MARLBOROUGH AS IMPERIAL PRINCE,1704-1717

PETER BARBER

E A R L Y in June 1704, as the campaign that was to culminate in the victory ofBlenheim-Hochstadt was gaining momentum, Johann Wenzel, Count Wratislaw vonMistrowitz, the Imperial ambassador at the English court, who was accompanying theAllied armies on their march to the Danube, suggested in a confidential letter to hismaster. Emperor Leopold I, that the Duke of Marlborough should be created a princeof the Holy Roman Empire. In his reply the Emperor agreed it would be 'nothig undconvenient', confessing that he had come to the same conclusion as it had become evermore likely that the Duke would, with God's help, become the saviour of the Emperor,the Habsburg dynasty, and indeed the Empire itself from invasion by the French andtheir Bavarian allies. Such an honour was the greatest that it was in the Emperor'spower to bestow and, to make it plain it would not be a 'blosse Apparenz', Leopoldinstructed Wratislaw to suggest some lands in Germany which could be bestowed onthe Duke as a fief.^

This did indeed make all the difference. Over the previous eighty years many loyalservants of the Habsburgs had been given the title of prince of the Empire, buthowever rich they were, so long as they possessed no fiefs in the Empire, they wereconsidered internationally to rank little above Imperial knights because of their anomalousstatus. The possession of an Imperial fief did not, indeed, render its ruler a truesovereign. All German princes could, for instance, according to the constitutions ofthe Empire, be dispossessed under certain circumstances by the Emperor with theconsent of the electors, none could create aristocrats above the grade of baron, and allwere, to greater or lesser extents, subjected to the authority of Imperial institutionssuch as the Imperial and local (Kreis) diets, the Imperial law courts (the Reichshofratin Vienna and Reichskammergericht in Wetzlar), and to the Imperial Chancery in Vienna,as well as to the Emperor who was the suzerain of them all and from whom each hadto receive an investiture before legally taking possession of their lands. Nevertheless,an Imperial fief did bring with it the right to a seat and vote at the Imperial dietwhere, however minute the fief, one's representative could vote on a basis of equahtywith the representatives of crowned heads with lands in the Empire. It was the closestto royal status that a person of non-royal birth could normally get in the stable,

46

hierarchic society of seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century western Europe.Accordingly, many a mere titular count or prince, such as the heads of the Liechtenstein,Dietrichstein, Auersperg, Schwarzenburg, and Lobkowitz families, who were amongstthe greatest landowners inside the Habsburg domains, had been prepared to expendsubstantial sums on purchasing the smallest, rockiest, and least productive stretches ofland, so long as they were, or could be argued to be, fiefs of the Empire.^

The Habsburgs used their prerogative of creating princes as an instrument of policy.The loyalty of their ministers, such as Johann Wieckhard Auersperg (1615-77), andtheir generals, such as Wallenstein, was retained and, it was believed, the services ofpotentially useful individuals from outside the hereditary lands of the Habsburgs couldbe won, through the judicious award of titles and Imperial fiefs.^ The decision to createMarlborough a prince of the Empire, too, was not prompted only by the gratitudewhich the Emperor and Empire owed him for his past achievements, which in June1704 were relatively few. It was 'nothig und convenient' because it was hoped it wouldhelp to retain his support for the dynasty for the foreseeable future. As Wratislawstressed in his letters to the Emperor, Marlborough alone was capable of controllingthe Dutch, who were rightly suspected of being ready to make peace with the Bourbonsat the expense of Habsburg interests in Italy, and he would undoubtedly continue toplay a major part in the conduct of the war and of the peace negotiations when theycame.'''

The Emperor, then, had good reasons of his own for making Marlborough a prince.But the Duke, too, had good practical reasons for wishing it, reasons far removed fromsimple vanity. Of course he was flattered, believing it was a unique distinction for anEnglishman, and thus almost an honour to the Queen and the nation itself, and anoutstanding demonstration of favour from the first ruler in Europe in point ofprecedence.^ Immeasurably more important, however, was the consideration that thepossession of a near-sovereignty of his own would vastly enhance his authority withhis continental military subordinates, many of whom came of old aristocratic or princelystock, and with the many kings and princes with whom he was continuously negotiating.It would thus contribute considerably to the effective conduct of the Allies' war effort.^Similar considerations made Orange particularly precious to William III , who wouldotherwise have simply been an office-holder in a republic, the lowest form of nationalorganization, and, later, an elected king, which was considered little better byconventionally-minded European contemporaries. "

After learning of the Emperor's intention, Marlborough exerted continuous pressurefor title and lands on Wratislaw whose letters to Leopold emphasized that the Duke's'vornehmstes Verlangen' was a seat and vote in the Imperial diet 'sammt dem TitelDurchlaucht', and that it was essential ('unumganglich') to satisfy him in the Emperor'sown interests.^ In public, however, Marlborough, hoping to disarm the likely criticismfrom his closest associates as well as his domestic enemies, presented a face of cautionsurprise, and reluctance. When informing his wife Sarah, and closest ally, the LordTreasurer, Lord Godolphin, who were both indifferent and even hostile to titles, of

