No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Prussia's English Policy after the Seven Years' War*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Extract
Prussian-English relations pose one of the most interesting problems of Frederick II's foreign policy after the Seven Years' War, and one which has repeatedly drawn the attention of historians, especially in our century. Despite the impressive number of monographs, scholars are nevertheless surprisingly united on the key points. It has become a commonplace that relations between the two countries after 1763 were rather poor and that they were conditioned either by Frederick's dislike of England after the Seven Years' War, or by the apparent absence of any common interests, or by Prussian sympathy for the Americans struggling for their independence.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1971
References
1. Of the works that concern themselves with Prussian-English relations after 1763, the standard biography by Koser, R., Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen (4th/5th ed., 4 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1912–1914), III, 271, 389, and passim, andGoogle ScholarLodge, R., Great Britain and Prussia in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1923), pp. 139–77, are among the best balancedGoogle Scholar; the same can be said with reservations about the dissertation of Marke, F., Friedrich der Grosse und England nach dem Hubertusburger Frieden (Greifswald, 1935). The bad state of relations between the two states, as well as Frederick's dislike of England, are emphasized a good deal more strongly byGoogle Scholarvon Buttlar, K. Treusch, “Friedrich der Grosse und England nach dem siebenjährigen Krieg,” Grenzboten, LVII, No.2 (1898), 52–64, and byGoogle ScholarHorn, D. B. in his two books, Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia (London, 1964), pp. 129, 135, andGoogle ScholarGreat Britain and Europe in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1967), pp. 162–65. Frederick's distrust and dislike of England are also emphasized by other authors:Google ScholarOncken, W., Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen (2 vols., Berlin, 1881–1882), II, 838–39;Google ScholarDoniol, H., Histoire de la participation de la France à l'établissement des États-Unis d' Amérique (5 vols., Paris, 1886–1892), III, 88–89, 116–18;Google ScholarHaworth, P. L., “Frederick the Great and the American Revolution,” American Historical Review, IX (1904), 460–78;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBemis, S. F., Diplomacy of the American Revolution (New York, 1935; reprinted Bloomington, 1957), pp. 114–15;Google ScholarBrown, M. L., “American Independence through Prussian Eyes: A Neutral View of the Negotiations of 1782–83,” Historian, XVIII (1956), 189;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAdams, H. M., Prussian-American Relations, 1775–1871 (Cleveland, 1960), p. 6. Brown and Adams in particular, however, are of the opinion that Frederick's dislike did not have a lasting influence on his policy, which was determined by the interests of Prussia.Google ScholarBancroft, G., History of the United States of America (6 vols., New York, 1882–1884), v, 235–43;Google ScholarKapp, F., Friedrich der Grosse und die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (Leipzig, 1871), p. 5;Google ScholarRosengarten, J. G., Frederick the Great and the United States (Lancaster, Pa., 1906), pp. 4–5;Google Scholar and Epstein, K., The Genesis of German Conservatism (Princeton, 1966), p. 294,Google Scholar place strong emphasis on Frederick's sympathies for the rebellious Americans against England. The relations between Berlin and London are portrayed in a similar light, and with greater attention to Frederick's dislike of Great Britain, by Clem, H. J., “Frederick the Great and the American Revolution” (unpub. diss., Harvard, 