text:
27th January 2022 /0 Comments/in 20th Century, Archive, Article, Current Volume, Volume 6 - 2022 /by mhradmin
This paper explores how the emergent Labour Party was represented by two of Britain's leading popular daily newspapers: the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Focusing on coverage afforded the party during its first general elections — 1900 and 1906 — it will be argued that the response of the Conservative popular press to the rise of Labour was complex. While often hostile, these newspapers also showed considerable interest in the party's rise and were also broadly positive to both individual Labour MPs and the movement's desire to better represent working class interests. Adding to past works into pre–Great war political culture, this paper interrogates the complexity of Labour's emergent place within a mass political culture that, while broadly hostile to left–wing politics, primarily catered toward an imagined 'everyman' who was very similar to Labour's assumed electoral supporter.
Keywords: Labour Party, popular press, newspaper language, political identity, pre–1914 British culture
Dr Chris Shoop-Worrall is Lecturer in Media & Journalism at UCFB, having completed his PhD at the University of Sheffield's Centre for the Study of Journalism and History in 2019. His work explores the intersections between politics, mass media, and consumer culture within nineteenth– and twentieth–century Britain. His first book, an adaptation of his doctoral work, is forthcoming with Routledge Focus.
The mass election–time political culture of Edwardian Britain, into which the Labour Party[1] first entered in 1900, was framed primarily around the perceived wants and interests of an imagined 'man in the street', whose significance had grown particularly after the various reform acts of the 1880s.[2] This 'everyman' was the person whom the proposed political policies of both the Liberals and the Conservatives were increasingly pitched, on issues including tariff reform, religious education and alcohol consumption.[3] This increasingly mass and masculinised election sphere was part of a wider consumer culture within which the everyman also held significance.[4] A key component of these interconnected cultures of politics, urban consumerism, and entertainment was the daily mass press: the 'new dailies' Mail and Express which lay the groundwork the dominant tabloid culture of the twentieth century.[5] These newspapers, and newspapers in general, were key conduits of political communication in late–nineteenth and early–twentieth century Britain.[6] Their content sensationalised and personalised election news in ways that effectively spoke to their mass readerships, many of whom were the same 'man in the street' sought by politicians across the political spectrum.[7] Their communicative potential was noteworthy: Stephen Koss's chapter on these newspapers shows Joseph Chamberlain's intense interest in courting their support[8], while recent scholarship by David Vessey has noted how the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) similarly saw the merits of their suffrage campaigns capturing the attention of these particular newspapers.[9]
Labour were perhaps uniquely interested in the political significance of the new dailies. Their appeal to the man in the street — an individual from whom Labour particularly sought the vote — made the daily mass press a hugely significant force. Indeed, Labour would eventually launch their own newspaper, the short–lived Daily Citizen, such was the perceived political importance of having a Labour–friendly mass daily newspaper[10]. The knowledge of the mass press's appeal to the man in the street came with a parallel hostility from across the early Labour movement towards this 'capitalist' press. The fact that the Citizen's birth was a decade in the making spoke significantly of the agonising across the pre–war British left about what constituted appropriate mass political communication: an issue which the party would continue to struggle with for decades to follow.[11]
While some scholarship has explored aspects of Labour's relationship towards and with both the popular press and popular culture pre–1914[12], little exists on the ways in which Labour manifested within the pages of the mass daily press. This paper interrogates the ways in which the two founding publications of Bingham and Conboy's 'tabloid century', the Mail and Express, represented the emergence of Labour during their first two general election campaigns. Using these two periods of newspaper coverage, spanning the weeks of the elections both in 1900 and 1906[13], this paper explores the complex place that Labour held within the pages of these mass–selling newspaper and, by extension, a significant component of the political culture in which they sought success.
On the one hand, it would seem that the hostility shown across the British left towards the new dailies, and the wider culture to which they contributed, was somewhat mutual. Both the Mail and Express featured articles critical of the party's politics, especially after their true 'arrival' onto the national political scene in 1906. Much of this criticism revolved around Labour's language of chaos and destabilisation; the emergence of this new, left–wing political movement clashed considerably with the broadly conservative outlook of both the new dailies and the consumer political culture to which they sold so well. However, this criticism was not uniform. In fact, both newspapers dedicated coverage that was receptive to much of this emergent party. Central to this positivity was the idea that Parliament was becoming increasingly representative. For example, 'working men' entered the Commons and were seen as a welcome and overdue reality. This, and an appreciation of some of the societal inequalities that Labour were struggling to overcome, underlines the complicated place which Labour occupied within this massified, masculine election culture to which the new dailies contributed so significantly.
Early Indifference
The 1900 election was the Labour Party's first ever election, as well as the first time that Britain had a socialist party competing at a national election. Their initial success was modest, having had two MPs elected to the House of Commons and amassing just under 63,000 votes.[14] That said, it marked a significant change in the British political landscape; in their first election, Labour won a larger share of the popular vote than John Redmond's Irish Parliamentary Party. Considering the later significance that can be (and has been) so easily placed on a party's first election, one would assume that there was a noticable response at the time to Labour's electoral debut, including from two of the country's most popular newspapers.
The reality of the response, from both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express at least, was considerably underwhelming. Admittedly, the 1900 election was defined by the central issue of the Second Boer War; a pro–imperial national spirit borne out of the war was widely credited with helping the Conservatives sweep to victory, and both the new dailies' election coverage was heavily focused on the electoral importance of the ongoing conflict in the Transvaal.[15] However, even considering the weight of coverage afforded the war, the Labour Party was given almost no coverage at all. Far from being a watershed moment which saw a conservative press react with intensity, the rise of Labour prompted Britain's two leading right-of-centre dailies to do little more than shrug.
The sparse mentions that were given to Labour by the two newspapers during their first election represented the party as a curious, inoffensive new oddity. Most of the attention in these newspapers focused not on the party itself, but on some of the high–profile individual members. Of particular interest was Keir Hardie, the party's founder, leader, and first elected MP. One report noted that he had earned the support of renowned businessman, philanthropist and 'Quaker cocoa manufacturer' George Cadbury, who had sent Hardie £500 to help the party to support 'the expenses of Labour candidates' in Blackburn, Manchester, and Glasgow.[16] Besides earning Cadbury's support, Hardie's brief appearances portray him as a curious eccentric, assigning him the nickname 'Queer Hardie' and noting how his personality was not that of traditional members of Parliament; '(he is) the most erratic of Labour members… his outward oddities only faintly disguise a strong, simple, resolute character'.[17]
Similarly, the other mentions of Labour parliamentary candidates focus on curious aspects of their personalities, rather than on controversial or original aspects of their political leanings. For example, a candidate in Derby called 'Mr. R. Bell' was portrayed similarly to Liberal or Conservative candidates, stating that he 'loves conciliation more than controversy'.[18] Another, Thomas Burt of Morpeth, was described as 'no friend of socialism' and given a background that remarks on the originality of his political background; 'he still bears on him the marks of his early life of toil at the pit mouth… teetotalism and trade unionism made him a speaker… his mates elected him secretary (of his trade union) nine years later they sent him to Parliament'.[19] Far from being portrayed as revolutionaries, Labour's new and prospective parliamentary candidates were represented as relatively unremarkable new additions to the British political landscape. The above–examples of language used to portray them focuses more on personality quirks than political leanings. Any reference to personal or party ideology seems to deliberately play down any radical or controversial tendencies. Their emergence is noted, but as little more than a minor footnote on the wider issues in the election.
One potential reason why the Mail's and Express's coverage of the party's emergence seems to have been so underwhelming can be seen in how the broader idea of a worker-propelled political movement is discussed. Again, references to a wider Labour movement are scarce, but they suggest a shared understanding that a future of worker–driven politics was a long way off. For instance, a front page in the Express features a speech from the leading Liberal Unionist MP Joseph Chamberlain, in which he espouses the view that any new, 'Labour' members of Parliament — ones elected directly from a working–class community to represent their interests — would be like 'fish out of water' in the Commons.[20] Another article, published later in the election, speculates light–heartedly on a future where Britain has a 'worker–controlled future electorate'. It argues that a time should come when the only barrier to voting should be an age limit of 21, and concludes with an interested look forward to what types of legislation might be passed if 'the working man controlled the voting'.[21] Interestingly, while it has a more positive view than the quoted speech by Chamberlain, this article shares the view that a worker–driven politics is still not a present concern.
Overall, the Labour Party's emergence and first presence at a British general election met with a muted response from the daily popular national press. On the one hand, there is some acknowledgement of the party's arrival onto the British political scene and how a Labour–orientated working–class politics had the potential to lead to future change. However, this future theorizing is an exception to an initial response which represents Labour and it's members as odd new additions to the established political landscape. Labour's members were presented as original and unconventional, but only in relation to aspects of their personalities or the manner of their upbringing. Indeed, their politics are barely discussed and any references to ideology are framed to downplay any radical aspect of Labour beliefs. The impression left by these newspapers is that Labour, while new, were little but an eccentric, minor addition to British politics. Their emergence may well have been a matter of concern or interest for an undetermined point in the future. However, Labour was represented as a party of little concern to the readers of these two newspapers during their first general election.
As has been discussed, the representations of the emerging Labour party in the popular new dailies during the 1900 election placed little significance on them. At the beginning of the next — and Labour's second — general election in 1906, the initial coverage from both newspapers was similarly sparse. In the Daily Mail for example, the opening few days of the election contained very few articles on Labour, and these, similarly to those from 1900, characterised the party by the unconventional personalities of its members. In particular, a piece on the opening day of the campaign focuses on the sitting MP of Woolwich and his 'quaint sayings' and 'his insistence on his absolute ignorance of Latin'.[22] On the same day, the Daily Express's sole representation of Labour concerned a speech by the 'Socialist Countess' Lady Warwick, and how local workers in the West Ham area of London 'go and look at the lovely Countess while she is making one of her Socialistic speeches'.[23] While covering very different stories, both newspapers were again constructing Labour, its members, and socialism in general as a quirky, yet separate, addition to the British political tradition.
This approach changed dramatically after Labour began winning more MPs, with the first news breaking on January 15th 1906 that Labour had already gained seven seats in Parliament. The Daily Mail noted these 'Labour successes' and named the new members elected for Labour.[24] The Express meanwhile represented the new significance of Labour's election successes by including them on their front–page 'Election Race by Motor Car': a daily cartoon which would track a political party's progress to the 'finish line' at the end of the election.[25] Labour, missing entirely from the Express's equivalent cartoon in 1900, now merited a place in the race.