47

the proposed honour on 15 June—five days before the date of the Emperor's letterquoted earlier—the Duke emphasized that his acceptance would be entirely dependenton their opinion and the Queen's consent. As for himself he wanted the matter deferreduntil 'the business of 159 [the Elector of Bavaria] is over'.^ Following his victory onthe Schellenburg near Donauworth on 2 July, he continued in the same vein—assuringSarah that he had 'no thought that this should either chang his name or rank in 11[England]'^^—while Leopold was made to instruct the Imperial resident in London,Hoffman, to formally request the Queen's consent to the bestowal of the honour. ^This was given at an audience in Hampton Court on 3 August, ^ but the Duchess,Godolphin, and the senior Secretary of State, Robert Harley, remained unreconciledand wanted the grant to be deferred until at least the end of the campaign. ^

This stung Marlborough into further action. Taking advantage of his fresh victoryat Blenheim-Hochstadt (13 August), he suggested to Wratislaw that Leopold shouldwrite him a letter bestowing the princely style, naming the lands from which he wasto take the title, and stating that the magnitude of the Duke's recent victories wassufficient to dispense him (the Emperor) from having to wait further for the Queen'sreply to his request for permission. '^ Meanwhile he represented himself to Sarah andGodolphin as 'speaking to Comte Wratislaw that a delay might be put to the Emperor'sintentions concerning me'—as they wished—but as being told by the Count that, inthe light of the Queen's consent, 'it is no more in my power to refuse', without riskof offending the Emperor himself. ^

When the desired letter from Leopold, dated 28 August, came to his hands in themiddle of September, however, Marlborough was dissatisfied.^^ The Emperor had notnamed the principality nor sent a circular letter to the other princes of the Empire onthe subject as he ought to have done. Worst of all he had absent-mindedly signed theletter in the wrong place, so that the original could not be shown, as Marlborough hadintended, to the doubters in England. Wratislaw was ordered to procure a new letterwhile the Duke, making the best of a bad job, confidentially sent Godolphin a copyof the letter with the comment that he had been 'very much surprised . . . that sucha step should be made before I had the least notice'. ^

The rewritten letter took a long time to come despite Marlborough's complaints toVienna, by way of Wratislaw, that, with reports of his new honour circulating throughoutEurope, without any concrete steps being taken, he was being made a *wunderhcheFigur in der Welt'.^^ Wratislaw, too, urged that speed and graciousness were of theessence—more important even than the size or quality of the fief itself—'quia, qui citodat, bis dat'.^^ The rewritten letter, dated 28 August like its predecessor, was handedto Marlborough on 11 November. No principality was named, but Leopold did affirmhis intention of finding one that would qualify the Duke for a vote on the Imperialdiet, and Marlborough feh the letter could be circulated in England. Passing a copyon to Harley, the Duke explained that Wratislaw had delayed handing him the letter,as though it really was of 28 August, until then because the Austrian was 'sensiblehow little I was inclined to accept the dignity intended me'.^o When, however, during

48

his visit to the Allied camp at Weissenburg in Bavaria a few weeks earlier, GeorgeStepney, the British envoy in Vienna and probably the greatest British expert on theworkings of the German constitution, had tried to persuade the Duke rather 'to lettthe thing dropp, than to pursue the Error to farr', there had been no response. ^

Despite the Duke's delight that his princely title had been confirmed by the Emperor,a year was to pass before he received the patents for the title and principality andanother year before his representative took his seat in the Imperial diet's college ofprinces. For it proved unexpectedly difficult to find a fief that the Emperor was preparedto give and Marlborough to accept.

The Habsburgs rarely endowed princes they had created, partly for tacticalreasons—by spinning out their concessions they could enjoy the benefits of theirgenerosity, in terms of the new prince's loyalty and services, all the longer—and partlybecause of the lack of available lands from which principalities could be carved withoutprejudicing the dynasty's vital interests inside the Empire.^^ The Habsburg lands inGermany, collectively known as Further Austria ('Vorderosterreich'), were the onlysources from which fiefs could be granted without depriving other princes or withoutthe expenditure of money that the barren Habsburg treasury simply did not have. Thelands fell into three broad groups: those on either side of the Rhine, in Alsace and theBlack Forest; some small towns along the Danube; and a scattering of lordships andrights centred on the Burgau in Swabia. Included in these groups was much of theHabsburgs' patrimony: areas which had been owned by the family even before theycame into possession of Tirol and the Austrian duchies in the late thirteenth century.These, *la premiere base et fondement de cette maison' were considered inalienable.^^Marlborough would, in any case, hardly have been satisfied with lands in Alsace thathad been lost to France in a series of treaties since 1648. The lands on the Rhine(Breisgau) and Swabia, however, were far too strategically placed for there to be anyquestion of their sacrifice. Breisgau bordered on France, the Swabian lands on theheartlands of the Habsburgs' old rivals, the Bavarian Wittelsbachs. The rivalry wentback to the fourteenth century and had long been centred on this area, with theHabsburgs trying unsuccessfully since the early seventeenth century to prevent Bavarianexpansion west of the river Lech by bolstering the power of lesser South Germanrulers and the Imperial free cities, and by increasing their own holdings and those oftheir surrogates.^ The prize of success would be great indeed. If the BavarianWittelsbachs could not actually be removed from Bavaria—and the Habsburgs ferventlyhoped they could—then confining them to Bavaria would enable the Habsburg dynasty,in the first place, and Imperial authority, hand in hand, to dominate the region.