1945), passim. In the most comprehensive recent study, byGoogle ScholarToborg, A., “Frederick II of Prussia and His Relations with Great Britain during the American Revolution” (unpub. diss., Columbia, 1965), relations are also portrayed as being particularly bad. Moreover, they proceeded by fits and starts and followed no clear line, since—this is Toborg's basic thesis—Frederick's foreign policy, contrary to prevailing opinion, was not rational or determined by raison d' état. All of these investigations restrict themselves in the main to the realm of classical diplomacy, and for the most part neglect questions of economic and trade policy completely.Google Scholar
Frederick's policy toward England is not dealt with by Volz, G. B., “Die auswärtige Politik Friedrichs des Grossen,” Deutsche Rundschau, CLXXXVIII (1921), 278–301;Google ScholarLüpke, K., “Friedrich der Grosse und England” (unpub. diss., Kiel, 1921), which in a wider sense illuminates Frederick's attitude toward English intellectual life; orGoogle ScholarRitter, G., Friedrich der Grosse (3rd ed., Heidelberg, 1954).Google Scholar
2. Acta betr. die Schickung und Zurückberufung der Englischen Gesandten an dem hiesigen Hofe, 1772–1802, Deutsches Zentralarchiv II, Merseburg (cited DZA II Merseburg), Rep. XI, 73 (B), Conv. 176A, fol. 12 and passim; Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen, XXV–XLVI, ed. Volz, G. B. (Berlin, 1902–1939; cited PC), XXXIX, 38 (instruction of Jan. 27, 1777).Google Scholar
3. Stepney, Sir John to Suffolk, Dresden, June 14, 1777, Public Record Office (cited PRO), London, S. P. 88/113;Google ScholarStevens, B. F., Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America 1773–83 (25 vols., London, 1889–1898), Nos.1452–57, 1459 (correspondence between Suffolk and Elliot, May 9 to June 20, 1777).Google Scholar
4. Stevens, No. 1458 (Elliot to Suffolk, June 19, 1777).
5. The first accurate account of the course of the Elliot Affair was given, after examination of the original documents, by Browning, O., “Un mystère diplomatique. Hugh Elliot à Berlin,” Revue d' histoire diplomatique, II (1888), 255–73; the most recent account is in Toborg, pp. 57–73;Google Scholarcf. also Thompson, J. W. and Padover, S. K., L'Espionnage politique, trans. from the English (Paris, 1938), pp. 168–71. Stevens, Nos. 1460, 1465, 1468–69 (June 28 to July 11, 1777).Google Scholar
6. Stevens, No.1465 (Elliot to Suffolk, July 2, 1777). Elliot continued to stick to this account later; cf. Adams, J.Q. (who visited Elliot in Dresden in 09 1800), Letters on Silesia (London, 1804), pp. 257–58;Google ScholarMinto, Lady, Memoir of the Rt. Hon. Hugh Elliot (Edinburgh, 1868), p. 115. In the PRO London (S.P. 90/101) the dispatches compromising Elliot are missing; Stevens found copies in the Auckland Collection. Lodge too, p. 152, who was acquainted only with the PRO documents and Lady Minto's account, still adhered to Elliot's version.Google Scholar
7. PC, XXXIX, 247 (to Henry, Prince, July 6, 1777).Google Scholar On June 28, and then in full detail on July 5, 1777, the French minister Marquis de Pons reported on the incident to Vergennes (Stevens, Nos. 1461, 1467); similarly the Austrian minister Gottfried Frhr. van Swieten to Prince Kaunitz, June 28, July 5, 12, Aug. 2, 1777, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna, Staatskanzlei, St.-Abt., Preussen, Fasz. 53, Nr. 28–30, 33; cf. also the dispatches of the Bavarian minister Schlipp to Seinsheim, June 28 and July 5, as well as the instructions of Ministers Beckers and Seinsheim to Schlipp between July 7 and 24, 1777, Geheimes Staatsarchiv (cited GStA), Munich, Kasten schwarz 1443, and Bayer. Gesandtschaft Berlin, Nr. 28; PC, XXXIX, 237 (to Prince Henry, June 29, 1777).
8. PC, XXXIX, 239 (to Maltzan, June 30, 1777, autograph addition), as well as Frederick's marginal note on a report of Hertzberg of June 28, 1777 (PC, XXXIX, 237).
