in two notes about the pay of ambassadors in S.P. 94. 229. If these figures are correct, Charles II was much more generous than his successors. In 1663 Sir Richard Fanshaw is said to have received £4,000 at first setting out, and £4,000 a year for all expenses, while in 1666 the earl of Sandwich was paid for a year and ten months as ambassador at the rate of £8,000 a year. On the next appointment in the list after the adoption of a regular establishment (October 1671), that of the earl of Sunderland, the equipage money dropped to £2,500 and the familiar figure of £100 a week appears as his ordinary allowance.

^{Page 30 note 5} Cal. Treas. Books, xxvi (1712), 297; xxvii (1713), 259.

^{Page 31 note 1} The preceding paragraphs incorporate, with some modifications, the substance of my note in Eng. Hist. Rev., xliii (1928), 606–11Google Scholar. Equipage was paid to officials other than diplomatists, e.g. Lord Chancellor Cowper received £2,000 on his appointment for equipage (Diary, ed. Rev. Hawtrey, E. C. for the Roxburghe Club [Eton, 1833], p. 15)Google Scholar. Speakers of the House of Commons received equipage money (46 C.J. 598) and also Lords Lieutenant, of Ireland (Cal. Treas. Books and Papers, v (1742–1745), 800)Google Scholar.

^{Page 31 note 2} Manchester, , Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 141–2Google Scholar. Cf. , H.M.C., Portland MSS., ii. 196Google Scholar: ‘Mr. Stanhope will have a pension, being superannuated’.

^{Page 31 note 3} Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc, 4th series, ix. 63.

^{Page 31 note 4} Eng. Hist. Rev., xliii. 609.

^{Page 31 note 5} Weymouth to Murray, 30 November 1770, in S.P. 97. 46.

^{Page 32 note 1} Lodge, , Great Britain and Prussia, p. 212Google Scholar. Cf. however Auckland, , Journal and Correspondence, ii. 396Google Scholar, where it is stated at £1,500 gross yielding over £1,000 net.

^{Page 32 note 2} Larpent, , Turkey, Its History and Progress, i. 10Google Scholar.

^{Page 32 note 3} Details in P.R.O., E. 403, 2680/1. Lists of such pensions are printed from time to time in appendices to Commons Journals and Parliamentary Debates.

^{Page 32 note 4} Parliamentary Debates New Series, vi. 1284 et seq.

^{Page 32 note 5} Cal. Treas. Books, xx (1705–6), 376. Cf. for a similar grant, Cal. Treas. Books, xxi (1706–1707), 151Google Scholar, to the earl of Manchester. By the mid-eighteenth century rather more was usually estimated, e.g. three ambassadors, appointed between 1742 and 1745, all received plate valued at £3,100 and chapel furniture estimated at £408: Cal. Treas. Books and Papers, v (1742–1745), 12, 378, 574, 576Google Scholar.

^{Page 32 note 6} Baxter, , The Devel. of the Treasury, p. 13Google Scholar.

^{Page 33 note 1} See for example Cal. Treas. Books, xxi (1706–1707), 517Google Scholar (grant of two services of plate to duke of Manchester, one as ambassador to Venice, the other as ambassador to France). Cf. Graham, , Stair Annals, ii. 154Google Scholar.

^{Page 33 note 2} Cal. Treas. Papers, 1714–19, 365, refers to a long list of ambassadors and others who in the thirty-three years up to 1718 had neither returned their plate nor secured a discharge.

^{Page 33 note 3} Baxter, , Devel. of the Treasury, p. 248Google Scholar.

^{Page 33 note 4} Parliamentary Papers, , H.C. (1868–1869), xxxv. 593Google Scholar.

^{Page 33 note 5} Cal. Treas. Books, xx (1705–1706), 298Google Scholar. Cf. Correspondence of John Duke of Bedford, ed. Russell, Lord J., iii. 200Google Scholar, and (for the nineteenth century) Report of the Committee to inquire into the fees and emoluments of Public Offices, , H.C. (1837–1838)Google Scholar Accounts and Papers XLIV, 118–19; Watson, Vera, A Queen at Home, pp. 45–7Google Scholar.