These considerations left only a few areas available as possible fiefs for Marlborough.Wratislaw, however, seems not, at first, to have been too concerned at this. On hearinghe was to be created a prince, Marlborough had expressed the hope to his wife Sarahthat he 'would never want the income of the land, which noe doubt will be but littlenor enjoye the privilidge of German assembles',^^ and judging from the Austrianambassador's later words to the Emperor and, on his return to Vienna, to Stepney

49

the Duke seems to have spoken to Wratislaw in the same vein. Wratislaw seems genuinelyto have believed that Marlborough 'did not desire any place of value and would besatisfyed with any that might give . . . only session and vote at the Diette'.^^ Furthermore,Wratislaw envisaged that the principality should initially be granted as a male fief whichon his death, since he had no surviving sons, would revert to the Habsburgs, thuspreserving the dynasty's position inside Germany. Only if the English general renderedfurther services might the grant be extended to his daughters and their descendants.At first, however, the principality would be 'mehr ein Namen als Etwas in sichselbsten'^^—little more than the 'unseasonable Compliment' that Stepney thought hadbeen intended all along.^^

Marlborough had other ideas and gradually made it plain, to the dismay of Wratislawand his colleagues, that he was 'stedfastly resolv'd to accept of nothing till the Emperorbe in a condition of doing what may be consistent with my honour and Reputation athome and abroad'. Even then he was 'positively resolved to accept of nothing that mayadmit of the least dispute or give any manner of uneasiness' and wished the 'Grantmay be for a female Fief as . . . most suitable to my circumstances'.^^

As early as August 1704 the Duke seems to have hinted to Wratislaw that the Burgau,in whole or in part, would make a suitable principality on the assumption, which throwsinteresting light on his view of his own importance, that since the Emperor had beenprepared to offer it to the Elector of Bavaria to dissuade him from invading theHabsburgs' hereditary lands, he would be prepared to present it to Marlborough forhaving saved them. This, however, was out of the question, and the Duke acceptedWratislaw's somewhat lame excuse, given that the Habsburg family counted three malesin all and the increasingly evident dominance of Leopold's eldest son, Joseph, over hisfather and brother, that it was not in the Emperor's power to alienate any part of theBurgau 'without the consent of the King of Spain and the whole House of Austria,which might take up a great deal of time'.^°

When Wratislaw suggested land in Silesia, it was Marlborough's turn to reject it—therewere doubts whether Silesian lordships were entitled to votes in the Imperial diet ^—while the obvious solution of lands in Bavaria which had been confiscated from the ElectorMax Emmanuel and was said to have been favoured by many of the ministers inVienna, was also rejected because, in Wratislaw's words, 'ce teritoire n'estoit point unechose sure, et . . . vos envieux en Angeltere pouroit debiter que vous n'avez enterpriscette expedition que par la vue des vos interests particuliers'.^^ A suggestion forwardedfrom England caused Marlborough briefly to consider Donauworth in Swabia, the siteof his victory of 2 July 1704 and a former free Imperial city which had been annexedby Bavaria in 1607.^^ But he rapidly dismissed the idea, without having it proposedin Vienna 'since it would involve me in a perpetuall brangell':^ Vienna was determinedit should again be an Imperial city and the Swabian Circle was trying to sell it as aprincipality to raise funds for its war effort.^^

At the end of 1704 the Viennese ministers finally made the formal offer of one oftheir towns on the Danube, Munderkingen, which the Emperor could dispose of'entirely

50

and without dispute'. Stepney and Wratislaw emphasized that, despite its size, it wouldgive the Duke the all-important seat on the Imperial diet, but Stepney's descriptionof it as 'a very inconsiderable ruinous Town which with much ado may be found inthe Map of Suabia on this side the Danube about 7 german miles above Ulm', wasenough to decide the Duke. "^ Even before learning that the town's income, at 500-600Gulden (about £70) a year was not equal to the dues its prince would normally beexpected to pay, " Marlborough wrote to Wratislaw that he could not accept Munder-kingen as a principality since to do so 'me feroit tord dans l'opinion du monde et memedans l'estime de l'Empereur'. Making good an old threat the Duke insisted, somewhatsulkily, that the matter be deferred to 'une occasion plus favorable et jusques a ce queles Ministres croyent que mes services auront merites quelque chose de plus que MunterKingen'.^^ Throughout the following months the Duke refused to be moved from thisposition,^^ though in March 1705, in the closing weeks of Emperor Leopold's reign,he was secretly offered the territory of Weert in Limburg which had been ruled byMax Emmanuel's brother, the Elector of Cologne and Bishop of Liege, who had alsobeen deprived of his lands following the Allied victories of 1704.'^ This Marlboroughrefused, in part at least, because the land was heavily in pawn to some Dutch merchants."^"^