This initial appreciation by both newspapers would change into a dramatic reaction in the subsequent days after Labour's 'arrival' onto the main political stage. The day after the announcements, both newspapers published editorials focused on the electoral triumphs of Labour. The Express noted the party's 'astounding victories' and how their success now posed a threat to the paper's favoured Unionists.[26] This editorial echoed their front page of the same day which marvelled at the 'astounding succession' of Labour victories, while noting that it may well be a watershed historical moment; 'nothing like it [Labour's victories] has ever occurred in the history of British politics'.[27] This same sentiment was shared in the Mail's editorial 'Outlook', headlined 'The Rise of Labour'. Like the Express, it marked a decisive shift in the paper's coverage of Labour which now represented the party as a 'hurricane' that was fundamentally changing the face of British politics;
Enormous Labour polls are, indeed, the great feature at the election, and even where Labour has not won it has voted in a manner that is beginning to cause nervousness to its Liberal ally . . . Socialism, by its very essence, means the abolition of all competition . . . equal rewards for fit and unfit.[28]
After the relative indifference shown during the 1900 campaign, both the Mail and the Express increasingly represented Labour as both the defining aspect of the 1906 election, as well as a landmark shift in the history of British politics. This shift in both papers' interpretation of the party led to a multitude of articles and editorials across the rest of the election dedicated to the party and its new MPs. Some of this new content was, perhaps unsurprisingly, fiercely hostile.
Chaotic Threat
It is interesting to note that, in the same early articles detailing Labour's historic election successes, the new dailies quickly represented Labour as a potentially damaging and dangerous new political entity. For example, The Mail editorial cited above appears to associate Labour with forces of chaos, from the metaphorical 'hurricane' to the latter outlining of socialism's radical stance against competition. The final quote above extends to communicate the potentially ruinous damage of Labour's anti–competitive nature; 'if the British worker cannot compete, so much the worse for them!'[29]
The clear conclusion, that Labour's position would restrict the competitiveness of British labour both at home and abroad, represents the party as potentially ruinous both for wider British society and the very class of people it claims to represent. This association between Labour and chaos was also echoed in the Express, the same as the Mail's 'hurricane' editorial. Their own 'Matters of Moment' associated the victories of the Labour party to 'wreckage' upon the status quo, with political policy labelled as both 'fairytales' and 'insidious poison'.[30] Again, the choice of language used in these editorials associates Labour with chaos, and their negative impact on both the political system and those who may have, or may in future, vote for them.
These ideas of Labour–driven chaos would continue to be referenced throughout the rest of the election campaign, although the first days marked a high–point for both newspapers' sense of panic. Their successes were frequently labelled as part of a 'revolution' or 'upheaval', which repeatedly suggested a link between the party and potential political unrest. This potentially damaging impact of the party was also applied to Labour itself, with the Mail speculating on a future Labour split between the small pro–Liberal section of new MPs and the majority of the rest of the MPs whom 'do not trust Liberals' and whose ideological extremism threatened an irreparable split between the two factions; '[Labour radicals think] it better that ever Labour member candidates [loses] than that the cause should be degraded or obscured by weak MPs'.[31] While no other article considering the self–divisive nature of Labour's emergence in 1906, it added to a broader representation from both new dailies that presented Labour as an unstable party, both within the wider climate of Westminster and, potentially, its own ranks.
Another persistent representation of Labour's chaotic nature came from both papers' repeated association between Labour and the Liberal Party. When again considering the initial responses of both dailies, the 'hurricanes', and 'wreckage' wrought on the election is appropriated to both Labour and the Liberals. The Mail's editorial on the sixteenth contends the link between both anti–Unionist parties by saying how some Liberal candidates 'are indistinguishable from Communists or extreme Socialists',[32] while the Express also drew an immediate link between Labour and the Liberals, first being saying the latter were 'aided and abetted' by the former, and that together they were a threat to the Unionists.[33] These initial links drawn between the two parties are particularly fierce compared to the rest of the coverage, but were the first of several instances where Labour is represented directly, and negatively, in relation to its union with the Liberals.
Throughout the rest of the election coverage of the two newspapers, representations of Labour's association with the Liberals seemed to be primarily focused on the former's potentially damaging impact on the latter. For example, accusations of Liberalism's pandering to Labour interests implies that the Liberals could end up regretting their partnership with the new socialists. The Mail for instance alluded to the idea that Labour were the real power, and that elected Liberals were 'merely delegates' of Labour and their trade union allies.[34] The fear of a trojan–horse, socialist incursion into the Liberals was continued later in the election as both Labour and Liberal victories kept growing, with a prophetic editorial that the upcoming Parliament's true struggle would be 'between Socialism and Protection',[35] thus presenting Labour as the real force in any future non–Unionist government.
The Express shared a similar opinion of the two party relationships, arguing that Labour, not Liberalism, would play the greater role in a future government and that a 'solid phalanx' of Labour members had 'forced their way into the Liberal ranks'.[36] Between evocative portrayals of militarized Labour infiltrating their ranks to the neo–criminal language of 'aided and abetted', the representations in both newspapers showed Labour to be just as damaging to their Liberal allies as to their Unionist opponents. This idea would continue to be explored throughout the election in both newspapers, with the 'menace' of Labour and their socialist policies frequently being associated to the eventual election–winning Liberals. For example, a particularly dismissive note in the Mail that declared that 'oil and vinegar would readily mix than the ideals of [Labour MP] Philip Snowden' and the Liberals[37], as well as updated summaries of the new Commons numbers with Liberal and Labour MPs combined (along with the Irish Nationalists) into the 'Parliamentary' column against the Unionists.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the initial shock shown in the new dailies' representations of the emergent Labour successes in 1906 quickly developed an antagonistic element. As two leading press supporters of the Conservatives, it is perhaps unsurprising that aspects of their coverage represented Labour in variously negative ways. What was remarkable was the speed of transition between coverage of Labour's minor oddities to its newfound revolutionary, negative impact on British politics, its supporters and its Liberal allies.
Both the Mail and the Express were undeniably hostile towards Labour after their growth in influence during the 1906 election, and in this regard Labour were justified in the hostility they would, in turn, show to these particularly popular daily newspapers. However, the hostile representations were one of several ways in which these newspapers represented the party after its surge in the polls during the 1906 election. The hostility was noticeable, but generally subsided to reveal a more complex portrayal of the party which showed an interest in, and indeed levels of appreciation for, their membership and parts of their political message.
'A most salutary influence'
Labour's surge in popularity in its second–ever contested election was met with some hostile words from both the Express and the Mail. Interestingly however, the majority of the negative representations of the party focused on its potentially negative impact within the narrow confines of the Houses of Commons. Whether in relation to Labour's potential to harm Parliament, its Liberal allies or the Labour party itself, the majority of their more negative representations in the new dailies were restricted to their place in Parliament. Very little coverage across either newspapers focused on the potentially negative impact of Labour on the everyday British public, besides the initial fear over the party's position 'against competition' and a brief mention by the Mail's early editorial of the party's attitudes against public houses and a supposed plan to ban betting news inside pubs[38]. Conversely, the representations of Labour and its impact on British life outside of Westminster were broadly positive.
After the early outrage shown in both of the newspapers' early editorials, the Mail and the Express shifted to positively representing an aspect of Labour's emergence: the increased representation of the working classes. The day after their 'insidious poison' editorial, the Express ran another editorial dedicated to Labour, appreciating that 'it is right and proper' that the working classes had direct representation in Parliament and that Labour were well–placed to best voice their interests:
every class of the community should be represented in Parliament . . . we have more in the Labour men than to believe that they would permit themselves to degenerate into mere money–making politicians.[39]
The appreciation of working–class representation in the Commons was twinned with a portrayal of the new Labour members as people who would honestly work for them in Parliament, undistracted by other potential perks of the role in the House of Commons. A very similar sentiment was shown in the Mail's Outlook the next day. While the newspaper's opinion on Labour's future plans ('whether for good or evil remains to be seen') created a certain degree of doubt, it agreed with the Express on matters of representation and the honesty of the new members;
It cannot be suggested that labour will be unduly represented . . . [many elected] have been bona–fide working-men… frankly, we much prefer these workers to a good many, who [hitherto] used the House of Commons as a road to money–making.[40]
Across both newspapers, Labour was represented as a positive influence both for the wider electorate and for the moral fabric of the Commons. While occasionally appearing alongside sentiments expressing mistrust or outright antagonism to the party, there was a shared understanding of Labour as a collection of politicians who would represent the British lower classes better, and less corruptly, than any other political group striving for their support. Admittedly, this more positive aspect of the party's portrayals in the new daily press did not ever become a full endorsement, as high levels of mistrust were also associated with the party's wider plans for the future of Parliament's stability and the industrial way of life. It was, however, an undoubted acceptance, or possibly even a degree of admiration, of some of the party's potential positives.
'Gone is the Club'
As a collective party, Labour was represented in complex ways to the readers of the new dailies. Praise of their honesty and of overdue and deserved working-class representatives in Parliament were counter-balanced by persistent descriptions of the party as a disruptive force to their parliamentary colleagues and the British political tradition. Interestingly however, the majority of the coverage of the Labour Party in the Mail and the Express was not dedicated to the party itself. The most frequently occurring representations of Labour in the 1906 election focused on individual members; the MPs, old and new, whose collective integrity both newspapers positively represented.
The most noticeable focus in the new dailies was an interest in the employment backgrounds of Labour MPs. This manifested itself in sections in both newspapers that detailed members of the House; short descriptions of sitting MPs, challengers and the newly–elected. To understand the curious uniformity of the two papers' profiles of Labour politicians, it is important to know the diversity of terms through which both Liberal and Conservative politicians were discussed in the same articles. For example, on January the seventeenth, the Mail ran a 'Who's Who' column, providing brief details of a host of new faces in Parliament. The ways in which Liberal or Unionist politicians were described varied considerably; 'forty-two years of age', 'an architect', 'a Londoner by birth and education', 'a Tariff Reformer', 'was born in 1845', 'a Fellow and lecturer of Merton College, Oxford'.[41]
The key words or phrases that were used to primarily define Liberal or Unionist candidates showed differences from person to person: age, education, upbringing, employment and particular political beliefs were all used to describe them. In stark contrast, Labour candidates or returned MPs were principally defined most often with reference to their engagement in hard physical labour, very often with reference to their early beginnings in said trades. The Mail also summaries from mid–January contained, among others, the following Labour returns;
Mr. Enoch Edwards, after a defeat at last election, has gained Hanley for the Labour Party. He is fifty-four years of age. He entered a colliery aged nine . . .
Mr. George Wardle, Labour member for Stockport, worked in a factory from the age of eight and became a clerk on the Midland Railway when fifteen.