^{Page 33 note 6} There is some information about Russian practice in Buckinghamshire Despatches, (Camden Third Series, no. 3), ii. 71, etc.

^{Page 33 note 7} Cal. Treas. Books xxi (1706–7), 346–7.

^{Page 34 note 1} De Foro Legatorum, p. 69.

^{Page 34 note 2} Accusations of smuggling were frequently brought against British diplomatic agents, e.g. by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu against John Murray at Venice (Halsband, , Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, p. 266)Google Scholar, but they are usually unsupported by evidence which would satisfy a court of law.

^{Page 34 note 3} Grenville Papers, ii. 260. Similarly, when one of his messengers was suspended by the Lord Chamberlain for smuggling, Lord Strafford explained that his wife ‘thought there was no harm in sending over a piece of silk to be made up in England into a manto and sent her back again to wear here’ (H.M.C., Portland MSS., ix. 402)Google Scholar.

^{Page 34 note 4} Graham, J. M., Stair Annals, i. 290–4, cf. ii. 136, 445Google Scholar.

^{Page 34 note 5} Manchester, , Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 388–9Google Scholar.

^{Page 34 note 6} Harrington, while Secretary, of State ruled that ‘it was an absolute unprecedented thing for our court to make (after the custom of the German courts) any pecuniary acknowledgments to our own ministers upon the conclusion of any treaty by their means, how beneficial soever that treaty might be to the public; but threw out at the same time that a riband, or some such mark of distinction was the usual and proper method taken by our court to distinguish such ministers’ (Bedford Correspondence, i. 126–7)Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 1} One example of refusal by the French diplomatists Dubois and Pecquet to accept presents from George I valued at £3,000 and £500 respectively is mentioned in Graham, , Stair Annals, ii. 367, 370Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 2} Evans, Joan, ‘The Embassy of the Fourth Duke of Bedford to Paris, 1762–1763’, The Archaeological Journal, cxiii (1957), 151Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 3} Bedford Correspondence, iii. 232.

^{Page 35 note 4} Correspondence of George III, ed. Fortescue, , vi. 452Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 5} The attachés who brought the definitive treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle to Hanover and to London each received £1,000, while the bearer of the definitive treaty of Paris at the end of the Seven Years War ‘touched his thousand at the Treasury without any deductions: he is in great spirits’ (Bedford Correspondence, i. 558 and iii. 212). Earlier Prior received 200 guineas ‘for the glad tidings of peace [of Ryswick] which [he] brought’ to the Lords Justices (H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 167)Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 6} Cal. Treas. Books, xxiv (1710), 248–9, 349Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 7} H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 32Google Scholar; H.M.C, Portland MSS., ix. 330Google Scholar; Coxe, , R. Walpole, iii. 546Google Scholar.

^{Page 35 note 8} Halsband, , Lady Mary Worthy Montagu, p. 94Google Scholar. Wortley claimed £9,000 on his return from Constantinople and asserted that his refusal to support the Peerage Bill cost him £4,000 of this and other advantages which he had been promised, but his story is quite unsupported.

^{Page 36 note 1} Walpole, , Journal of the Reign of George III, ii. 9–10Google Scholar.

^{Page 36 note 2} Larpent, , Turkey, Its History and Progress, i. 6Google Scholar. Details are to be found in Add. MSS. 38229, fos. 156–61.

^{Page 36 note 3} See the curious references in Auckland, , Journal and Correspondence, iv. 277–8, 280–1Google Scholar, to a grossly indecent painting given by the king of Sweden as a parting gift to Lord Henry Spencer.

^{Page 36 note 4} H.M.C., Report II, Appendix, p. 215Google Scholar.

^{Page 36 note 5} Buckinghamshire Despatches (Camden Third Series, no. 2), i, p. viii.

^{Page 36 note 6} National Library of Scotland MS. 3943, fo. 216.

^{Page 36 note 7} Cole, , Historical and Political Memoirs, p. 414Google Scholar.

^{Page 36 note 8} E.g. H.M.C., Polwarth MSS., iii. 65–6Google Scholar.