At about the time of Leopold I's death and Joseph's accession to the Imperial throneon 5 May 1705, the lordship of Mindelheim first came into consideration as a possibleprincipality (fig. i). Measuring approximately fifteen miles from north to south and,at its broadest, from east to west, it lay in Upper Swabia, where there was a greatconcentration of small lordships and counties, several of which were already owned bythe Emperor or Austrian families. The land was rolhng and fertile with woods, wellstocked with game, covering large portions of it, though as these lay some distancefrom the rivers and streams, notably the Mindel which gave its name to the town andlordship, the wood could not be properly exploited. The main produce of the population,which was roughly estimated at about two thousand, was grain, much of which wasconverted into beer, though there was also a declining cloth industry, some saltpetre,which was farmed out for 15 Gulden (about £2) a year, some fish ponds, and theincome from various tolls which, unusually for the eighteenth century, were not farmed

The lordship counted thirty-three villages and the walled town of Mindelheim, withan estimated 230 (male) burghers, and, on a nearby hill, the Mindelburg castle which,by 1705, had decayed and was being used as a granary (fig. 2). Mindelheim was thenas now a pretty place, consisting 'chiefly of a long, clean, well built street with freshwater running in the middle of it'." ^ Apart from the town hall and recently repairedbailiff's house (the seigneurs not having resided in Mindelheim for centuries), therewere also two convents, one of Cordelier nuns and one of six English Mary Wardnuns, who had been established there in 1701 and whose successors are still activetoday as teachers of girls, and a house of twenty Jesuits with a splendid baroque churchand college erected between 1649 and 1671, and a school for boys. The Jesuits hadrecently acquired the valuable hbrary of the former ruler of Mindelheim, Max Phihp

51

of Bavaria, Landgrave of Leuchtenburg, from his widow.^Like most of Upper Swabia,Mindelheim was sohdly Catholic.

Max Philip, 'a frugal and wise prince', in Stepney's opinion, who frequently rodefrom his residence at Tiirkheim, three hours away, to inspect the lordship's accounts,had trained his administrators, numbering eleven in all, *to be as honest sober andcarefuU men as are to be found in any part of Germany',"*"^ and the annual revenues,clear of expenses, were generally estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000 Gulden (about£2,000), a good figure for a minor principality, let alone a lordship."^ The extent ofthe revenues depended on the harvest, on the price of corn, and on whether therewere troops in the vicinity, on their way to or from Italy or the Swabian battlefields.Mindelheim could reap a healthy income if they could be got to pay for the food theyconsumed, but prevented from quartering themselves on the population or demandingfinancial 'contributions' in return for not doing so."* * Since 1699, however, thanks largelyto the efforts of Johann Anton Meyer or Mayr, the local judge (Landvogt), 'a youngbrisk fellow', Mindelheim had been kept free of large concentrations of troops, andMeyer had consequently 'very much gained the Good Will of the country'."^

Since its foundation until 1616, Mindelheim had been ruled by the Mindelberg(Schwigger), Hochschlitz, Teck, Rechberg, Frundsberg, Maxlrain, and Fugger families(fig. 3), with the succession passing through the female line on several occasions, andsince the creation of the circle (Kreis) system of local government at the turn of thefifteenth and sixteenth centuries, its ruler had been represented on the Swabian benchof counts and barons, one of the five benches of the Swabian diet or Kreistag. Earlyin the seventeenth century it became an object of interest to both the Habsburgs andWittelsbachs because of its strategic position bordering both on the Burgau, to thenorth, and the old Bavarian Wittelsbach fief of Schwabegg, which lay west of the RiverLech, to the east. In Bavarian hands it would have formed a substantial bridgeheadfor further Bavarian expansion into Swabia. In Habsburg hands it would form, withBurgau, as substantial an obstacle. In 1616 the Duke of Bavaria, taking advantage ofa dispute over the succession that had been dragging on for over twenty years, occupiedthe lordship by force of arms, consolidating his hold later by purchasing it from theprincipal claimant, Christoph Fugger. So precious had the possession of Mindelheimbeen to the Duke that he later boasted he had spent a million Gulden on its acquisition,but the true value was about a fifth of that figure.''"^

The Habsburgs had been unable to prevent this, but on 8 July 1614 EmperorMatthias issued a patent establishing the eventual right of his family to succeed toMindelheim. In 1617 this was amended to enable the Habsburgs to succeed on theextinction of the Bavarian Wittelsbachs. This expectative was of doubtful legality fromthe first since it rested on the incorrect assumption that the lordship was a directImperial fief because certain judicial and financial rights ('Blutbann, Forst und ZoU')depended on the Empire. Nevertheless, the expectative was confirmed by all succeedingemperors in 1623, 1637, and 1663. As early as 1669 Ferdinand Maria, Elector of Bavaria,had thought of pawning Mindelheim to his younger brother. Max Philip, for 200,000

