Table of contents

1712.1007.Ta



Addressed:
To Mr. Prior.


Whitehall, September 26th, O.S. 1712.¹

Dear Matt,

Both your letters of the 17th, with the
paquet incloſed, came to my hands yeſterday,
and I once more heartily congratulate your
recovery.

I thought it was proper to keep Drift
three days, that he might take your powers,
and other neceſſary papers along with him;
but I confeſs I do not ſee what occaſion
there was to keep him three weeks, that he
might take Gilligan along with him, who
is able to find his way by himſelf. Thus,
however, the caſe ſtands, and I cannot help
it. I believe they will ſet forward next
week without fail.

I perceive by your letter to Dartmouth,
and by Monſieur de Torcy's to me, that
the ſingle point to which the French object
very ſtrongly, in the amendments prepared
by Dr. Henchman, to the act of Philip's
renunciation, is the enumeration of the
Princes of the blood in France. For my
own part, I have all along deſpiſed the wiſ-
dom of theſe civilians, and thought their
caution chicane, but others have not been
of my mind. However, I own my weak-
neſs, and confeſs that I cannot find any force
in the French reaſoning deduced in your
diſpatch to my brother Secretary.

Firſt, becauſe Philip is not in the execu-
tion of this act to be looked upon abſtractedly
as King of Spain, but is to be conſidered as
a Prince of the Houſe of France, and very
nearly allied to the crown of that kingdom.

Secondly, becauſe when Philip excludes
himſelf and his children (if this excluſion
ſignifies any thing) the Duke of Berry and
his ſons, and the Duke of Orleans and his
ſons, have in them that very right which
was in him, each in his turn, after the
Dauphin, and therefore no new right is ſo
much as pretended to be created; but that
which really ſubſiſts is particularly ſpecified.

Thirdly, becauſe in the agreement for a
ſuſpenſion of arms in Flanders, this devolu-
tion to the Dukes of Berry and Orleans
is in the ſame manner mentioned; and,
which is ſtill more appoſite,² it is, in the
Queen's ſpeech, ſpoke of in the same man-
ner, and the French have been parties to
one, and never objected to the other.

Fourthly, becauſe Monſieur de Torcy
agrees that Philip ſhall ſay that he conſents ³
qu'on regarde ce droit comme paſſé & transmis
à celui qui ſe pourra trouver plus proche en
degré immédiat après le Roi, &c.

Now who are en degré immédiat après le
Roi, but the Dauphin and the two Dukes
above-mentioned; and why may they not be
ſpecifically named, as well as included in
general words? I wiſh, with all my heart,
the⁴ amendment had never been propoſed;
but on the other hand, France muſt take
care not to create a ſuſpicion that they de-
ſign to evade this renunciation, as they have
done former acts of the ſame ſort.

I think the inſtructions ſent to the French
Miniſters at Utrecht, will get over the rub
which lay in our way, and you do extremely
right to keep the French to the principle
eſtabliſhed.

By the working of the Dutch, I am apt to
think we ſhall ſoon hear them ſpeak another
language. As to their treaty with Bavaria,
it is an intelligence of a very extraordinary
nature, but not unlikely. I do not ſee how
any meaſure which they may take of this
ſort, can hurt the Queen; on the contrary,
I think I ſee how ſhe may improve it to her
advantage: but you know we can ſpeak no
language but this, that all the Low Coun-
tries are to go to the Emperor, ſubject to the
barrier of Holland.

Pray give the incloſed to Madame de
Feriol, with many compliments. Aſſure
Madame de Torcy, that ſhe wrongs an ho-
neſt heart, and that Harry is incapable of
forgetting her, or his obligations to her.⁵

The garriſon and town of Dunkirk have
been extreme ſickly, but, with Monſieur de
Voiſin's leave, it is not to be attributed to
the traſh which our ſoldiers eat, who live at
leaſt as well as theirs; the poor devils found
the diſtemper, and did not bring it there.

Monſieur de Pontchartrain is ſatisfied upon
his queries, and I tranſmit to you two caſes,
which I complain of to him.

Adieu, ever your faithful,

Bolingbroke.

Drift ſhall bring you another epiſtle.

Notes
1.
This letter survives in manuscript in PRO SP 105/266, which we consider to be inferior to Parke's printed version. The source text is therefore Parke's edition (Bolingbroke). His line endings are preserved, but page breaks are ignored. Annotations point out substantive variants found in the manuscript. SP 105/266 lacks, in the dateline, the modifier "O.S."; the salutation; and the first two paragraphs of this letter.
2.
SP 105/266 has "opposite".
3.
SP 105/266 has "contents".
4.
SP 105/266 has "y.^t the".
5.
SP 105/266 ends with this paragraph.

---

Miami University Libraries | TEI | Feedback

---