^{Page 36 note 9} H.M.C., Portland MSS., v. 232Google Scholar.

^{Page 36 note 10} Wood, , Levant Company, p. 134Google Scholar.

^{Page 37 note 1} S.P. 79. 9, despatch of 17/1/16.

^{Page 37 note 2} Malmesbury Diaries and Correspondence, i, p. xiii.

^{Page 37 note 3} Satow, , Guide to Dip. Practice, p. 269Google Scholar.

^{Page 37 note 4} Hertslet, , Recollections of the Old Foreign Office, p. 175Google Scholar.

^{Page 37 note 5} Old Days in Diplomacy, by the eldest daughter of the late SirDisbrowe, E. C., p. 203Google Scholar.

^{Page 37 note 6} Ibid., p. 175.

^{Page 37 note 7} See for example a curious conversation between Lord Rochford and the Russian ambassador at London in which Rochford states that Goodricke, the envoy to Sweden, is trustworthy in every way except with money. Russia was pressing Britain to bribe the anti-French party in Sweden: Martens, , Recueil des Traités conclus par la Russie, ix (x), under date 1772Google Scholar. George III on this occasion authorized Goodricke to draw up to £15,000 ‘provided that sum can defeat the attempts of the K[ing] of Sweden’ (Correspondence, ed. Fortescue, , ii. 384)Google Scholar. Successive agents at St. Petersburg received large sums to be spent at their discretion in winning the favour of the Russian ministers. The earl of Cadogan in 1721 received 50,000 crowns from the king of Prussia to be used as bribes at Vienna (S.P. 80. 43, despatches of 5 March and 15 March), while John Methuen while ambassador to Spain received over £200,000 from his own government for various purposes connected with the war. Stormont, while ambassador at Paris, was accused by an enemy of embezzling secret service money (Fife Papers in Aberdeen University Library).

^{Page 38 note 1} One of his predecessors, Stair, had been given the colonelcy of a regiment of dragoons ‘because his Royal Master foresaw that his salary could not defray his expences’: The Life of John Earl of Stair by an Impartial Hand, (London, 1748), p. 169Google Scholar.

^{Page 38 note 2} These figures are taken from 32 C.J. 466–603.

^{Page 38 note 3} For this reason a proposal to arrest an envoy's wages for debt was described as ‘not very practicable’, (H.M.C, Finch MSS., ii. 301)Google Scholar.

^{Page 38 note 4} Wicquefort, , (English trans.), The Ambassador and his Functions, pp. 207–8Google Scholar.

^{Page 38 note 5} Ibid., p. 208.

^{Page 39 note 1} Letters, ed. Bradshaw, , i. 421Google Scholar.

^{Page 39 note 2} Coxe, , Memoirs of Lord Walpole, ii. 455–6Google Scholar. Cf. the story in H.M.C, Egmont Diary, iii. 240Google Scholar, of the member of parliament who, when Walpole drew a distinction between the dinners he gave in England as plain squire Walpole and those he gave abroad in his ambassador's function, remarked: ‘Then I will dine no more with the squire but with the ambassador.’

^{Page 39 note 3} The most convincing evidence for this relates to the early nineteenth century. The F.O. memorandum as to the Diplomatic Expenditure (11 May 1822) is supported by statements of actual expenditure by some of the leading diplomatists of the day (F.O. 83. 10). But as early as 1713 when Bolingbroke proposes Lord Bingley as ambassador to France he adds: ‘His estate will bear it, and his obligations to the Queen will, if she requires it, I suppose, make him willing.’

^{Page 39 note 4} Œuvres Complètes, ed. Caillos, R., i. 1445Google Scholar.

^{Page 39 note 5} P. 20 of the Paris 1737 edition.

^{Page 39 note 6} H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 15Google Scholar.

^{Page 39 note 7} Chatham Correspondence, ii. 118.

^{Page 40 note 1} Malmesbury Diaries and Correspondence, i. 457–8.

^{Page 40 note 2} Clark, , Trumbull in Paris, p. 103Google Scholar.

^{Page 40 note 3} Memoirs and Correspondence of Sir R. M. Keith, i. 477–8.