54

Fig. J. Arms of the rulers of Mindelheim from the fourteenth century, including Marlborough,from Imhoff's genealogical proof of the female succession, 1707-8, Add. MS. 61344, fol. 99

Gulden, but it was only in 1686 that the new elector. Max Emmanuel, who had succeededhis father in 1679, bestowed it, as a secondary Bavarian fief, for life, on his uncle. Eventhen he thought fit to take back his gift between 1694 and 1699. Max Philip, who hadbeen created Landgrave of Leuchtenberg, was not lacking ambition himself and,intending to found a junior Wittelsbach line in Swabia, he acquired considerable landthere, apart from Mindelheim, in 1666 (Schwabegg with Tiirkheim), 1679 (Mattsies),1689 (Angelberg), and 1697 (Amberg), having persuaded the Emperor to bestowSchwabegg on him as a county and Imperial fief in 1688. After much heart-searchingand probably under the influence of his wife, Maurizia Febronia nie de la Tourd'Auvergne, a daughter of Frederick Maurice, Duke of Bouillon, and, as a cousin ofWilliam III, in Stepney's words, 'not much addicted to the french interest', he haddeclared his lands neutral rather than follow his nephews into the French camp duringthe War of the Spanish Succession. This had left his lands more or less unharmed bythe war—though Landvogt Meyer's diligence had been necessary to ensure this—and the rulers of neighbouring, less happy, lands had found refuge in the town of Mindel-heim as the war raged around them—Donauworth and Hochstadt were relatively close. °

On 20 March 1705 Max Philip died childless. His lands would normally have devolvedon Max Emmanuel, but since he, his children, and his unmarried brother, who werethe sole surviving Bavarian Wittelsbachs, were in the process of being placed underthe ban of the Empire, Joseph and his ministers decided to bring the Habsburgs'expectative into effect. ^ The 'musty pretension'^^ on Mindelheim of the Bishop ofAugsburg in the name of his chapter which had been before the Reichskammergerichtsince at least 1642, was ignored, the Bishop being persuaded not to raise it at thattime." It was a God-given opportunity to strengthen Habsburg power in Swabia atthe expense of the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, and Vienna was determined to exploit it.Mindelheim was declared to be an Imperial fief that had returned to direct Imperialrule, and on 27 April 1705 three local noblemen in Habsburg employ, Franz MaximilianEusebius, Count Konigsegg-Aulendorf, president of the Imperial provincial council atWeingarten, Franz, Freiherr von Volmar, lord of Rieden an der Koetz and GrandBailiff of Burgau, and Johann Joseph, Freiherr von Imhoff auf Meitingen, the ChiefForester of Burgau, took possession of the lordship in the Emperor's name. Max Philip'sGrand Bailiff, Baron von Zimt, who had formerly represented Max Emmanuel at theImperial diet in Regensburg, was replaced by Volmar and Imhoff, but otherwise nochanges were made in the administration. The Landgravine's appeal of June 1705 forrestitution, on the grounds that Mindelheim had been left her in her husband's will,was dismissed. Though she was allowed to retain her husband's lands around Tiirkheim,these too would revert to Imperial control on her death. "

If Joseph was determined not to allow the Bavarian Wittelsbachs back into Swabia,it was also plain that the direct presence of the Habsburgs there would only add tothe problems they already had in Hungary and Bavaria, which were in full-scale revoltagainst them, in addition to the strains of their war against the Bourbons. For theSwabian lords, abbots, and minor princes, while they looked to the Emperor as Emperor

56

for protection against the encroachments of larger princes such as the rulers ofWiirttemberg, Baden, and Bavaria, were also suspicious of Habsburg ambitions in thearea. They particularly feared that the acquisition of Mindelheim, by giving theHabsburgs the seat on the Kreistag that they had previously lacked, despite theirSwabian holdings which legally formed part of the Austrian Kreis, would open the wayfor Habsburg domination of Swabia. ^

From the Emperor's standpoint, the bestowal on the Duke of Marlborough ofMindelheim as a principality must have seemed an ideal solution. Marlborough would,at last, acquire lands and an income commensurate with his dignity, as perceived byhimself. For ninety years earlier Mindelheim had been considered sufficiently large andwealthy to make a principality in its own right^^ and comparison with other principalitiesbeing created at the time, such as Liechtenstein, was in its favour, except in point ofgeographical size. The Austrians would thus be able to eliminate a cause of bad bloodbetween themselves and the most prominent English leader without loss to themselves.Moreover, it would give the Duke an interest in supporting the ban and deprivationthat was to be pronounced on Max Emmanuel, about which he had initially beenhesitant." Most important of all, if Mindelheim was conferred on the Duke as anAustrian male subfief, it was likely to revert peaceably to the Habsburgs at a later,more tranquil period. In the interim, Marlborough, like most of the smaller, absenteeAustrian lords and princes in Swabia, would in all probability prove a loyal supporterof Imperial policy at the local and Imperial diets.