Mr. Charles Duncan, the new Labour representative for Barrow-in-Furness, is an engineer and trade-union organizer
Mr. W. C. Steadman (Central Finsbury) is a Labour member . . . a barge builder by trade
Mr. Thomas Glover, St Helens Labour representative . . . At nine years of age he was working in the mines.[42]
Where Liberals or Unionists were just as much defined by education and politics as by their employment history, Labour politicians were primarily represented as politicians defined by their connections to industrial labour. The Express, on the same day, was compounding this manifestation of the same Labour members as people defined by their pasts in hard employment in their 'Who's Who' equivalent called 'The Polling';
Finsbury Central, W. C. Steadman . . . apprenticed in the barge-building trade
Barrow-in-Furness: Charles Duncan . . . apprenticed to the engineering trade
Birkenhead: Henry Vivian . . . a carpenter and joiner by trade
Hanley, E. Edwards . . . at nine entered colliery.[43]
This attention to the manual employment backgrounds of Labour politicians was repeated throughout the election;
Summertail: son of a miner, started work as grocer.[44]
N. Barnes: apprenticed as an engineer.[45]
R. Clynes: cotton-factory boy.[46]
Crooks (Woolwich): has been a workhouse lad.[47]
Seddon (Newton): apprenticed to the grocer trade.[48]
The difference between Labour and non–Labour members is starkest when the briefest of summaries were printed side by side with a double election in Sunderland of a Liberal and a Labour candidate, describing the former as a Fellow of Trinity College and the latter as having 'started work at seven'.[49]
The potential reasoning behind the consistent identification of Labour candidates by their industrial backgrounds is varied. On the one hand, there was the reality that the vast majority of Labour politicians did not have the same lavish educational or professional backgrounds often cited in descriptions of Liberal or Unionist candidates. This reality however cannot adequately explain the curious consistency with which both newspapers categorized Labour politicians by their labouring pasts, as non–Labour candidates sharing significant traits (for example, an excellent university education) were not treated to the same uniformity. It is possible that the new dailies' fixation on the pasts of Labour members was an extension of the representations of individuals from 1900, which highlighted curious eccentricities of the likes of Keir Hardie. In place of 'Queer Hardie', there was a consistent interest in MPs with pasts in manual labour. Edwardian Britain's Parliament was populated largely with members of the higher classes: peers, newspaper proprietors, industrialists, and lawyers.[50] Therefore, an influx of men who had worked in coal mines as children represented a curious break from the norm — a quirk to tradition that made these new members stand out from the rest. By consistently highlighting working pasts, the new dailies were partly continuing this image of Labour as a curious new phenomenon, potentially intended to provoke a wry, almost amused response from readers.
Another potential interpretation of the new dailies' representations of Labour members as people defined by their pasts is that it shows considerable admiration of their emergence onto the political scene. These men, some of whom had to go to work from as young as seven, had now entered into the elite of British political life against considerable personal odds. Their individual stories represented triumphs over adversity; proverbial rags–to–riches narratives that correlated with the new dailies' broader interest in emotive, human-interest news content that appealed to their mass, lower–class audiences. Rather than, or as well as, being a representation of curious backgrounds for British parliamentarians, these newspapers' focus on employment pasts presented Labour members as everyday success stories to be respected and admired.
This latter interpretation is further supported by the fact that both newspapers dedicated longer profile articles to particular Labour politicians, which explicitly championed their rise from difficult upbringings. In the Mail, the article 'A New Style Labour Member' focused on the new West Ham MP Will Thorpe. Much was made of his journey from relative poverty to the Commons, and he is positively shown to have worked his way from the bottom to the top;
Seventeen years ago . . . a day labourer. Today, he is a member of Parliament.
Proved himself a born captain . . .
Born to misery . . . (parents) brickfield workers . . . endured the burden of toil.[51]
His transformation from the 'urban slums' to a 'representative of starvation' is shown to be something to be admired, even despite the article's explanation that his life had led to him becoming 'a Socialist of the most extreme type'. Indeed, in this context, the Labour man's radical politics are presented as an understandable, if not agreeable, response to his personal history.[52] His past is a story of respectable, positive success, even in spite of politics wholly against those of these two newspapers.
The Express shared this positive depiction of Labour members and their industrial pasts with their 'Romance of Labour', a story about J. T. Macpherson who, having 'served as a boy at sea', had become an MP after his union had helped him pay his through a degree at Ruskin College, Oxford.[53] Again, the 'romance' comes from an individual who had reached Parliament, via one of the world's best universities, having started life as a child labourer. He, like other Labour MPs, was represented as a personal success story. His journey was chronicled quite succinctly in the same newspaper a few days later;
At twelve, cabin boy.
At eighteen, Middlesbrough steel smelter
At twenty-one, founder of Steel Smelters Society
At thirty-two, Oxford Graduate and MP.[54]
When discussed in the new dailies as a collective, Labour politicians were categorised as honest and potentially simple characters who would do their best to represent working people. When discussed as individuals, Labour was represented as a group deserving of respect and interest due to their shared pasts overcoming hardships to enter Parliament. Often with reference to their histories working as children, Labour politicians were represented most strikingly as successes of hard work against personal adversity, to the point where disagreeable politics were contextualised and possibly even appreciated. Labour, both as a party and as a group of people, was shown by the Mail and the Express to be a fresh addition to political life that carried with it an emotive, positive story of triumphing against difficult beginnings.
'What Labour Wants'
In contrast to their broad political aims, the new dailies represented Labour's politicians as broadly positive additions to the British political system. On occasion, the emphasis on personal triumphs over difficult starts in life was used as understandable context for any radical politics they may fight for in any future Parliament. This appreciation of the potential roots of socialism was not unique to profiles of individual MPs. Indeed, both the Express and the Mail dedicated significant coverage during the 1906 election that represented Labour, and socialism more broadly, as a cause driven by righteous discontent with existing realities of British life.
The most notable example of this came in the Daily Mail and its two–part long article 'What Labour Wants', written by a Mr. Bart Kennedy. Published on the seventeenth and eighteenth of January, its stated wish was to explore what the working man wanted, drawn from a series of interviews with 'hard, strong–faced men of labour' who, after everything, wanted nothing but 'to live'. In its retelling of their stories, it paints an evocative picture of a horrific, lower–class existence;
[these men] did the dread work in the blackness of the earth… starving with their wives and family on a few shillings strike pay. Wives suckle their babies from their almost dry breasts.
Treated worse than the beasts in the fields.
Their wrongs cry out, no voice, no pen can fully put their case.[55]
In addition to these dramatic representations of suffering workers, Bart Kennedy portrays the owners of these businesses as nothing less than villains;
The people who own the mines have gradually pressed them [the labourers] down below the bare living point.[56]
. . . making the worker produce more wealth than it ever did before, and at the same time it is giving him less in proportion for his labour
You (the owner) are going on in a way that will bring England down about our ears.[57]
This extraordinary account of striking workers and profit–driven owners vividly represents an unsustainable divide between the richer and poorer elements of British society. Taken in the context of the broader coverage of the party and its members, it articulates the cause of the Labour party as one entirely justified by the current conditions facing workers. One of the party's principle aims — to fight for better conditions for workers — is one that would directly tackle the 'evil' shown so evocatively in this article.
Interestingly however, the second part of this article concludes that 'evil though the present system, it is better than it would be under Socialism'. This conclusion is sound and asserts the writer, because the current evil lies in the haplessness of authority, which would only increase under a socialist government. This conclusion, while strikingly brief in the context of the longer two–part article, correlates with the broader attitudes shown across the two newspapers towards Labour's political ambitions. Labour and socialism are never shown positively; they are frequently associated with instability and neo–revolutionary disorder. What is interestingly though is that these two newspapers, which clearly and consistently represented Unionist politics as the best course of action, represented the conditions that Labour's politics sought to address as a significant concern to its readers. The newspapers did not represent Labour's motivations negatively and at times actively agreed with them on issues that politics needed to address. The party's solution was not represented positively; their intentions often were.
This balance between the rejection and appreciation of Labour's political aims was particularly pronounced in the Mail. For example, the twenty–third of January saw a column in the Mail written by recently–elected Labour MP Philip Snowden, in which he focuses on the party's aim to 'transfer large profits from private pockets to public utility… (and) enable better conditions to be given to the workers'.[58] On the one hand, sub–headings stating that Labour is a party that will 'Tax the Very Rich' and instigate 'The Overthrow of Capitalism' suggests the potentially revolutionary intentions of Labour, but it is countered by Snowden's assertions that any future policy would be 'not quite so blood–curdling as it sounds'. It is interesting that the input of the newspaper — the sub–headings — often contrasts with the actual content of Snowden's writing; it is the heading, and not the Labour MP, who mentions anything tangibly proving an attempt to overthrow the existing capitalist system. This article, like the Kennedy article, touches upon the struggle between wealthy owners and poor workers, and represents Labour as a party fighting against an undisputed wrong. Also, particularly due to the sub–headings, the more positive representation of Labour's motivations are countered with language portraying the party as a force of revolutionary harm.
The Express also echoed these same sentiments, though less frequently than its rival. Most notably, on the nineteenth of January, an editorial discussed 'Labour on its Trial' and the 'colossal experiment' of a socialist party in Britain. It, in contrast to the evocative longer reads in the Mail, represents the duality of Labour's politics very concisely;
we say, give Labour its chance. If it succeeds, well, good.
If it fails, ________![59]
That brief editorial summary gets to the crux of this curious complexity at the heart of the representations of Labour's politics. The party had won its place in the Commons. Now, it was time to see how they planned to solve issues that were of undeniable concern to British society. If their solutions proved a success, then it would be of benefit to all: in particular, to the many people who resonated with the imagined 'man in the street' sought by political parties, the mass press, and the surrounding popular culture of the period. However, as demonstrated by the concluding pause, it was clear that any Labour success, according to these newspapers, was both undesirable and rather unlikely.
This dichotomy teases out the fascinating and often contradictory place of Labour within the new dailies: two fundamental and widely consumed components of the election culture of early twentieth–century Britain. This new political party was, for many, a hostile and radical entity that clashed with much of the political and popular cultures into which they entered. However, their perceived connections to the everyman who was such a dominant part of those same two overlapping cultures meant that, for the hostility, there was also considerable admiration and support shown by the new dailies toward this 'chaotic' new addition to the electoral landscape of Long Edwardian Britain. While it would take until 1912 for Labour to have a mass daily newspaper for their own, they had already provoked a diverse and contested presence within Britain's most popular daily newspapers during their emergent years as a political party.
Primary Sources:
Daily Mail: 26th September – 24th October 1900; 12th January – 8th February 1906
Daily Express: 26th September – 24th October 1900; 12th January – 8th February 1906
Secondary Reading:
Beers, L. Your Britain : Media and the Making of the Labour Party (Cambridge; Mass, 2010).
Bingham, A. and Conboy, M. Tabloid Century : The Popular Press in Britain, 1896 to the Present (Oxford, 2015).
Blaxill, L. 'Joseph Chamberlain and the Third Reform Act: A Reassessment of the "Unauthorized Programme" of 1885'. Journal of British Studies 54/1 (2015), pp. 88–117.
______. The War of Words: The Language of British Elections, 1880-1914 (Woodbridge, 2020).
______. 'Electioneering, the Third Reform Act, and Political Change in the 1880s*'. Parliamentary History 30/3 (2011), pp. 343–73.