^{Page 40 note 4} Lord Preston, while ambassador to France, entertained the duke of Northumberland, by the King's order, for nearly six months and expected an extra allowance. H.M.C, Report VII, App., p. 303Google Scholar.

^{Page 40 note 5} Larpent, , Turkey, Its History and Progress, i. 10Google Scholar.

^{Page 41 note 1} Wood, , Levant Company, pp. 135, 191Google Scholar

^{Page 41 note 2} Graham, , Stair Annals, i. 391Google Scholar, shows that these amounted to nearly £2,000 for the June–September quarter of 1716.

^{Page 41 note 3} Ibid., i. 266; cf.ibid., ii. 98.

^{Page 41 note 4} Ibid., ii. 159.

^{Page 41 note 5} Ibid., ii. 60, 98.

^{Page 41 note 6} H.M.C, Bath MSS., i. 224Google Scholar.

^{Page 41 note 7} Marchmont Papers, i. 90.

^{Page 41 note 8} Ibid., i. 95.

^{Page 41 note 9} Bedford Correspondence, ii. 94.

^{Page 42 note 1} F.O. 83. 10. Thus fees confirmed by a Treasury minute of 30 November 1782 included a charge of £6 7s. on all quarterly allowances to ambassadors or to envoys and plenipotentiaries and of £ 3 3s. 6d. on each bill of extraordinaries of £100. (Pensions to foreign ministers were charged at the rate of £1 is. per cent, up to £500). On first appointment each ambassador paid £88 10s. to the Foreign Office fee fund, with an additional £21 for the chief clerk's own use. These and many other details will be found in First Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the fees and emoluments of Public Offices, , H.C. (1837–1838)Google Scholar Accounts and Papers, XLIV.

^{Page 42 note 2} An early example is to be found in H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 33–4Google Scholar.

^{Page 42 note 3} Report of the Committee … into the fees and emoluments of Public Offices, , H.C. (1837–1838), XLIV, 114–23. F.O. 366Google Scholar. 375 contains a mass of papers relating to the question of these agency charges in the nineteenth century, although as early as 1786 the Committee on Fees and Gratuities in Public Offices had reported that such fees are ‘improper, liable to abuse and ought to be discontinued’. As late as 1865–7 five foreign office clerks showed an average net profit of £422 from such charges. See also a report by the Secretaries of State, 23 February 1795, in F.O. 366. 542.

^{Page 42 note 4} An Honest Diplomat at The Hague, ed. Murray, J. J., p. 349Google Scholar.

^{Page 43 note 1} Clark, , Trumbull in Paris, p. 165Google Scholar; H.M.C., Downshire MSS., i. 219Google Scholar, etc.

^{Page 43 note 2} S.P. 89. 37, letter dated 22 September 1730.

^{Page 43 note 3} An Honest Diplomat at The Hague, ed. Murray, , pp. 47–8Google Scholar.

^{Page 43 note 4} Larpent, , Turkey, Its History and Progress, i. 6Google Scholar.

^{Page 43 note 5} Bedford Correspondence, ii. 62–3.

^{Page 43 note 6} The Life of Stair by an Impartial Hand, pp. 199–208. A less pretentious ambassadorial entry is described in H.M.C., Polwarth MSS., iii. 95–6Google Scholar.

^{Page 43 note 7} Cal. Treas. Books, xxvii (1713), p. 296Google Scholar.

^{Page 43 note 8} Clark, , Trumbull in Paris, p. 18Google Scholar.

^{Page 43 note 9} Bedford Correspondence, iii. 93–4.

^{Page 44 note 1} Eves, C. K., Matthew Prior, pp. 103–4Google Scholar.

^{Page 44 note 2} Cal. Treas. Books and Papers, v (1742–1745), 672, 803Google Scholar.

^{Page 44 note 3} De La Manière de négocier avec les Souverains (trans. Whyte, A. F.), p. 97Google Scholar.

^{Page 44 note 4} Vitale, V., La Diplomaiia Genovese, p. 13. Cf. Pecquet, pp. 71–2Google Scholar.