9. PC, XXXIX, 237–38, 247, 273–74, 292n.
10. Preuss, J. D. E., Friedrich der Grosse (8 vols., Berlin, 1832–1834), IV (Urkundenbuch), 278–79Google Scholar; two days before, Frederick and Hertzberg had still expressly demanded such an investigation. In the newspapers there are only reports attributing the deed to an unknown party: Hamburgischer Correspondent, July 8, 1777 (Nr. 108), Frankfurter Oberpostamtszeitung, July 14, 1777 (Nr.111), and Leipziger Zeitungen, July 14, 1777 (Nr. 135); neither the Vossische Zeitung nor the Haude-und Spenersche Zeitung, the two Berlin papers, reported the incident. Hertzberg asked Frederick on June 30 whether the minister Maltzan should make representations to the English government, “non pour en porter des plaintes, mais pour qu'il soit informé de la verité et des circonstances du fait.” Frederick's marginal note to this reads: “bené” (DZA II Merseburg, Rep.XI, 75 d, England, Hofsachen 1760–80, fol. 285).
11. Oncken, II, 838; Haworth, in American Historical Review, IX, 478; Volz, in Deutsche Rundschau, CLXXXVIII, 301. The thesis of Toborg in his otherwise very careful work, that Frederick's policy was completely lacking in any rational basic element, is not convincing, in my viewGoogle Scholar. Cf. also the account, unsatisfactory from a historical standpoint, of Augstein, R., Preussens Friedrich und die Deutschen Frankfurt, 1968), p. 323 and passim.Google Scholar
12. von Buttlar, Treusch, in Grenzboten, LVII, No. 2, 52–64;Google Scholar Lodge, pp. 147–49; PC, XXXIV, 7 (to Solms, July 3, 1773).
13. Harris, J., Earl of Malmesbury, Diaries and Correspondence, I (London, 1844), 120 (to Suffolk, Jan. 14, 1775).Google Scholar
14. Cf. PC, XXXVII, 128, 336–37, 552, as well as the reports of the English ministers in these years.
15. PC, XXVII, 31; XXXV, 432; XXXVI, 3, 299, 317–18; XXXVII, 2, 128, 336–37.
16. Die politischen Testamente Friedrichs d. Gr., ed. Volz, G. B. (Berlin, 1920), p. 124.Google Scholar
17. PC, XXXVIII, 466 (to Thulemeier, Dec. 12, 1776); XXXIX, 252 (to Henry, Prince, July 9, 1777); Politische Testamente, pp. 238, 244.Google ScholarKoser, R., “Die preussischen Finanzen von 1763–86,” Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und Preussischen Geschichte (cited FBPG), XVI (1903), 445–76;Google ScholarSchmoller, G., “Historische Betrachtungen über Staatenbildung und Finanzentwicklung,” Schmollers Jahrbuch, XXXIII (1909), 47;Google ScholarHintze, O., “Friedrich d. Gr. nach dem Siebenjährigen Kriege und das Politische Testament von 1768,” FBPG, XXXII (1920), 28, 43;Google Scholarcf. Roscher, W., Geschichte der National-Ökonomik (Munich, 1874), p. 385.Google Scholar
18. “Réflexions sur l'administration des finances pour le gouvernement prussien” (1784), in Politische Testamente, p. 251. Cf. Kapp, p. 5; Hintze, O., “Die Industrialisierungspolitik Friedrichs d. Gr.,” in his Historische und politische Aufsätze, II (Berlin, n.d.), 152;Google ScholarFreymark, H., Zur preussischen Handels- und Zollpolitik von 1648–1818 (diss., Halle, 1897), p. 18;Google ScholarGeissler, O., “Die Wirtschaftspolitik Friedrichs d. Gr. und der Begriff der Planwirtschaft” (unpub. diss., Tübingen, 1951), pp. 65 ff.; 78 ff.; Roscher, pp. 406–12;Google ScholarBechtel, H., Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands, 16.–18. Jh. (Munich, 1952), p. 361;Google ScholarHertz, F., The Development of the German Public Mind, II (London, 1962), 287–90;Google ScholarHenderson, W. O., “Die Struktur der preussischen Wirtschaft um 1786,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, CXVII (1961), 292, 302;Google Scholaridem, Studies in the Economic Policy of Frederick the Great (London, 1963), pp. 160–61; PC, XXIX, 81; XXXIII, 223.Google Scholar