Brodie, M. The Politics of the Poor : The East End of London, 1885-1914 (Oxford, 2004).
Butler, D. and Butler, G., British Political Facts, 10th ed. (Basingstoke, 2010).
Conboy, M. The Press and Popular Culture (London, 2002).
Hopkins, D., "The socialist press in Britain, 1890-1910" in Curran, J., Boyce, G. and Wingate, P. (eds.), Newspaper History from the seventeenth century to the present day (London, 1978), pp. 265-280
Koss, S. The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain V. 2 (London, 1984).
Lawrence, J., Electing Our Masters : The Hustings in British Politics from Hogarth to Blair. (Oxford, 2009).
Rix, K. '"The Elimination of Corrupt Practices in British Elections"? Reassessing the Impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act'. The English Historical Review CXXIII/500 (2008), pp. 65–97.
Shannon, R. The Age of Salisbury, 1881-1902 : Unionism and Empire (London, 1996).
Shoop-Worrall, C. 'Politics and the Mass Press in Long Edwardian Britain 1896-1914'. (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 2019).
Thomas, J. A. The House of Commons 1906-1911 (Cardiff, 1958).
Thompson, J. British Political Culture and the Idea of 'Public Opinion', 1867-1914 (Cambridge, 2013).
Vessey, D. 'Words as Well as Deeds: The Popular Press and Suffragette Hunger Strikes in Edwardian Britain' Twentieth Century British History, 32/1 (2021), pp. 68–92.
Waller, P. J. and Thompson, A. F. Politics and Social Change in Modern Britain : Essays Presented to A.F. Thompson, (Brighton, 1987).
Waters, C., British Socialists and the Politics of Popular Culture, 1884-1914 (Manchester, 1990).
Windscheffel, A. Popular Conservatism in Imperial London, 1868-1906 (London, 2007).
[1] Throughout this paper, the word 'Labour' will be used to refer both to the party and, at times, to the wider movement to which the party remained connected. It is noted by the author, however, that they existed as the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) during the general election of 1900.
[2] L. Blaxill, 'Joseph Chamberlain and the Third Reform Act: A Reassessment of the "Unauthorized Programme" of 1885', Journal of British Studies 54/01 (2015), pp. 88–117; L. Blaxill, 'Electioneering, the Third Reform Act, and Political Change in the 1880s', Parliamentary History 30/3 (2011), pp. 343–73; M. Brodie, The Politics of the Poor : The East End of London, 1885-1914 (Oxford, 2004); P. J. Waller and A. F. Thompson, Politics and Social Change in Modern Britain : Essays Presented to A.F. Thompson (Brighton, 1987), p. 36; K. Rix, '"The Elimination of Corrupt Practices in British Elections"? Reassessing the Impact of the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act', The English Historical Review CXXIII/500 (2008), pp. 65–97; Richard Shannon, The Age of Salisbury, 1881-1902 : Unionism and Empire (London, 1996).
[3] L. Blaxill, The War of Words: The Language of British Elections, 1880-1914 (Woodbridge, 2020); A. Windscheffel, Popular Conservatism in Imperial London, 1868-1906 (London, 2007).
[4] M. Conboy, The Press and Popular Culture (London, 2002), p. 95.
[5] A. Bingham and M. Conboy, Tabloid Century : The Popular Press in Britain, 1896 to the Present (Oxford, 2015), pp. 7–9.
[6] For more on the broader importance of newspapers, see J. Lawrence, Electing Our Masters : The Hustings in British Politics from Hogarth to Blair (Oxford, 2009), p. 78; J. Thompson, British Political Culture and the Idea of 'Public Opinion', 1867-1914 (Cambridge, 2013), p. 25; Windscheffel, Popular Conservatism in Imperial London, 1868-1906: pp. 26-7.
[7] C. Shoop-Worrall, 'Politics and the Mass Press in Long Edwardian Britain 1896-1914' (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 2019).
[8] S. Koss, The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain (London, 1984), v. 2: pp. 15–53.
[9] D. Vessey, 'Words as Well as Deeds: The Popular Press and Suffragette Hunger Strikes in Edwardian Britain', Twentieth Century British History 32/1 (2021), pp. 68–92.
[10] Shoop-Worrall, 'Politics and the Mass Press in Long Edwardian Britain 1896-1914', pp. 180–200.
[11] See L. Beers, Your Britain : Media and the Making of the Labour Party (Cambridge; Mass, 2010).
[12] D. Hopkins, "The socialist press in Britain, 1890-1910" in J. Curran, G. Boyce and P. Wingate (eds.), Newspaper History from the seventeenth century to the present day (London, 1978), pp. 265-280; C. Waters, British Socialists and the Politics of Popular Culture, 1884-1914 (Manchester, 1990).
[13] See Bibliography
[14] D. Butler and G. Butler, British Political Facts, 10th ed. (Basingstoke, 2010).
[15] Bingham and Conboy, Tabloid Century, p. 26.
[16] 'Campaign Items', Daily Mail 27/09/1900.
[17] 'Who's Who in the Election', Daily Mail 5 October 1900, p. 3.
[18] 'Who's Who in the Election'.
[20] 'Labour Members and Mr. Chamberlain', Daily Express 1 October 1900, p. 1
[21] 'The Working Man's Vote', Daily Express 11 October 1900, p. 6.
[22] 'Woolwich', Daily Mail 12 January 1906, p. 3.
[23] 'The Socialist Countess', Daily Express 12 January 1906, p. 5.
[24] 'Labour Successes', Daily Mail 15 January 1906, p. 7.
[25] 'Election Race by Motor-Car', Daily Express 15 January 1906, p. 1.
[26] Daily Express 16 January 1906, p. 4.
[27] Ibid, p. 1.
[28] 'The Outlook: The Rise of Labour', Daily Mail 16 January 1906, p. 6.
[30] Express, 16 January, p. 4.
[31] 'The Coming Troubles of the Labour Party', Daily Mail 31 January 1906, p. 6.
[32] 'Rise of Labour', Mail, p. 6.
[34] 'The Outlook: Revolution of 1906', Daily Mail 18 January 1906, p.6.
[35] 'The Outlook', Daily Mail 22 January 1906, p. 6.
[36] 'Solid Labour Phalanx', Daily Express 18 January 1906, p. 5.
[37] 'The Outlook: Hushing it up', Daily Mail 23 January 1906, p. 6.
[38] 'The Outlook', Daily Mail 7 February 1906, p. 6.
[39] 'Matters of Moment: Labour and Liberalism', Daily Express 17 January 1906, p. 4.
[40] 'Revolution of 1906', Mail, p. 6.
[41] 'Who's Who in the New House', Daily Mail 17 January 1906, p. 7.
[43] 'The Polling', Daily Express 17 January 1906, p. 1.
[44] 'Who's Who', Daily Mail 19 January 1906, p. 7.
[50] J. A. Thomas, The House of Commons 1906-1911 (Cardiff, 1958).
[51] 'A New Style Labour Member', Daily Mail 19 January 1906, p. 6.
[52] This would not be unique to the two papers' coverage of Labour, as the broader issue of British socialism was discussed in dedicated articles elsewhere in the election coverage (See 'What Labour Wants').
[53] 'Romance of Labour', Daily Express 20 January 1906, p. 1.
[54] 'Labour MP's Romance', Daily Express 23 January 1906, p. 5.
[55] 'What Labour Wants', Daily Mail 17 January 1906, p. 6.
[57] 'What Labour Wants (Part II)', Daily Mail 18 January 1906, p. 6.
[58] 'The People's Party: Which Will Tax the Very Rich', Daily Mail 23 January 1906, p. 6.
[59] 'Matters of Moment: Labour on its Trial', Daily Express 19 January 1906, p. 4.
https://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/newspaper-568058_1280-1.jpeg 782 1280 mhradmin http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Picture4-300x300.png mhradmin2022-01-27 10:52:452022-01-27 10:52:45'The introduction into English public life of the educated workman': The rise of Labour in the Edwardian Mass Press
The Perfect Ambassador? The Life and Career of the Early Modern French Diplomat Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux (1640–1709)
20th May 2021 /in Archive, Article, Current Volume, Early Modern, Renaissance, Volume 5 - 2021 /by mhradmin
European diplomacy was born of the relations between northern Italian city-states during the Renaissance, and developed from occasional delegations to resident embassies in the early modern period. In the seventeenth century, the Kingdom of France became the protagonist of European political and military affairs, particularly under the reign of Louis XIV. This article analyses the personality, family background and professional career of Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux (1640–1709) through a range of diplomatic documents to assess the extent to which he met the expectations and diplomatic objectives set by the Sun King. I argue that although d'Avaux was a successful and appreciated Louisquatorzien ambassador, his personal views and approach to diplomatic matters did not always align with royal guidelines.
Keywords: Early Modern diplomacy, Comte d'Avaux, ambassador, Louis XIV, Kingdom of France, Dutch Republic, Peace of Nijmegen, James II, Irish expedition
Elvira Tamus is a PhD student in History at Sidney Sussex College / Faculty of History, University of Cambridge. Her doctoral research focuses on Franco-Hungarian diplomatic relations in the 1520s and 1530s in the context of the Valois-Habsburg-Ottoman imperial rivalry. She obtained her BA in History and French language at the University of Leicester, and her MA in History (specialisation: Europe 1000–1800) at Leiden University. This article is a revised version of a paper written for a research seminar at Leiden.
The Perfect Ambassador? The Life and Career of the Early Modern French Diplomat Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux (1640–1709)[1]
In the seventeenth century, the custom of establishing permanent embassies and sending resident ambassadors to represent their sovereigns in other countries became common in Europe. The key actor in European diplomacy was King Louis XIV (r.1643–1715), whose large-scale political and military endeavours made France the principal power on the continent. The diplomatic machinery that evolved under his reign had a crucial impact on the foreign policy practices of various European states. Thus, along with the status quo set by the Peace of Westphalia which ended the European wars of religion in 1648, Louis instituted the roots of modern diplomacy.