^{Page 44 note 5} Wood's, A. C. article in Eng. Hist. Rev., xl (1925), 538–41Google Scholar; Halsband, , Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, p. 74Google Scholar. This was in accordance with the traditional practice (H.M.C., Downshire MSS., i. 224Google Scholar).

^{Page 44 note 6} Clark, , Trumbull in Paris, p. 19Google Scholar.

^{Page 45 note 1} For the institution of secretaries of legation, see supra, p. 23.

^{Page 45 note 2} Occasionally a great nobleman's chaplain acted also as his secretary, e.g. Ayerst, to Lord Strafford in 1713 (Bolingbroke Correspondence, ii. 376)Google Scholar.

^{Page 45 note 3} Government messengers were often chosen from the menial servants of noblemen with foreign office influence, e.g. Young's, Arthur Autobiography, ed. Edwards, M. B., p. 45Google Scholar, and Old Days in Diplomacy, by the eldest daughter of SirDisbrowe, E. C., p. 41Google Scholar.

^{Page 45 note 4} Information from Dr. M. S. Anderson.

^{Page 45 note 5} Malmesbury Diaries and Correspondence, i. 458.

^{Page 45 note 6} E.g. Pecquet, p. 130. In extreme cases such incidents produced an actual rupture of diplomatic relations, e.g. H.M.C., Polwarth MSS., ii. 558Google Scholar.

^{Page 45 note 7} Pecquet, p. 131.

^{Page 46 note 1} H.M.C., Downskire MSS., i. 449–50Google Scholar.

^{Page 46 note 2} Ibid., i. 455.

^{Page 46 note 3} H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 86. Cf. Ibid., iii. 95, for tallies at 45%.

^{Page 46 note 4} Manchester, , Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 66Google Scholar.

^{Page 46 note 5} Cal. Treas. Books, introduction to vols. xi–xvii (1695–1702), pp. xxiii–xxvi.

^{Page 46 note 6} Cal. Treas. Books, introduction to vols. xi–xvii (1695–1702), p. xli.

^{Page 46 note 7} Bolingbroke Correspondence, ii. 466.

^{Page 46 note 8} S.P. 99. 60.

^{Page 47 note 1} S.P. 98. 23, despatch of 21 November 1713 and authorities cited in Horn, , British Diplomatic Representatives 1689–1789, p. 79Google Scholar. There are occasional cases of diplomatists leaving unpaid debts behind them, e.g. Polwarth MSS., i. 37, 408, 416.

^{Page 47 note 2} H.M.C, Portland MSS., iv. 502Google Scholar.

^{Page 47 note 3} Cal. Treas. Books, xxiii (1709), 357. SirBlackwell, Lambert received payment of arrears due to him in 1710 by tallies on the [Queen's] tin (Cal. Treas. Books, xxiv (1710), 22)Google Scholar.

^{Page 47 note 4} H.M.C, Portland MSS., ix. 300, 321, 330Google Scholar.

^{Page 47 note 6} Statutes of the Realm, ix. 771–81. The details are best explained by Ward, W. R. in Eng. Hist. Rev., lxxii (1957), 333CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 47 note 6} Cal. Treas. Books, xxvii (1713), 450–1Google Scholar.

^{Page 48 note 1} Cal. Treas. Books, xxvii, 62–3, 390, 438.

^{Page 48 note 2} Cal. Treas. Papers 1714–19, 60–1, refers to a list of debts due by the crown to foreign ministers on the day of Anne's demise.

^{Page 48 note 3} Parliamentary Papers, , H.C. (1868–1869) XXXVGoogle Scholar, Part II.

^{Page 48 note 4} H.M.C., MSS. in Various Collections, viii. 376Google Scholar.

^{Page 48 note 5} H.M.C., 14th Report, Appendix IX (Trevor MSS.), p. 154Google Scholar.

^{Page 48 note 6} Browning, A., Danby, iii. 13Google Scholar.

^{Page 48 note 7} H.M.C., Bath MSS., iii. 90Google Scholar.

^{Page 49 note 1} In F.O. 83. 10, dated 8 November 1822.