The actual process of placing the Duke in possession of Mindelheim, too, was likelyto further Imperial objectives in Germany. The bulk of German rulers would bereluctant to give the appearance of snubbing so powerful a figure by opposing the grantof Mindelheim on seemingly trivial constitutional grounds. But by accepting it withoutquibble they would also appear to be accepting the otherwise hotly disputed pointsthat Mindelheim was an Imperial fief in itself and that the Habsburgs consequentlyhad a right to it at all, and secondly that the ban on the Elector of Bavaria was valideven though the Emperor had not first consulted the college of princes of the Imperialdiet.^^ Both points had important implications for other instances of the same kind.

First, however, Vienna was determined to enjoy direct possession of Mindelheimfor as long as possible, and certainly until Marlborough had proved himself worthy ofsomething better than Munderkingen or Weert. In the autumn and winter of 1705-6the Duke organized an English loan of £250,000 to finance Prince Eugene of Savoy'scampaign in Italy in the next year.^^ The loan's importance can be gauged fromthe consequences of that campaign: the expulsion of the French from Italy and theestablishment of Austrian hegemony in northern Italy that was to endure until the1860S. In its quiet way the loan was as significant as the victory at Hochstadt-Blenheim,and on his arrival in Vienna on 12 November 1705 with the promise that it would bepaid, the Emperor ordered patents to be prepared formally registering the Duke'screation and that of all his descendants of both sexes as princes and princesses of theEmpire, raising Mindelheim to the status of a free and direct ('freie und ohnmittelbare')

57

principality of the Empire, entitling its prince to a seat and vote on the Imperial aswell as Circle diets and bestowing Mindelheim on the new prince.^

It is the last of these patents which merits particular attention. Unlike the other twowhich, if one accepts that Mindelheim was an Imperial fief, were quite correctly issuedby the Imperial Chancery in Vienna, this last one was issued by the Court Chanceryin Vienna. This procedure showed that the Emperor continued to regard Mindelheim,despite its grant to Marlborough, as a continuing part of the Habsburg lands in Germanywhich were administered from Innsbruck. It also enabled the Emperor to impose severerestrictions on the Duke's tenure, without needing to take the sensibilities of otherGerman princes, whose influence was strong in the Imperial Chancery as well as inthe Imperial diet, into account. Disregarding the female succession that had prevailedin the past, the principality was declared a male fief that would revert to the Habsburgson Marlborough's death. In view of the new ruler's Protestantism, the rights ofecclesiastical patronage, nomination, and presentation were withheld and he was for-bidden to prejudice the rights and position of the Catholic Church. Most insulting of all,though it was a natural consequence of subfeudation, the Duke was forbidden the right,in case of legal disputes, to appeal direct to the Imperial Aulic Council (Reichshofrat)in Vienna, the privilege of any prince with an Imperial investiture, being constrainedfirst to appeal to the Habsburg courts in Innsbruck. Such a stipulation, though in linewith Habsburg policy in Swabia over the past half-century,^^ was derogatory to thedignity of German princes as a whole, and, as Stepney argued, diminished the Duke'sauthority over his subjects who might tend to regard him merely as 'un Cavalierparticulier. Vasal d'Autriche'.^^ No German prince, however powerful, was a sovereignby virtue of his German lands alone. Marlborough was to be considerably, insultinglyless.

Mindelheim's status was contradictory since, as Stepney and the Duke's Germanadvisers pointed out, a principality could not legally be simultaneously a direct Imperialfief and an Austrian subfief.' • This the Emperor could have avoided by renouncinghis family's claim, as he actually did in 1714,*^ and entrusting the drafting of the patentof investiture to the Reichskanzlei. Furthermore, because of doubts over the validityof the ban on Bavaria and Cologne, and the claims of Augsburg, the legahty ofMarlborough's tenure of Mindelheim was problematical. At least two of the conditionsthat the Duke had made before accepting a principality, security and the femalesuccession, had been infringed and, to a great extent, the third, dignity, too. YetMarlborough accepted these limitations without a murmur after the second CourtChancellor, Count Sinzendorf, refused to give serious consideration to Stepney's privatecomplaints in late January 1706. ^

One can only speculate that the Duke's anxiety to finally secure the vote on theImperial diet and the income from Mindelheim, combined with a desire to bring thewearisome negotiation for a principahty to a conclusion, outweighed his repugnance atthe conditions of the grant. The embarrassing judicial provisions were unlikely in theextreme to be activated in practice, the religious ones caused him no concern, and, as

58

for the female succession, he could hardly press the Emperor to grant it for hisprincipality when his own Queen had not yet granted it for his English dukedom.Moreover, he needed to be tactful towards the Habsburgs. Hovering on the horizonwas the prospect of the governor-generalship of the Southern Netherlands which layin the gift of the Emperor's younger brother, the Allied pretender to the Spanishthrone. This could at one step render Marlborough the effective ruler of an importantpart of Europe. Next to this prize, restrictions on his tenure of Mindelheim must havedwindled into total insignificance. The Duke was punctilious about the formalities thathad to be observed before he could enjoy even the limited benefits bestowed on himby the Imperial patents. First, his representative had to take official possession ofMindelheim. Stepney was appointed the Duke's deputy^^and placed in over-all chargeof the preliminary negotiations because he was 'on the spot',^^ collaborating with BaronStaffhorst, who as first minister to the Duke of Wiirttemberg was in the vicinity of,and familiar with, Mindelheim.^^ In Vienna the Hanoverian Resident, Huldenberg, agreat expert on Imperial affairs, who was said to have the ear of the ministers and'beaucoup d'acces a la Cour',^^ which Stepney had forfeited through his partisanshipfor the Hungarian rebels and hostihty to Wratislaw, lent further assistance. °