The selection criteria of Louis XIV has been widely discussed in the historiography of French diplomacy. The seventeenth and early eighteenth-century evolution of ambassadorial characteristics, tasks, and responsibilities was carried out by Dutch diplomat Abraham de Wicquefort (1606–82) and French diplomat François de Callières (1645–1717). Wicquefort wrote in his L'Ambassadeur et ses fonctions that an ambassador should possess unquestionable loyalty towards his monarch and a perfect understanding of the issues under negotiation, in order to act in accordance with the interests of his prince.[2] Callières described ambassadors' responsibilities as representing their princes' interests and discerning the intentions of other sovereigns. He claimed that a negotiator is first and foremost the executor, rather than the originator of diplomatic decisions which should be made only in consultation with the prince or the principal ministers.[3] In this regard, as William Roosen has argued, Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux was an exception, since Louis relied heavily on d'Avaux's insight into political conditions gained during his long experience in The Hague and in Sweden.[4] Orloue N. Gisselquist has concluded that the decade of 1678–88 was a 'critical period' for Louis' foreign policy.[5] As the French ambassador in the Dutch Republic, d'Avaux frequently used bribery and propaganda (in the form of widely distributed pamphlets) to influence the many officials involved in decision-making, and to promote French interests.[6] Moreover, Gisselquist notes that the centralised nature of French diplomacy required that its ambassadors dealt only with the local issues around their residencies, and therefore, they were often provided with limited information regarding the broad horizon of French foreign affairs.[7] Due to this feature and the exceptionally long time spent in the Dutch Republic, d'Avaux occasionally misunderstood the king's intentions. Marie-Hélène Côté highlights that the selection procedure of ambassadors included many aspects, such as their social and financial status, appearance, attitude, morals and education, along with the Louis' personal confidence in the diplomatic candidates selected.[8]
Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux served as Louis' ambassador and envoy in several of countries throughout his own illustrious career and the Sun King's reign.[9] This case study, therefore, offers an opportunity to consider a detailed picture of the lives, duties, personal and professional specialties of Louisquatorzien ambassadors.
In this article, I will analyse the personal background and diplomatic career of Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, with an emphasis on his service as Louis XIV's peace negotiator during the Franco-Dutch War; as ambassador to the Dutch Republic; and as an envoy to James II of England's Irish expedition. These missions represented a critical period of Louis' reign when the king was engaged in several political and military conflicts. Thus, I will consider the extent to which d'Avaux carried out his diplomatic missions in line with the brief given to him by Louis. I argue that foreign service, remote from regular contact with the French court and his monarch, influenced d'Avaux to the extent that his diplomatic interactions became increasingly independent. Through these observations, I consider the developement of the ambassadorial role in this period. I further reflect on the shifting relationship between ambassador and their monarch back home, and the impacts of this for foreign policy decision-making.
Family background, youth and early career (1640–76)
Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux was born in 1639 or 1640 into a highly prestigious intellectual family whose members had acquired their title for serving the French government in judicial, administrative and diplomatic positions –members of the Noblesse de robe.[10] His grandfather, Jean-Jacques was a knight (chevalier) and seigneur of Roissy, while his father, Jean-Antoine possessed one of the most significant mandates of justice at the Parlement of Paris as président à mortier.[11] His uncle, Claude de Mesmes, comte d'Avaux was a prominent diplomat and ambassador under cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin in Venice, Rome, Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The family's involvement in state affairs is documented in Claude's correspondence with his father, in which they frequently discussed French and European political news as well as the son's career progress.[12] In the 1640s, Claude de Mesmes served at the peace negotiations in Münster which ended the Thirty Years' War.[13] Although Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux may be a less well-known diplomat than his uncle, he was nevertheless a crucial agent of French diplomacy in the Dutch Republic for a significant period of time, in one of the most critical periods of Franco-Dutch relations. Jean-Antoine followed a traditional judicial career, becoming firstly conseiller at the parliament in 1661, and then maître de requêtes in 1667.[14] These administrative offices provided the young noble with expertise in law and government. His sufficient but not 'too high-level' education and remarkable background accord with Wicquefort's argument that a prestigious family was more influential in determining a potential ambassador's success than were schooling and professional experience.[15] Additionally, Callières believed that it was beneficial for a diplomat to have a sufficiently pleasing face to charm an audience.[16] The French duke Louis de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon mentioned the Mesmes family several times in his memoirs and described d'Avaux's appearance and behaviour as follows: 'C'étoit un fort bel homme et bien fait, galant aussi, et qui avoit de l'honneur, fort l'esprit du grand monde, de la grâce, de la noblesse, et beaucoup de politesse.'[17] Saint-Simon also noted that d'Avaux had never possessed the title 'comte d'Avaux' but nevertheless liked to be referred to as count throughout his career.[18]
Due to a period of almost continuous warfare, Louis needed an efficient, professional diplomatic service to represent his interests abroad and, occasionally, to address disputes by diplomatic means. D'Avaux met these criteria, and was given his first ambassadorial commission to the Republic of Venice between 1672 and 1673. Although this period was relatively peaceful in the series of the Ottoman-Venetian wars, d'Avaux had an important diplomatic task. He needed to reconcile the relationship between the republic and France after the Cretan War (1645–69) in which the Venetians attributed the Ottoman victory at the Siege of Candia (1648–69) to the failures of the allied French army.[19] In addition to this effort, d'Avaux also dealt with commercial affairs by acting as mediator for the acquisition of Italian artefacts by the French court.[20] In a letter from Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–83) to d'Avaux, the Minister of Finances thanked the ambassador for sending him an item of luxury clothing as well as for his remarks on Venetian traders, suggesting that d'Avaux had contributed significantly to economic agreements between France and Venice.[21]
The Treaty of Nijmegen and the ambassadorial service in The Hague (1675–88)
One of the major political aspirations of the Sun King concerned the Spanish Succession, an ongoing European-wide dilemma of the late seventeenth century. The problem originated with Charles II of Spain, who was physically and mentally disabled and childless in both of his marriages. Louis initiated the War of Devolution (1667–68) by staking his claim for the Spanish throne through his wife, the sister of Charles, Maria Theresa of Spain. The Triple Alliance of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, England and Sweden in 1668 made Louis step back from his plans and thus became, along with the Dutch embargo on French products, one of the causes of the Franco-Dutch War between 1672 and 1679.[22]
Louis launched a war of conquest for territorial and commercial benefits and triumphed over the alliance that William III, Prince of Orange, had forged with Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. It was in the final stage of this conflict that the young d'Avaux truly grounded his future diplomatic career through his valuable negotiating skills. In 1674, Louis was primarily concerned with dismantling any form of alliance that opposed his interests, such as the one which was soon to emerge between the Dutch Republic and England. To negotiate the best conditions for France, the Sun King needed loyal, dedicated and well-trained diplomats. In December 1675, Louis appointed three plenipotentiaries to represent his interests directly in the negotiations: Colbert de Croissy (1625–96), brother of Minister of Finances Jean-Baptiste Colbert; Godefroi, Comte d'Estrade (1607–86); and Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux.[23] Their main responsibility was to assure the delegates from other states of Louis' benevolence and willingness to cooperate.[24] They relayed the King's offers which consisted of trading benefits; the withdrawal of formerly installed restrictive duties; and the return of territories which had been occupied by French troops such as Maastricht and the Principality of Orange-Nassau. The latter concession was particularly important, since Louis had previously seized a number of European fortresses of strategic importance.[25] The mission enhanced the professional reputation of all three and proved to be an ideal entry-point into successful ambassadorial careers. From the French perspective, the treaty, which was signed by the representatives of France and the Dutch Republic on 10 August 1678, aimed to utilise and increase the political and military glory that Louis XIV had gained with his territorial captures.
The more than six years of hostility had fundamentally damaged the relations between the two states, and careful diplomatic steps were needed to reconcile them. Louis sent an ambassadeur extraordinaire to reinvigorate his relationship with the United Provinces, to extend the political, diplomatic and commercial successes which he had gained from the war and, most importantly, to uncover more about William III's potential future military endeavours. For this, Louis chose d'Avaux as the key figure of the diplomatic rapprochement between France and the United Provinces. When the Prince of Orange challenged the Treaty of Nijmegen in August 1678 and called for resistance against France with a planned coalition with England, d'Avaux was put in charge of disentangling the issue by convincing the Dutch leadership of Louis' trustworthiness. The king justified his appointment by stating that d'Avaux's 'présence donnera beaucoup plus de force aux assurances'.[26] Additionally, he instructed the diplomat to communicate with other ambassadors in The Hague and to convince them that the ratification of the remaining treaties with France would bring peace and friendship.[27] After d'Avaux's success in resolving post-war interstate issues with Venice, Louis had confidence that d'Avaux could facilitate trust between the two sides. The latter was pleased to receive his commission in September 1678 and travelled from Nijmegen to The Hague at the end of that month.[28]
Court life was particularly expensive and Louis' ambassadors never felt they were provided with sufficient means to maintain an appropriate degree of opulence – the Sun King's envoys were meant to represent his superiority both materially and ceremonially. Callières similarly argued that ambassadors should possess considerable wealth, 'afin d'être en état de soutenir les dépenses necessairement attachées a cet emploi.'[29] In 1679, d'Avaux began his commission as the new French ambassador to The Hague with an impressive ceremony to celebrate French successes gained with the Peace of Nijmegen.[30] The language of d'Avaux's Mémoirs shows that he, as any of Louis' ambassadors, was primarily and almost exclusively to represent the Roi Soleil personally, rather than the gouvernement and still less the peuple. The King's name, titles and laudation were permanent elements of d'Avaux's records, negotiations and widely circulated pamphlets.[31] One of the main benefits he had gained in the preceding years was his great circle of acquaintances and a few confidential relations. Most importantly, Colbert de Croissy, his fellow negotiator, became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1679. D'Avaux had several relatives and friends in high administrative positions at the royal court who provided him with a regular flow of information of considerable value in the following years.[32] During the negotiations, the policy of aggressive expansion that Louis had initially pursued fundamentally changed. Taking advantage of the political tension between the trading leaders and the Prince of Orange, Louis turned towards a more subtle approach by trying to create favourable conditions for the Dutch merchant elite.[33] In 1684, d'Avaux successfully negotiated with the Dutch provinces to have Louis' proposals accepted by the States General, the legislature body of the Republic – in spite of the efforts of secrétaire général Gaspar Fagel (1634–88), a key representative of William III.[34]
A contemporary of d'Avaux, Louis-Henri de Loménie, comte de Brienne (1635–98) praised the diplomatic skills of the diplomat:
M. d'Avaux est un beau génie et fort facile; il a de grandes vues, beaucoup de pénétration et un grand usage des affaires. Il sait parfaitement les intérêts des princes de l'Europe, écrit et parle bien. Il seroit très digne d'être secrétaire d'État.[35]
D'Avaux dedicated considerable efforts to the resolution of two further issues. The first of these was the interception in the United Provinces of Huguenot refugees who had fled France after the enacting of the Edict of Fontainebleau in October 1685. With this decree, Louis revoked the Edict of Nantes, in which Henry IV of France had granted free exercise of religion for Calvinists in 1598. The persecution of French Protestants forced many of them to leave their home country for more religiously tolerant states, notably the Dutch Republic. The revived persecution of Protestants not only undermined the diplomatic relations of France, but caused economic harm due to the absence of a great number of Huguenots, who were diligent merchants and tradesmen.[36] D'Avaux was trying to tempt some of these craftsmen back by offering them benefits, as long as they were willing to reconvert to Roman Catholicism. Politically, the growing number of Huguenot refugees in the Dutch Republic contributed to the deterioration of the States General's attitude towards France, potentially frustrating d'Avaux's plans to foster the conflict between them and William III.[37]