19. Hertzberg, E. F. Graf v., Huit Dissertations … lues dans les assemblées publiques de l'Académie Royale…de Berlin (Berlin, 1787), pp. 229, 249; cf. pp.195–96 (address of 1785).Google Scholar
20. PC, XXXII, 267 (to Henry, Prince, June 18, 1772), 345 (to the secretary in the London ministry Jeanneret de Dunilac, July 20, 1772); Henderson, Studies, pp. 97–100Google Scholar. As early as 1731 these considerations had played a role in his demand for an annexation of this territory: Oeuvres de Frédéric le Grand, 2nd ed. J.D.E. Preuss, XVI (Berlin, 1850), 3–4. On further aspects of Prussia's unbalanced relationship with Poland during these yearsGoogle Scholarcf. Topolski, J., “La Formation de la frontière polono-prussienne à l'époque du premier partage de la Pologne (1772–1777),” La Pologne et les Affaires occidentales, v (1969), 96–127, esp. pp.112ff.Google Scholar
21. Rachel, H., Die Zoll-, Handels- und Akzisepolitik unter Friedrich d. Gr. (Acta Borussica, III), Vol. 3 (Berlin, 1928), Pt. 1, pp. 476–77 (trade balance for 1781/82).Google Scholar
22. Zimmermann, A., Blüte und Verfall des Leinengewerbes in Schlesien (Breslau, 1885), pp. 460–67;Google ScholarHorner, J., The Linen Trade of Europe during the Spinning-Wheel Period (Belfast, 1920), pp. 397–409;Google ScholarPC, XXXV, 416 (to Goltz, July 11, 1774). On the great importance of the Spanish-Latin American trade, cf. Kossok, M., “Die Bedeutung des spanischamerikanischen Kolonialmarktes für den preussischen Leinwandhandel am Ausgang des 18. und zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Hansiche Studien. Festschrift Heinrich Sproemberg (Berlin, 1961), p. 213;Google ScholarPohl, H., Die Beziehungen Hamburgs zu Spanien und dem spanischen Amerika in der Zeit von 1740 bis 1806 (Wiesbaden, 1963), pp. 127–28, 137–46;Google ScholarDriesch, W. v. d., “Die ausländischen Kaufleute in Spanien Während des 18. Jahrhunderts und ihre Beteiligung am Kolonialhandel” (unpub. diss., Cologne, 1967), pp. 423–26 (this work will shortly appear in print). Direct trade with North America, on the other hand, seemed to Frederick not yet advisable: PC, XXXII, 505 (to Peter Hasenclever, Sept. 22, 1772)Google Scholar
23. Hintze, , in Aufsātze, II, 146Google Scholar; cf., among others, PC, XXXVII, 189–90 (to Prince Henry, Sept. 5, 1775). Zottmann, A., Die Wirtschaftspolitik Friedrichs d. Gr. (Leipzig and Vienna, 1937), pp. 64–77;Google ScholarKoser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 239Google Scholar. Silesia and West Prussia were not subordinated to the General Directory; Schmoller, G., Preussische Verfassungs-, Verwaltungs- und Finanzgeschichte (Berlin, 1921), p. 139.Google ScholarIdem, “Studien über die wirtschaftliche Politik Friedrichs d. Gr. 1680–1786,” Schmollers Jahrbuch, XI (1887), 20ff.Google Scholar