The Chancery in Innsbruck took charge of the drafting of all the documents, includingMarlborough's full powers for Stepney and for Ferdinand Karl, Count Fiegher vonFriedberg und Hirschberg, the Chief Huntsman of Tirol, who was to take the investiturein Innsbruck in the Duke's name, and the Revers in which Marlborough undertook toaccept the obligations laid on him in the patent of investiture.^^ These documents hadbeen drafted, sent to Stepney for consideration, translation, and dispatch to Marlboroughfor signature, and signed by him and returned to Vienna by late February. "^ Twomonths, however, lapsed before Fiegher could formally take the investiture, in exchangefor the Revers, in Innsbruck, on Monday, 26 April 1706, because of the tardiness ofthe Viennese in commenting on and returning documents to Innsbruck. ^ Meanwhile,however. Stepney had much to supervise. The patents and Revers had to be writtenout and embellished in form. ' Huldenberg wrote a brief history of Mindelheim,emphasizing the female succession it had enjoyed in the past.^^ A map of the principalitywas executed on the basis of a sketch and information supplied to the Duke while inVienna. ^ Stepney ruminated on striking a medal to commemorate the Duke's takingpossession and, most important of all, a broad seal, incorporating the heraldic bell ofMindelheim as an escutcheon of pretence, was prepared for the use of the administratorthere (fig. 4)—though, at the Duchess of Marlborough's insistence, the arms ofMindelheim were eventually replaced by her own.^''

On 29 April the Emperor formally placed the Electors of Bavaria and Cologne underthe Ban of the Empire and, at last, in mid May, taking a ten-day break from hismediation in Pressburg (Bratislava) between the Emperor and his rebellious Hungariansubjects. Stepney travelled to Mindelheim finding, to his surprise, that 'the country isreally much better than I first thought' and that, all in all, 'rightly consider'd . . . theEmperour's Present [was] rather more valuable than what it was at first computed'."^^

59

Fig. 4. Marlborough's seal as Prince of Mindelheim,from Stepney's full povi ers as the Duke's deputy,

1705-6, Add. MS. 37156, fol. 243^

On his arrival he immediately earned himself the goodwill of the inhabitants by puttinga stop to the contributions being demanded from them by a regiment of Palatineinfantry that had encamped in their vicinity. "^ This he built on in the coming days,by the courtesy he went out of his way to show to the English nuns and Jesuits ('whopromise to be very honest and faithfull subjects which (out of England) is notimpossible'),^'' and the dinners and entertainments he laid on in the administrator'sresidence and the town hall for all the officials and inhabitants ('It was fitting theyshould have a share . . . since they consented to bear the expence'). ^ The formal takingpossession occurred on Whit Monday, 24 May 1706, in the town hall in the mannerusual on such occasions. The Imperial commissary. Count Konigsegg-Aulendorf, readthe Imperial patent informing the inhabitants of the identity of their new prince, andreleasing them from their oaths of homage of the previous year to the Emperor,whereupon Stepney began receiving similar oaths, in the Duke's name, from all theinhabitants and vassals, ranging from Count Muggenthal, Max Philip's first minister,who held the miniature fief of Bedernau,^^ to humble peasants. Not surprisingly thistook two days. When not occupied with this, or attending 'a sort of opera in Latin'celebrating Marlborough's 'heroic virtues' performed by the boys of the Jesuit schoolunder the gaze of a newly acquired portrait of the Duke by Kneller, Stepney installedthe administration that was to govern the principality.^^ A footnote was provided earlyin 1712 when Marlborough's Grand Bailiff and administrator took the investiture for

60

Mindelheim personally in Vienna from Joseph I's successor, the newly elected EmperorCharles VI, as he was obliged to do .^

Despite Marlborough's characteristic desire for as much 'good husbandry' as wasconsistent with his 'credit and honour'^^ and the readiness of the Arch-Chancellor andVice-Chancellor of the Empire and the Austrian Court Chancellors to waive their ownfees (24,000 Gulden each) and the normal fees for creating a prince (16,310 Gulden 6Kreutzer) and a principality (15,203 Gulden 6 Kreutzer),^^ the total cost of the Duke'screation as a prince and introduction into Mindelheim was over £1,500, or about oneyear's income from his principality. The main elements in this were the fees of theCourt Chancery (1,000 Gulden), of the secretaries and lesser officials in Innsbruck andVienna, who were not wealthy enough to afford the self restraint of their superiors (upto 1,200 Gulden each), the travelling expenses of Marlborough and the Emperor'srepresentatives and their entertainment, and finally the gifts including several portraitsof the Duke by Kneller and the 'service of plate for tea and coffee' from Augsburg,costing 618 Gulden, for Count Konigsegg-Aulendorf^"^ (Stepney received 'a veryhandsome basin and ewer', of which he became very fond, worth 600 Gulden, fromthe citizens of Mindelheim). ^ Without this expenditure, however, in Stepney's opinion,Marlborough would have been kept out of possession of Mindelheim and its income'a year or 2 longer, for these people have a most wonderful Talent of clogging allbusiness'.^^By contrast, the reinvestiture, involving far fewer formalities and individuals,cost only 2,803 Gulden 27 Kreutzer, or about £350, in all.^°