D'Avaux deployed espionage and bribery to gain access to the Huguenot community, with the intent that they be returned to France where they would have to abandon Protestantism. The ambassador addressed this problem with the help of a spy in Haarlem, Sieur de Tillières, who had been providing him with information about the refugees for years. This issue prompted d'Avaux to express his concerns regarding the negative impact of the persecutions. He indicated in his letters to Louis that the most effective technique to reduce the emigrations would be decreasing state aggression against the Protestants, instead of the continued policy of catching and returning them home.[38]
D'Avaux strongly encouraged Louis to cement his diplomatic relationship with the Dutch. However, William III of Orange, Stadtholder of the United Provinces approached the other Protestant maritime power, the Kingdom of England, hoping for an anti-French alliance. William had had aspirations to become the heir to the English throne since his marriage to Princess Mary in 1677, niece of the then sovereign Charles II. Mary's father was crowned James II, King of England in 1685, but was not viewed favourably at home, due to his Catholic affiliations. His situation was threatened in June 1688, when a son was born to his second wife Mary of Modena. The birth of a Catholic prince provoked fears that through the heir, Catholicism would be restored and become the official religion.[39] D'Avaux was sufficiently confident to urge his king in the strongest terms: 'J'avertis le Roi, pour la dixième fois, que tout ce qui se passoit de plus secret dans le Conseil du Roi d'Angleterre, étoit révélé au Prince d'Orange.'[40] Indeed, d'Avaux was proved correct when William 'invaded' at England Protestant request in the Glorious Revolution in November 1688.[41]
Eventually, a large-scale European clash of political and economic interests developed in the guise of the Nine Years' War (1688–97), mainly consisting of a Dutch, English (Williamite), and Holy Roman alliance against France's ever increasing commercial and political superiority.[42] During the initial phase of the English dynastic rivalry, Louis had supported his cousin James, hoping that Catholicism, and his own influence, would be revived in England. D'Avaux dedicated considerable efforts to obtaining intelligence regarding William III's maritime preparations. He reported on the danger he discerned in the plans of the Prince of Orange, particularly towards the English throne. To gather as much information as possible, d'Avaux followed Louis's recommendation of establishing relations with the the republicans (members of the States party), who generally opposed the aspirations of the Stadtholder and the Orangist (pro-William) party.[43] He also found informants in the council of Amsterdam, a rich city with many republican supporters.[44] In addition, d'Avaux made use of William's unpopular plan of increasing the size of the army against a possible French advancement in the Spanish Netherlands. D'Avaux was expected by the French administration to send alerts about every single movement of William and his Troupes, and his reports illustrate his diligence in this respect. Nonetheless, he did not hesitate to report about the States General's decreasing sympathy towards the French cause:
Les Ministres du Roi d'Angleterre dirent que leur Maitre auroit une grosse Flotte en mer : cela servit de prétexte au Prince d'Orange pour faire un plus grand armement, car il étoit bien éloigné d'en rien craindre, puisqu'il étoit assuré que le Roi d'Angleterre n'étoit pas en état de mettre plus de sept á huit Vaisseaux. (…) Que supposé que le Prince d'Orange eut tous ces desseins, j'étois obligé de dire á Sa Majesté qu'il ne trouvat du secours dans les Etats-Generaux, que tous les fugitifs de France avoient tellement animé les Calvinistes de Hollande, qu'on n'oseroit se promettre que les Etats entrassent dans leurs véritables interets, comme ils auroient fait autrefois, si pareille occasion s'étoit présentée.[45]
From these reports, Louis learned that in addition to the followers of the prince, many supported William's goal of promoting Protestantism and Dutch trade in England. However, the French court could not be fully aware of, or prepared for, the upcoming developments, due to William's well-organised and cautious steps and the gradual erosion of d'Avaux's intelligence circle. The inefficacy in providing sufficient information about William's project can be regarded mainly as the result of the prince's precautionary and increasing support, rather than d'Avaux's failure as ambassador.
Irish expedition with James II (1689–90)
In early 1689, Louis appointed d'Avaux as advisor to James II of England, to help him reorganise his army in Ireland comprising both Protestants and Catholics.[46] D'Avaux's correspondence from Ireland with Louis and Louvois, the French Secretary of State for War, provides us with a valuable insight into James II's intentions and also into the diplomat's endeavours and judgment of the situation during the campaign in Ireland in 1689–90. James II aimed to seize absolute control over Ireland in order to retaliate against William III, and thus to restore his royal power with a considerable social and military force behind him. However, the French king, and hence his ambassador, had a different priority in this campaign – to occupy William III's attention and army away from the continent as much as possible.[47] Consequently, the clash of these interests was virtually inevitable.
William III was the central figure of the anti-French European coalition but his new English crown resulted in several challenges to this leadership.[48] Although d'Avaux did not arrive in Ireland in 1689 as an ambassador, he did bear a large share of the responsibility of Louis's military success in Britain and Ireland. His extensive experience as both observer and influencer of public and political opinion facilitated his orientation in the Irish question. D'Avaux's role in James II's expedition in Ireland was essential as the diplomat realised the importance of William's obstruction in the success of France and the Jacobites, and kept emphasising the interests of the French crown in the entire course of his engagement. In this expedition, James II was advised by the Irish soldier Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell; the Scottish politician John Drummond, 1st Earl of Melfort; and d'Avaux. In the course of the first month, d'Avaux perceived a promising situation regarding the acceptance of James' expedition. Nonetheless, upon arrival, d'Avaux found himself in disagreement with James over the crucial question of the Act of Settlement – the king wanted to maintain it, while the diplomat wished to terminate it. The 1662 law had caused problems because it had provided land for Protestants by taking land from Catholics. Consequently, either its upkeep or its dissolution would have resulted in dissatisfaction with James in Ireland. The land issue between Catholics and Protestants made Louis XIV reconsider his ideas about the clash of religious denominations. The Sun King appreciated d'Avaux's suggestions of creating a compromise, and encouraged him to keep working on the improvement of James' support among Irishmen:
En sorte que non seulement les Irlandois Catholiques . . . puissent espérer qu'il leur fera justice, mais aussy que les Protestants… puissent estre asseurez, que la différence de leur religion ne leur fera aucun prejudice aupres de luy.[49]
Nevertheless, a parallel can be drawn with the situation in The Hague, when the ambassador was closer to the actual situation than was the court he was serving, and thus assessed the situation differently from Louis. Firstly, d'Avaux's judgement that the deteriorating situation was due to James' incompetence and vanity was nurtured by his own experience of the English King. Secondly, Louis' solution to the land question did not prove to be feasible—d'Avaux found out what the king had not: namely, that the religious division in Ireland was deeper than expected, and the initial objectives of the campaign should be adjusted to this reality. One of d'Avaux's earliest reports expressed his discontent with James II's leadership and organisational skills:
La seule chose, Sir, qui pourra nous faire de la peine, est l'irrésolution du Roy d'Angleterre, qui change souvent d'avis, et ne se détermine pas toujours au meilleur. Il s'arrête aussy beaucoup à de petites choses où il employe toujours son temps et passe légèrement sur les plus essentielles.[50]
D'Avaux urged James to thoroughly strengthen his social support and military forces in Ireland in order to prepare for the continuation of the war with William III. The diplomat believed that this support would be gained by reconciling with the Protestants of the north, or at least by ensuring they did not view James with hostility. D'Avaux urged caution, contrary to the King's wishes to capitalise on his early successes and continue his campaign in Scotland as soon as possible. D'Avaux was confident enough – almost daring – to voice his disagreements with the royal decisions when he judged them to be hazardous or oppositional to French interests. This attitude, however, led to significant tension with James and the Earl of Melfort, the former's chief counselor in military matters.[51]
Moreover, d'Avaux complained about the difficulty of acquiring adequate information about James II's supporters and opponents, telling Louis that 'le Roy d'Angleterre n'a nulle correspondence en Angleterre, ny en Ecosse'.[52] In spite of the relatively short time he had spent in Ireland, d'Avaux was already able to effectively measure the attitude of Irish society by the beginning of April: 'Le peuple et la noblesse d'Irlande sont également persuadez que c'est icy la seule occasion qu'ils pouvoient avoir de recouvrer leur liberté…'[53] He recognised that the tension between James' main objective and that of his subjects would have unpleasant ramifications for the enterprise. D'Avaux did not hesitate to express his concerns regarding the efficiency of the recruitment, organisation and management of soldiers as soon as he noticed the first signs of inadequacy in the middle of April 1689. The diplomat concluded that these problems would weaken James' influence and also increase William's chances of attacking him in Ireland.[54] News about his growing popularity in Scotland bolstered James's confidence and determination to go on fighting there.[55] Negligence remained a general feature of James' policy regarding the physical condition, preparedness and armament of his Irish troops throughout the entire expedition. Altogether, the delay in army reform and increasing Protestant resistance gradually decreased the opportunities of the Franco-Jacobite forces. D'Avaux informed Louis about further issues in the army, such as the inefficient use of French military aid and the lack of adequate payment which caused indiscipline among the soldiers.[56] From late spring, d'Avaux was placed in charge of the army and made efforts to install some degree of discipline, a scheme of payment and the provision of weaponry. However, these belated attempts brought limited success and only increased his personal frustration.[57]
Louis insisted on taking the lead in the Irish expedition and, through d'Avaux, on shaping the events according to his own judgement. However, James' defeat in his conflict with the Protestants at Derry made the Sun King realise that the expedition would be delayed due to the contradiction between their intentions. Both the king and Louvois started to endorse d'Avaux's observations and suggestions regarding the steps to be taken in early summer.[58] Over the course of the summer, d'Avaux showed disapproval towards James' attitude, this time towards the Irish parliament which intended to facilitate trade with France and introduce an embargo on English products.[59] D'Avaux's disillusionment with the ideals of the French-supported Irish expedition derived from James' ignoring of most of his political and military advice, as well as the increasing tension between French and Jacobite intentions. D'Avaux's warnings about the necessity of strengthening power in Ireland were ignored, which led to the weakening of James' authority and social support, which gradually decreased the chances of his restoration. By the end of the summer, d'Avaux's relationship with the English king had permanently deteriorated due to the lack of confidence and mutual agreement.[60] His reports about the situation spurred Louis to modify his policies and the French king often simply approved d'Avaux's evaluations. Importantly, d'Avaux took Louis' other military commitments in the continent into account when advising James.[61] By November, his position as James' counselor became obsolete, and he was dismissed shortly thereafter.[62] D'Avaux accepted this news with opposition and contempt for his successor Antoine Nompar de Caumont, comte de Lauzun: 'il n'est pas assez fort pour soustenir le poids des affaires dont il est chargé.'[63] D'Avaux felt fully responsible for the failure of most of his efforts to save James' campaign. We can also presume some degree of perfectionism since he was unwilling to leave before achieving his goals. From these accounts, a conscientious, experienced and attentive diplomat emerges, one unafraid to report accurately and offer his own advice, even when it contradicted his king's intended strategic direction. As d'Avaux observed the English king ignoring his strategic and tactical recommendations, his reports became increasingly disenchanted and resigned. After all, d'Avaux's accurate appraisal of the political, military, social and religious circumstances in Ireland led not to the implementation of his advice, but rather to his alienation from James II.