24. PC, XXXIV, 244, 303–304 (to Maltzan, Oct. 31 and Nov. 29, 1773); Acta Borussica, III, 3, 2, pp. 602–604.
25. PC, XXXV, 13–14, 81–82 (to Maltzan, Jan. 3 and Feb. 7, 1774).
26. Ramsay, G. D., English Overseas Trade during the Centuries of Emergence (London, 1957), p. 97;Google ScholarPC, XXXV, 169–70 (to Maltzan, Mar. 14, 1774); Barnier, W. to Eden, Berlin, May 31, 1774 (PRO London, S.P.90/96);Google ScholarIbid., No. 95, the “Edict worinnen wegen des Transito und Eingangs Sämmtlicher Englischer Waaren erneuert und erkläret werden, anbey wegen der Favorisirung des Englischen Commercii Vorsehung geschiehet,” printed under the date of May 11, 1774; Oeuvres de Frédéric le Grand, VI (1847), 55, 68–69.Google Scholar
27. PC, XXXV, 416 (to Goltz, July 11, 1774).
28. Harris to Suffolk, June 20, 1775 (PRO London, S.P.90/97). In fact, there was an increase in trade between the two in the years 1774–75; cf. the table of Moreau, C., State of the Trade of Great Britain with All Parts of the World (London, 1823).Google Scholar
29. Volz, G. B., “Friedrich d. Gr. und der bayrische Erbfolgekrieg,” FBPG, XLIV (1932), 264–301; Lodge, pp. 153–55;Google ScholarHühne, W., Friedrich d. Gr., die europäischen Mächte und das Reich am Vorabend des bayrischen Erbfolgekrieges (diss., Göttingen, 1935), pp. 37–39; Toborg, p. 125; cf. the reports of the English ministers in Berlin from 1773 on (PRO London, S.P. 90/95ff.).Google Scholar
30. PC, XXXIX, 233–34 (to Henry, Prince, June 25, 1777); Henderson, Studies, p. 159.Google Scholar
31. The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, ed. Wharton, F., II (Washington, 1889), 350 (letter of June 26, 1777);Google ScholarKoser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 389;Google ScholarHaworth, , in American Historical Review, IX, 460;Google ScholarBrown, , in Historian, XVIII, 189;Google Scholar Adams, Prussian-American Relations, p. 6; cf. the somewhat pedestrian dissertation of Marke (above, n. I).
32. Oeuvres de Frédéric le Grand, VI, 117–18.Google Scholar Cf. Vieregg to Haslang, Nov. 22, and Haslang to Vieregg, Dec. 5, 1777 (GStA Munich, Kasten schwarz 15379); Adams, Prussian-American Relations, p. 12; Koser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 389–90.Google Scholar
33. PC, XLV, 64 (to Finckenstein, Nov. 26, 1780), 169 (to Schulenburg, Jan. 9, 1781); Adams, Prussian-American Relations, p. 6; Koser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 389–90Google Scholar. It seems to me that in the literature the question of Frederick's attitude toward the mercenary troop system and troop transports from Germany to America through England is often improperly dramatized and distorted; cf., for example, Horn, Great Britain, p. 162: “Frederick did his best to prevent Britain from recruiting mercenaries in Germany for service in America.”
34. Schulenburg to Frederick, Nov. 30, 1776 (DZA II Merseburg, Rep. 96, 28C, Vol. IXb, fol. 144); PC, XXXVIII, 472 (to Finckenstein, Dec. 16, 1776).
