1749.

avowal of the existence of the treaty in question
with the conclusion M. de Puisieux made there-
upon, viz. "that by the prohibitions made on both
sides since the signing it, it was in effect annulled."
Now I think this conclusion can in no degree be
allowed, unless M. Puisieux can show that the acts
of Parliament which have been passed since that
time, to prohibit any particular branches of the
French commerce, are derogating to the treaty,
which I think I could venture to affirm they are
not; and even supposing they were, no other argu-
ment could possibly be drawn from it, but that
those prohibitions which were in derogation of the
treaty should be taken off by an act of the legis-
lature. I must caution your Excellency in this
place that I am only reasoning in opposition to
M. de Puisieux's conclusion, and by no means to
be understood as if his Majesty had any intention
to recommend to his Parliament the repeal of the
bill for prohibiting the wear of French cambrics.
This the King doth not look upon as any infringe,
ment of the treaty, and consequently doth not
consider it as a thing upon which the French
ministers can with any colour of reason insist.
French are doubtless at liberty to lay what duty
they please, or even an absolute prohibition, on any
British goods or manufactures, except in cases in
which they shall be precluded by the treaty of
commerce of 1713.

.

The

Having observed thus far upon what passed between Mr. Yorke and M. de Puisieux upon this

question, in which I think that minister's candour 1749. and probity, as well as his good intentions, appear very strongly; I must now pass over to the very extraordinary language held by M. Rouille on this subject.

The chief tenor of his conversation, and upon which he founded all his reasonings, seems to be that the advantage in trade between Great Britain and France was in favour of the former, and that at the time of the making the treaty of 1713 they did not understand commerce so well as they do now; for which reasons he, M. Rouille, asserts that they are not bound to comply with a treaty which he himself cannot deny to be still existing. The two assertions upon which he founds this reasoning may, I think, be indisputably proved to be fallacious; but, whether they are so or not, I think it little becomes a minister of state to refuse the carrying into execution a solemn treaty, which he is obliged to own doth still exist, upon no other foundation but that the balance of trade is not in their favour, and that they understand their commercial interest better now than they did when that treaty was made. This is much of a piece with his piquing himself upon his being meilleur his being meilleur negociant que politique. This way of talking of M. Rouille is so inconsistent with the dignity of a minister of state of a great king, that I will take up no more of your Excellency's time in evincing the absurdity of it, and shall only now inform your Excellency that it is his Majesty's pleasure that the strongest instances

1749.

should be made to the French ministers, that the treaty of commerce of Utrecht of 1713 (the existence of which is allowed by themselves) be immediately and strictly carried into execution in all its articles, except the conditional ones, which could not be carried into execution (the conditions on which they were made not being complied with by England) in favour of all his Majesty's subjects trading to or residing in France, as the King is determined on his part religiously to observe all the stipulations in the above-mentioned treaty in favour of his most Christian Majesty's subjects.

I must not omit informing your Excellency that the King doth entirely approve of Mr. Yorke's declining to accept the proposal made by M. Rouille, of reducing the Droit de Fret on British shipping to 50 sols per ton, being the same that is paid by other nations. His argument is undoubtedly a just one, that he could not demand as a favour an exemption from part of a duty, from which his Majesty had an undoubted right in behalf of his subjects to demand a total exemption.

I am, &c. &c.

BEDFORD.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE TO THE DUKE OF

BEDFORD.

1749.

September 26. 1749.

[Had received yesterday from Lord Hyndford* the good news that the Czarina, upon our answers, had taken the resolution to be quiet, and remain on the defensive.]

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE TO THE DUKE OF

My dear Lord,

BEDFORD.

Whitehall, September 28. 1749.

I was extremely glad to hear from Mr. Aldworth that Lady Caroline was so much better. I hope nothing will prevent your Grace's coming to town the beginning of next week. This messenger will bring your Grace very good news from Spain. Major General Wall came to me this morning, and, with an air of the greatest satisfaction, told me that his cousin was returned, and had brought very good That M. Carvajal consented to make a new treaty, wherein we should have the substance of our treaty of 1715, by which he plainly showed he

news.

* James, Earl of Hyndford, Ambassador at the Court of Petersburgh.

+ Richard Nevil Aldworth, Esq., then Under Secretary of State in the Duke of Bedford's office.

1749.

meant the advantages there stipulated for our trade; but, that other holders might not pretend to the same advantages, there should be the appearances of our buying them, by giving up the affairs of the South Sea Company. He talked of the thing as done, and that they would, upon the foot of a purchase by us, deny those advantages to other nations. He then gave me a packet from Mr. Keene to your Grace. I sent to Bedford House to know whether your Grace was in town, and upon the return of the messenger opened your Grace's packet, which being great part in cypher I sent to Mr. Aldworth, who sent it to the King, and it now goes by this messenger to your Grace. I must congratulate your Grace upon this good appearance, for though the yielding the pretensions of the South Sea Company is a disagreeable and may be a difficult point, yet the restoring the effect of the treaty of 1715, and that preferably to all other holders, the French included, is a point of such national consequence, and may tend so much to the effectual disunion of the courts of France and Spain, that I think the purchase a very advantageous one on our side, and I dare say will be generally approved.

The preventing a war in the North, and the recovering this affair of our trade with Spain, will, I should hope, make every thing easy this next session. My brother is, as your Grace may imagine, in high spirits and joy upon these two events, and begins to be much better reconciled to our accession to the treaty of 1746, with a declaration