Despite the failed Irish expedition, d'Avaux remained an honoured member of Louis XIV's diplomatic staff. Between 1692 and 1699, d'Avaux served as France's ambassador to the Kingdom of Sweden where his chief task was to convince Charles XI of Sweden (1660-97) to act as mediator between France and the Holy Roman Empire in the peace negotiations that concluded the Nine Years' War.[64] In 1701, d'Avaux briefly deputised the ailing French ambassador Gabriel de Briord in The Hague, before Louis' diplomatic relations broke with the United Provinces due to the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14).[65]
Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux followed the family tradition of entering a judicial career, followed by the diplomatic profession. He met the requirements set for Louisquatorzien ambassadors by being French, Roman Catholic, noble, wealthy, middle-aged, legally trained (but not highly educated), good-looking, well-behaved, and by having an extended network of influential friends and relatives in illustrious social circles. On the other hand, he remained unmarried and did not speak many languages. Most importantly, d'Avaux was eager, inventive, dedicated and loyal to Louis XIV. The combination of these characteristics, along with the prominence of his origins, made him a perfect candidate for the highest diplomatic service.
D'Avaux was a prominent, acknowledged and a highly successful ambassador of the Louisquatorzien era. The main proof of this were the high number of places of service throughout his career; the exceptionally long period of time spent in The Hague, Europe's major diplomatic centre; and more importantly, his active involvement in Louis XIV's most significant diplomatic issues. D'Avaux's correspondence from the time of his activities in the Dutch Republic – at Nijmegen and in The Hague—attested to his incessant fidelity, dedication, enthusiasm and creativity in seeking information in favour of his prince's interests. Many of the analysed sources demonstrate that the king relied not only on the news and rumours provided by d'Avaux about the events at his residencies, but also on his personal opinion in crucial questions. It is an ongoing question as to whether Louis XIV's diplomats followed the King's diplomatic directions in a largely servile fashion, and the degree to which they were able to assert their own views and voice disagreements. We can argue that Louisquatorzien ambassadors represented Louis XIV in the first instance and that the King's values, interests and ambitions hence largely defined their manoeuvres. Nevertheless, d'Avaux gained a detailed knowledge of home affairs at foreign courts while receiving only partial information from Louis XIV about his own large-scale international political endeavours. Therefore, d'Avaux's life and career show that an experienced ambassador, who had spent much time far away from Paris and was actively involved in influencing the direction of politics at foreign courts, could develop his own approach and attitude in diplomatic questions.
D'Avaux continued to diligently represent French interests by James II's side in Ireland with his diplomatic and martial expertise. In addition to promoting what he found best for the French crown, he also strived to help James' cause and success against William, as long as these two goals ran parallel to each other. The main issue that d'Avaux faced during this expedition was James' differing aspirations and unwillingness to compromise, or at least to listen to his advice. Thus, the Irish expedition can be called successful in terms of d'Avaux's loyal dedication to serving Louis XIV, but unsuccessful in influencing James II to the extent of fulfilling French interests and restoring his power. To conclude, Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux was one of the most influential, prominent and reliable ambassadors of Louis XIV. He remained a faithful servant of his king during his career. At the same time, however, the evidence suggests that a sufficiently confident and successful diplomat could act with a fair degree of independence in matters of French foreign service.
Manuscript and Archival Sources
Leiden University Libraries — Special Collections, Leiden (UBL): Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, Mémoires de S.E. mr. le comte d' Avaux, ambassadeur extraordinaire de sa majesté trés-Chrétienne, presenté aux États Généraux des Provinces Unies (le 28 avril 1685).
Leiden University Libraries — Special Collections, Leiden (UBL): Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, Négociations de Monsieur le comte d'Avaux en Hollande depuis 1679 jusqu'en 1688, vol. 6 (Paris, 1704).
Nationale Bibliotheek van Nederland — Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague (KL): Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, Négociations de M. le comte d'Avaux en Irlande, 1689–90, Hogan, J. (ed.) (Dublin, 1934).
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica — The BnF digital library, Paris (BnF): Abraham de Wicquefort, L'ambassadeur et ses fonctions. Par Monsieur de Wicquefort, Marteau, P. (ed.) (Cologne, 1690, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k93844c, accessed 08.12.2019.
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica — The BnF digital library, Paris (BnF): Claude de Mesmes, comte d'Avaux, Correspondance inédite du Comte d'Avaux (Claude de Mesmes) avec son père Jean-Jacques de Mesmes, Sr de Roissy (1627–1642), Boppe, A. (ed.) (Paris, 1887), https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9601491s.texteImage, accessed 12.12.2019.
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica — The BnF digital library, Paris (BnF): François de Callières, De la manière de négocier avec les souverains : de l'utilité des négociations, du choix des ambassadeurs et des envoyez, et des qualitez necessaires pour réussir dans ces emplois (Amsterdam, 1716), https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k936753, accessed 08.12.2019.
François Michel Le Tellier de Louvois, Letters of Louvois, Hardré, J. (ed.) (Chapel Hill, 1949).
Correspondance administrative sous le règne de Louis XIV, entre le cabinet du roi, les secrétaires d'état, le chancelier de France, Depping, G. B. (ed.) (Paris, 1855), https://archive.org/details/correspondancead04depp/page/406, accessed 19.12.2019.
Gazette de France, no. 35, 20 August 1695, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57029613.item, accessed 18.12.2019.
Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, A memorial of His Excellency the Earl of Avaux, extraordinary ambassador from the most Christian king; delivered to the States General, concerning the false interpretation, made to be the meanings of his intercepted letter (1684). London: Given at the Hague on 28 February 1684, and reprinted in London for Walter Davis, Early English Books Online (Imgaes reproduced by courtesy of Bodleian Library), https://search.proquest.com/eebo/docview/2240854408/fulltextPDF/B3750F6599ED4111PQ/1?accountid=12045, accessed 12.12.2019.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, Clément, P. (ed.) (Paris, 1863), https://archive.org/details/p2lettresinstruc02colbuoft, accessed 12.12.2019.
Louis-Henri de Loménie, Mémoires de Louis-Henri de Loménie, comte de Brienne, dit le jeune Brienne, Bonnefon, Paul (ed.) (Paris, 1916), https://archive.org/details/memoiresdelouish03brie, accessed 16.12.2019.
Louis Moréri, Le grand dictionnaire historique ou Le mélange curieux de l'histoire sacrée et profane, vol. 7, 3rd ed., Goujet, C-P., & Drouet, É. F. (eds.) (Paris, 1759), https://archive.org/details/MoreriGdDictHist07bnf.pdf, accessed 20.12.2019.
Louis de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon, Les grands écrivains de la France (tome XVII): Saint-Simon. Mémoires, Régnier, A. (ed.) (Paris, 1879), https://archive.org/details/memoiresdesaints17sain, accessed 16.12.2019.
Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis les traités de Westphalie jusqu'à la Révolution française. XXI–XXII: Hollande, André, L., & Bourgeois, É. (eds.) (Paris, 1922–1924).
André, L., Louis XIV et l'Europe (Paris, 1950).
Chappell, C. L., 'Through the Eyes of a Spy: Venom and Value in an Enemy's Report on the Huguenot Emigration', in McKee, J., & Vigne, R. (eds.), The Huguenots: France, exile & diaspora (Brighton, 2013), pp. 77–88.
Clark, G. N., The Dutch Alliance and the War Against French Trade, 1686–1697 (Manchester, 1923).
Côté, M-H., 'What Did It Mean to be a French Diplomat in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries?', Canadian Journal of History — Annales canadiennes d'histoire, 45 (2010), pp. 235–58.
Geyl, P., 'Johan de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland, 1653–72', History – New Series, 20 (1936), pp. 303–19.
Gisselquist, O. N., The French ambassador, Jean-Antoine De Mesmes, Comte D'Avaux, and French diplomacy in The Hague, 1678–1684 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968).
Lynn, J. A., The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667–1714 (London, 1999).
Miller, J., James II (New Haven, 2000).
Ogg, D., Europe in the seventeenth century (London, 1960).
Roosen, W., The Ambassador's craft: a study of the functioning of French ambassadors under Louis XIV (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967).
Roosen, W., 'The True Ambassador: Occupational and Personal Characteristics of the French Ambassador under Louis XIV', European Studies Quarterly, 3 (1973), pp. 121–39.
Setton, K. M., Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the seventeenth century (Philadelphia, 1991).
Symcox, G. W., Louis XIV and the war in Ireland, 1689–1691: A study of his strategic thinking and decision-making (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1967).
Tischer, A., 'Claude de Mesmes, Count d'Avaux (1595–1650): The Perfect Ambassador of the Early 17th Century', International Negotiations, 13 (2008), pp. 197–209.
Van Zuylen Van Nyevelt, S., Court life in the Dutch Republic, 1638–1689 (London & New York, 1906).
Wolf, J. B., Louis XIV (New York, 1968).
Kossmann, E. H., 'The Dutch Republic' in Carsten, F. L. (ed.), The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. V (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 275–300.
Wilkinson, R., Louis XIV, 2nd ed. (London & New York, 2018).
Zeller, G., 'French Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in their European Setting' in Carsten, The New Cambridge Modern History, pp. 198–221.
[1] I would like to thank Dr. Maurits A. Ebben (Institute for History, Leiden University) for his valuable advice in the autumn of 2019 in the course of writing the paper which served as the basis of this article. Figure on the cover page: Hyacinthe Rigaud, Portrait of Jean-Antoine de Mesmes 4th son of Jean-Jacques de Mesmes (France, 1702), Wikimedia Commons, 2019, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Jean-Antoine_de_Mesmes_(1640-1709)_by_Hyacinthe_Rigaud.jpg, accessed 23.12.2019. All translations are the author's own unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Abraham de Wicquefort, L'ambassadeur et ses fonctions. Par Monsieur de Wicquefort, P. Marteau (ed.) (Cologne, 1690, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k93844c, accessed 08.12.2019, p. 6, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica — The BnF digital library, Paris (BnF).
[3] François de Callières, De la manière de négocier avec les souverains (Amsterdam, 1716), https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k936753, accessed 08.12.2019, pp. 85–90, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica — The BnF digital library, Paris (BnF).
[4] W. Roosen, The Ambassador's craft: a study of the functioning of French ambassadors under Louis XIV (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967), p. 106.