35. PC, XXXVIII, 140 (to Maltzan, June 3, 1776), 447 (to Schulenburg, Dec. 2, 1776); also PC, XXXIX, 185, 242n., 256; XL, 79–80; Wharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., II, 306, 321.Google Scholar
36. Lee, A., to the American Committee of Foreign Affairs, June 11, 1777Google Scholar (Wharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., II, 335).Google Scholar
37. PC, XXXIX, 448; XL, 298, 343, 450; Wharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., II, 473 (Schulenburg to Lee, Jan. 16, 1778);Google Scholarcf. Braun, E., Preussich-französische Bündnispläne in den Jahren 1778–1784 (diss., Berlin, 1936), pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
38. Wharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., II, 333 (Schulenburg to Lee, 06 9, 1777).Google Scholar
39. PC, XXXIX, 228 (to Finckenstein, June 20, 1777).
40. PC, XXXIX, 225, 243 (to Henry, Prince, June 17, July 2, 1777);Google ScholarWharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., II, 350–51 (Schulenburg to Lee, 06 26, 1777).Google Scholar
41. PC, XXXIX, 417 (Schulenburg to Frederick, Nov. 25, 1777, with Frederick's marginal note); Ausw. Dept. to Goltz, June 2, 1778, and to Lusi, May 22, 1781 (DZA II Merseburg, Rep. XI, 89, Fasz. 253, fol. 166r-v, and Rep. XI, 73, Conv.140A, fol. 105); Wharton, Rev. Dipl. Corr., III, 66 (Lee, W. to the Committee of Foreign Affairs, Feb. 25, 1779).Google Scholar
42. Lee, W. to Franklin, Apr. 9, 1778 (American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, Franklin Papers, IX, 26);Google ScholarWharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., IV, 254Google Scholar (Lee, W. to the President of the Congress, Feb. 10, 1781).Google Scholar
43. PC, XXXVI, 299 (to Maltzan, Jan. 30, 1775); in 1779/80 Silesian linen exports sank, because of the wartime decline in production and probably also because of the practically complete collapse of English-American trade, to their lowest level during the American War of Independence, or 3,685,000 talers (Zimmermann, pp. 160–61, 464–67).
44. Acta Camera…wegen des abgebrochenen Commercii zwischen Engelland und America, 1777, Staatsarchiv (cited StA) Stettin, Tit. 12, Sekt. 1. Commerciensachen, Nr. 171, copy in Library of Congress, Washington (cited DLC).
45. PC, XXXVIII, 57, 157, 266–67, 384, 392 (May 2 to Oct. 28, 1776); Rosenmöller, B., Schulenburg-Kehnert unter Friedrich d. Gr. (Berlin, 1914), p. 245.Google Scholar
46. Leipziger Zeitungen, Feb. 23, 1778 (Nr. 38; Jg. 1778, p. 183); Baasch, E., Beiträge zur Geschichte des deutschen Seeschiffbaues (Hamburg, 1899), esp. pp. 184–87 (East Prussian shipyards profited to a much lesser extent from this development, see pp. 206, 211, 248–49Google Scholar; Memel was, however, in these years the most important harbor for English imports of fir timber: Åström, S.-E., “English Timber Imports from Northern Europe in the Eighteenth Century,” Scandinavian Economic History Review, XVIII [1970], 20–23);Google ScholarMatschoss, K., Friedrich d. Gr. als Beförderer des Gewerbfleisses (Berlin, 1912), p. 36;Google Scholar Rosenmöller, pp. 246–51; Koser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 242;Google ScholarSchmidt, T., Zur Geschichte der Stettiner Schiffahrt unter Friedrich d. Gr. (Stettin, 1862), pp. 36–43;Google ScholarBraun, W., “Zur Stettiner Seehandelsgeschichte 1572–1813,” Baltische Studien, N. F., LII (1966), 84, 86–87.Google Scholar
47. PC, XXXIX, 233–34, 296–67, 307, 352; XLI, 527; XLV, 285; cf. Fechner, H., Writschaftsgeschichte der preussischen Provinz Schlesien 1741–1806 (Breslau, 1907), pp. 103–12;Google ScholarKrüger, H., Zur Geschichte der Manufakturen in Preussen (Berlin, 1958), pp. 93ff. (very depreciatory toward the trade policy of Frederick II).Google Scholar
48. Leipziger Zeitungen, Feb. 23, 1778.
49. Acta vom mutuellen Commercio zwischen Schlesien und America, 1779ff. (StA Breslau, Rep. 199, M. R. VI, No. 14, vol. I, fol.1–70v; copy in DLC); Hasenclever, P. to Franklin, Apr. 24, 1779Google Scholar, printed in Zeitschrift des Bergischen Geschichtsvereins, LX (1931), 12–17;Google ScholarZimmermann, , pp. 160–61; Acta Borussica, III, 3, 2, p. 606.Google Scholar
50. Zimmermann, pp. 462–67; Pohl, p. 146; cf. also the inaccurate account of Augstein, p. 233.
51. Leipziger Zeitungen, Feb. 2, 1778 (Nr. 23; Jg. 1778, p. 111).
52. PC, XLV, 192 (to Ausw. Dept., Jan. 17, 1781).
53. PC, XLV, 216, 372–73 (to Goertz, Jan. 30 and Apr. 10, 1781); cf. also pp. 208–14.
54. Cf. the informative study of I. de Madariaga, , Britain, Russia, and the Armed Neutrality of 1780 (London, 1962), pp. 306–307, 320–22;Google ScholarKrauel, R., “Preussen und die Bewaffnete Neutralität von 1780,” FBPG, XXI (1908), 454.Google Scholar On the other hand Gaxotte, P., Friedrich d. Gr., trans. from the French (Erlenbach-Zürich, n.d.), p. 490, is not convincing.Google Scholar
55. Wharton, , Rev. Dipl. Corr., IV, 711Google Scholar (Dana, F. to the President of the Congress, St. Petersburg, Sept. 15, 1781); in agreement with this, Madariaga, pp. 378–80;Google ScholarKoser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 259.Google Scholar
56. PC, XLVI, 246 (to the Princess of Orange-Nassau, Nov. 1, 1781).
57. Stribrny, W., Die Russlandpolitik Friedrichs des Grossen 1764–1786 (Würzburg, 1966), pp. 147, 191.Google Scholar
58. PC, XLVI, 45, 353, 427 (to Finckenstein, July 18, Dec. 17, 1781, and to the ruling duke of Brunswick, Jan. 14, 1782); “Considérations, sur l'état politique de l'Europe” (1782, written after the change of government in England of Mar. 20, 1782), in Politische Testamente, pp. 248–49. Koser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 494–95Google Scholar; Braun, Bündnispläne, pp. 55–59; Stribrny, Russlandpolitik, pp. 164–66; cf. Gaxotte, p. 490.
59. Frederick to Goltz, May 26, and Goltz's acknowledgment, June 20, 1783 (DZA II Merseburg, Rep. 96, 29E, Vol. XX, fol. 169v–169B, 192r-v).
60. Cf.: Anno 1784 im July entworfene Übersicht des Nord-Amerikanischen Handels (DZA II Merseburg, REV. 96, 424K); Akten des Auswärtigen Departements: Amerika: Vereinigte Staaten, 1778–1804 (Ibid., Rep. XI, 21a, Conv. I, Nr. 5); Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, ed. Miller, Hunter, II (Washington, 1931), 162–84;Google ScholarReeves, J. S., “The Prussian-American Treaties,” Amercian Journal of International Law, XI (1917), 475–99;CrossRefGoogle Scholar cf. Rosenmöller, p. 334; Brown, , in Historian, XVIII, 200–201.Google Scholar
61. Acta vom mutuellen Commercio (StA Breslau, loc. cit., fol. 156–211v; copy in DLC); Schulenburg to Ausw. Dept., Oct. 30, 1786 (DZA II Merseburg, Rep.XI, 21a, Conv. I, Nr. 7, fol. 9); Schulenburg to Frederick William II, Mar. 20, 1787, and Ver. General-Dept. to P. Hasenclever, May 29, 1787 (ibid., Rep. 96, 224C, and 224A, fol. 8); Glauber, C. G., Peter Hasenclev (Landeshut, 1794), pp. 191ff.Google Scholar; Fechner, pp. 220–21, 490–91; Kulisher, J., Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, II (3rd ed., Munich, 1965), 168;Google ScholarActa Borussica, III, 3, 2, pp.606–608.Google Scholar