[5] O. N. Gisselquist, The French ambassador, Jean-Antoine De Mesmes, Comte D'Avaux, and French diplomacy in The Hague, 1678–1684 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968), pp. 336–60.
[6] The terms 'Dutch Republic' and 'United Provinces (of the Netherlands)' are used to refer to the same territory and political unity in this article.
[7] Gisselquist, The French ambassador, pp. 361–64.
[8] M-H. Côté, 'What Did It Mean to be a French Diplomat in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries?', Canadian Journal of History — Annales canadiennes d'histoire, 45 (2010), pp. 235–58, 242–50.
[9] These countries include the Republic of Venice, the Dutch Republic, Ireland, and the Kingdom of Sweden.
[10] W. Roosen, 'The True Ambassador: Occupational and Personal Characteristics of French Ambassadors under Louis XIV', European History Quarterly, 3 (1973), pp. 121–39, 122.
[11] The présidents à mortier were the principle magistrates of the parlements, the appellate courts of the Ancien Régime. Louis Moréri, Le grand dictionnaire historique ou Le mélange curieux de l'histoire sacrée et profane, vol. 7, 3rd ed., C.-P. Goujet, & É. F. Drouet (eds.) (Paris, 1759), https://archive.org/details/MoreriGdDictHist07bnf.pdf, accessed 20.12.2019, p. 495.
[12] Claude de Mesmes, comte d'Avaux, Correspondance inédite du Comte d'Avaux (Claude de Mesmes) avec son père Jean-Jacques de Mesmes, Sr de Roissy (1627–1642), A. Boppe (ed.) (Paris, 1887), https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9601491s.texteImage, accessed 12.12.2019, pp. 197–99, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica — The BnF digital library, Paris (BnF).
[13] A. Tischer, 'Claude de Mesmes, Count d'Avaux (1595–1650): The Perfect Ambassador of the Early 17th Century', International Negotiations, 13 (2008), pp. 197–209, 203.
[14] The maîtres de requêtes were judicial counselors of the Conseil d'État (Council of State). Gazette de France, no. 35, 20 August 1695, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57029613.item, accessed 18.12.2019, p. 395.
[15] Wicquefort, L'ambassadeur et ses fonctions, p. 77.
[16] '…il ait un noble exteriur & une figure agreable qui lui facilite les moyens de plaire.' in Callières, De la manière de négocier avec les souverains, p. 47.
[17] Louis de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon, Les grands écrivains de la France (tome XVII): Saint-Simon. Mémoires A. Régnier (ed.) (Paris, 1879), https://archive.org/details/memoiresdesaints17sain, p. 100.
[18] 'He was a strong handsome man and good-looking, also brave, and who had honour, strong spirit of the great world, grace, nobility, and a lot of politeness.' Saint-Simon, Les grands écrivains de la France, p. 110.
[19] K. M. Setton, Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the seventeenth century (Philadelphia, 1991), pp. 225–27.
[20] Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, P. Clément (ed.) (Paris, 1863), https://archive.org/details/p2lettresinstruc02colbuoft, accessed 16.12.2019, pp. 660–61.
[21] Colbert, Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, p. 672.
[22] P. Geyl, 'Johan de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland, 1653–72', History – New Series, 20 (1936), pp. 303–19, 311.
[23] Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis les traités de Westphalie jusqu'à la Révolution française. XXI–XXII: Hollande, L. André, & É. Bourgeois (eds.) (Paris, 1922–1924), pp. 344–45.
[24] John B. Wolf, Louis XIV (New York, 1968), pp. 193–211.
[25] André & Bourgeois, Recueil des instructions … Hollande, pp. xxxviiil xl.
[26] '… presence will give much more strength to the assurances.' André & Bourgeois, Recueil des instructions … Hollande, pp. xl–xliii.
[27] André & Bourgeois, Recueil des instructions … Hollande, pp. 396–98.
[28] André & Bourgeois, Recueil des instructions … Hollande, p. 382.
[29] '… in order to be able to support the expenses necessarily attached to this job.' Callières, De la manière de négocier avec les souverains, p. 46.
[30] S. Van Zuylen Van Nyevelt, Court life in the Dutch Republic, 1638–1689 (London & New York, 1906), p. 292.
[31] For instance: Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, Mémoires de S.E. mr. le comte d' Avaux, ambassadeur extraordinaire de sa majesté trés-Chrétienne, presenté aux États Généraux des Provinces Unies (le 28 avril 1685), Leiden University Libraries – Special Collections, Leiden (UBL).
[32] For example, during James II of England's Irish campaign where he worked as the king's advisor. D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 30 August 1689 in Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, Négociations de M. le comte d'Avaux en Irlande, 1689–90, J. Hogan (ed.) (Dublin, 1934), p. 428, Nationale Bibliotheek van Nederland – Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague (KL).
[33] Gisselquist, The French ambassador, pp. 9–10.
[34] François Michel Le Tellier de Louvois, Letters of Louvois, J. Hardré (ed.) (Chapel Hill, 1949), pp. 365–66.
[35] 'M. d'Avaux is a nice and very easy-going genius; he has great views, a lot of understanding, and a great use of business. He knows the interests of the princes of Europe perfectly, writes and speaks well. He would be very worthy of being secretary of state.' Louis-Henri de Loménie, Mémoires de Louis-Henri de Loménie, comte de Brienne, dit le jeune Brienne, P. Bonnefon (ed.) (Paris, 1916), https://archive.org/details/memoiresdelouish03brie, accessed 16.12.2019, pp. 261–62.
[36] D. Ogg, Europe in the seventeenth century (London, 1960), p. 293.
[37] Correspondance administrative sous le règne de Louis XIV, entre le cabinet du roi, les secrétaires d'état, le chancelier de France, G. B. Depping (ed.) (Paris, 1855), https://archive.org/details/correspondancead04depp/page/406, accessed 19.12.2019, p. 406.
[38] C. L. Chappell, 'Through the Eyes of a Spy: Venom and Value in an Enemy's Report on the Huguenot Emigration', in J. McKee, & R. Vigne (eds.), The Huguenots: France, exile & diaspora (Brighton, 2013), pp. 77–88, 81–84.
[39] D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 20 July 1688 in Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux, Négociations de Monsieur le comte d'Avaux en Hollande depuis 1679 jusqu'en 1688, vol. 6 (Paris, 1704), pp. 168–69, Leiden University Libraries – Special Collections, Leiden (UBL).
[40] 'I warn the King, for the tenth time, that everything that is going on in the greatest secrecy in the Council of the King of England has been revealed to the Prince of Orange.' D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 24 June 1688 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Hollande…, p. 164.
[41] J. Miller, James II (New Haven, 2000), pp. 186–96.
[42] G. N. Clark, The Dutch Alliance and the War Against French Trade, 1686–1697 (Manchester, 1923), p. 1.
[44] A memorial of His Excellency the Earl of Avaux, extraordinary ambassador from the most Christian king; delivered to the States General, concerning the false interpretation, made to be the meanings of his intercepted letter (1684). London: Given at the Hague on 28 February 1684, and reprinted in London for Walter Davis, Early English Books Online (Images reproduced by courtesy of Bodleian Library), https://search.proquest.com/eebo/docview/2240854408/fulltextPDF/B3750F6599ED4111PQ/1?accountid=12045, accessed 12.12.2019.
[45] 'The ministers of the King of England said that their master would have a large fleet at sea: this served as an excuse for the Prince of Orange to make a greater armament, for he was far from fearing anything, since it was assured that the King of England was not in a condition to apply more than seven to eight ships. (…) That supposing that the Prince of Orange had all these designs, I was obliged to tell His Majesty that he found no help in the Estates-General, that all the fugitives from France had invigorated the Calvinists of Holland so much that one would not dare to promise that the States would join their genuine interests, as they would have done in the past, if such an opportunity had risen.' D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 10 June 1688 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Hollande…, vol. 6, pp. 160–62.
[46] L. André, Louis XIV et l'Europe (Paris, 1950), pp. 256–57.
[47] J. A. Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667–1714 (London, 1999), p 203.
[48] G. W. Symcox, Louis XIV and the war in Ireland, 1689–1691: A study of his strategic thinking and decision-making (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1967), pp. 97–98.
[49] 'So that not only the Irish Catholics… can hope that he will do justice to them, but also that the Protestants… can be assured, that the difference of their religion will not do any harm to them by him.' Louis XIV to d'Avaux on 12 March 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 31–32.
[50] 'The only thing, Sir, that can hurt us, is the irresolution of the King of England, who often changes his mind, and is not always determined to the best. He also stops a lot at little things where he always takes his time and spends it lightly on the most essential [things].' D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 23 March 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 23.
[51] Symcox, Louis XIV and the war in Ireland, 1689–1691: A study of his strategic thinking and decision-making, p. 106.
[52] '… the King of England has no correspondence in England, nor in Scotland.' D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 4 April 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 50.
[53] 'The people and the nobility of Ireland are also convinced that this is the only opportunity they can have to regain their freedom…' D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 4 April 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 50.
[54] D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 14 April 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 50–54.
[55] D'Avaux to Louvois on 16 April 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 77.
[56] D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 6 May 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 111.
[57] D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 27 May 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 183–85.
[58] Louis XIV to d'Avaux on 24 May 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 239; Louvois to d'Avaux on 13th June 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 271–72.
[59] D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 6 August 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 341–42.
[60] D'Avaux to Louis XIV on 14 August 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 378–79.
[61] Louis XIV to d'Avaux on 29 June 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, pp. 409–10.
[62] Louvois to d'Avaux on 11 November 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 585.
[63] '…. he is not strong enough to bear the weight of the matters he is in charge of.' D'Avaux to Croissy on 22 December 1689 in d'Avaux, Négociations… en Irlande…, p. 618.
[64] Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667-1714, p. 253.
[65] Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667-1714, pp. 267-70.
https://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Article-photo-2.jpg 387 555 mhradmin http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Picture4-300x300.png mhradmin2021-05-20 10:43:022021-05-20 10:56:16The Perfect Ambassador? The Life and Career of the Early Modern French Diplomat Jean-Antoine de Mesmes d'Avaux (1640–1709)
'The cruel queen her thrall let slip': Boundaries of Female Agency in the Ynglinga Saga
28th June 2018 /in Archive, Conference Paper, Medieval, Volume 2 - 2018 /by mhradmin
'The cruel queen her thrall let slip': Boundaries of Female Agency in the Ynglinga Saga Introduction The Old Norse sagas, written primarily in Iceland and Norway in the thirteenth century, represent a unique branch of Medieval European literature. They are distinct in that they are mostly written in the vernacular rather than Latin, but also for […]
https://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Snorre_Sturluson-Christian_Krohg.jpg 916 612 mhradmin http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Picture4-300x300.png mhradmin2018-06-28 15:00:352018-12-06 14:30:31'The cruel queen her thrall let slip': Boundaries of Female Agency in the Ynglinga Saga