62. Zimmermann, p. 466; Pohl, p. 146.
63. Karl Gottfried Paleske was named Consul General in the United States in 1791, as the first representative of Prussia (DZA II Merseburg, Rep.XI, 21a, Conv. I, Nr. 8); the first American minister in Berlin, from 1797 to 1801, was John Quincy Adams; cf. his Writings, ed. Ford, W. C., II (New York, 1913), 173, 188–93.Google Scholar
64. On the origins of the alliance of 1788: Wittichen, F. K., Preussen und England in der europäischen Politik 1785–88 (Heidelberg, 1902);Google Scholar Lodge, pp. 159–77; Ranke, L. v., Die deutschen Mächte und der Fürstenbund, Sämtliche Werke, XXXI/XXXII (Leipzig, 1875), pp. 160–61, 176–78, 330ff.;Google ScholarAretin, K. O. Frhr. v., Heiliges Römisches Reich 1776–1806 (2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1967), I, 181–83, 212–18;Google Scholarcf. Ehrman, J., The British Government and Commercial Negotiations with Europe 1783–93 (Cambridge, 1962), p. 114; Moreau, table; Horn, Great Britain, pp. 163–65.Google Scholar
65. For the monetary conversion see Gerhardt, M. R. G., Nelckenbrechers Taschenbuch der Münz-, Mass- und Gewichtskunde für Kaufleute (8th ed., Berlin, 1799), pp. 32–34 (£1 = 6.58 talers)Google Scholar. A similar rate of conversion is still given later on by Flügel, G. T., Erklärter Cours-Zettel (5th ed., Frankfurt a.M., 1821), pp. 57ff.Google Scholar
66. Cf. the data for the years 1781–82 in the Acta Borussica, III, 3, 1, pp. 476–77, and in Moreau, together with Gerhardt's rate of conversion.
67. On all of these questions see Moreau, table; Ehrman, pp. 216–21. For the most part I have followed their data, which for the years 1783–88 correspond almost exactly. Different data are given by Schumpeter, E. B., English Overseas Trade Statistics 1697–1808 (Oxford, 1960), pp. 17–18.Google ScholarCf. Deane, P. and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth 1688–1959 (Cambridge, 1962), p. 87;Google ScholarBetrachtungen über die gegenwärtigen Angelegenheiten von Europa, II (Vienna, 1779), 31–32; Toborg, p. 138.Google Scholar
68. Introductory sentences from Frederick's “Réflexions sur l'administration des finances” (1784), Politische Testamente, p. 251;Google ScholarActa Borussica, III, 3, 1, pp. 476–77; Zottmann, pp. 64–77.Google Scholar
69. On the question of monetary devaluation between 1740 and 1786 see, among others, the data on silver prices and the refined silver content of coins in Das preussische Münzwesen im 18. Jahrhundert, Münzgeschichtlicher Teil (Acta Borussica), II (Berlin, 1908), 23–24, 547; IV (1913), 175, 593.Google Scholar
70. Koser, , Friedrich d. Gr., III, 363–64; Bechtel, pp. 167, 170; Politische Testamente, pp. 251–53.Google Scholar
71. PC, XXXIX, 292 (to Maltzan, Aug. 11, 1777).
72. Stevens, No. 1482 (Suffolk to Elliot, Oct. 7, 1777); Elliot had requested a compensation of £500, see Browning, in Revue d'histoire diplomatique, II, 269, (to Suffolk, July 2, 1777).
73. Maltzan to Frederick, Aug. 1, 1777 (DZA II Merseburg, Rep. XI, 75 d, England, Hofsachen 1760–80, fol. 296).