With Marlborough officially in possession of a principality, and the publication ofthe ban on the two Wittelsbach brothers, the main obstacles to the taking of sessionand vote in the Imperial and Swabian diets were removed. The first important stephad been taken in mid January with the formal notification of the German princes bythe Emperor of Marlborough's elevation. ^ This produced a stream of congratulatoryletters to the Duke in which he was at last given the style of 'altesse' or 'durchlaucht'which he so desired.^^ Having received the Elector's permission,^^ the Duke made useof the Hanoverian representative in Regensburg, Christoph, Freiherr von Schrader, inthe negotiations preceding Mindelheim's admission to the college of princes of theImperial diet. His duties extended far beyond those of drafting German letters anddocuments and expending money on the Duke's behalf,^ since even with Imperialbenevolence, Marlborough's prestige, and his possession of formal qualifications, greatskill was needed. Such was the competition for a seat that many princes had to waitfor over half a century for admission, despite their possession of Imperial fiefs. EvenHanover, which counted amongst the most important German states, had to wait forsixteen years, after the elevation of its duke to electoral status in 1692, before beingadmitted to the electoral college. A good half of the Imperial diet's time during theWar of the Spanish Succession was spent discussing these matters. ^ As a foreigner ata time of increasing German national feeling, Marlborough might have been expectedto encounter even greater difficulties than other princes.

Yet, thanks largely to Schrader's skill, Mindelheim's introduction proceeded with

61

amazing smoothness. The Emperor's letter requesting the introduction was convertedinto a 'Commissions-dekret' which was presented to the diet on 20 May.^^ Over thefollowing weeks Schrader successfully resisted Saxony-Poland's attempt to barter itsvotes for Marlborough's assistance for the King-Elector's causes in London and officialattempts to increase Mindelheim's contributions to the running of the diet and theReichskammergericht in Wetzlar. ' However, in face of the sensitivities of several otheraspiring princes, particularly those of Ottingen and Schwarzburg, who were afraid oflosing precedence, it was found necessary to issue a declaration in the Duke's namereassuring them that his admission would not prejudice their rights.^^ Furthermore,only Prussia and Anhalt were prepared openly to support the extension of the successionin Mindelheim to females, even Schrader's master, the later King of England, refusingto do so, with the result that the proposal failed through lack of support. On 16 August,Mindelheim's admission to the diet was formally debated in the college of princes and,on the 18th, in the college of electors. On both occasions no votes were cast againstthe proposal, though the representative of Baden-Baden, whose master. Margrave Louis,had been jealous of the Duke since 1704, failed to vote, alleging that he had received

no instructions.^^These votes were decisive. Joseph I was informed of the votes, embodied in a formal

'conclusum' of 13 September, ' by the Imperial Commissioner, Cardinal Lamberg.When the Imperial ratification arrived in Regensburg late in the next month, preparationsbegan for Mindelheim's introduction into the college of princes by Count Pappenheim,the senior deputy marshal of the Empire, which took place, with much ceremony andamidst celebrations paid for by Schrader on Marlborough's behalf, on 22 November. °Although the Duke felt that the lavish ball, lasting from midday until two o'clock thenext morning, and costing 396 Gulden, could have been postponed till his own arrivalin Regensburg, ' ^ Schrader had undoubtedly served him well. For little over 2,000Gulden, or about £250, he had secured Marlborough, within the year, the status thatprinces of much older famihes had spent a hfetime fighting for. '*^

The Duke's introduction to the diet of the Swabian Circle followed a similar course,with Staffhorst directing the negotiations.^'^ Attempts to secure the female successionmet with an equal lack of success, but Marlborough's anomalous position as an Austrianvassal and immediate German prince simultaneously, presented the only real difficulty. ''This had been overcome by early 1706, and it was only the delay in taking possessionof Mindelheim that prevented the formal admission of Mindelheim to the bench ofprinces from taking place at Memmingen in March 1706 instead of in Nordlingen inNovember of the same year. ' '

In the period before actually taking possession of Mindelheim, Marlborough madeuse of the services of many people at the Imperial court and in Germany to givehim advice and do him favours. In return they received their expenses, gifts, andfavours from him—Staff horst and his master's interests were championed by the Dukein Vienna, and Stepney was, late in 1706, transferred from Vienna to the Netherlandsas he had long wished to be. ' ^ When it came to the administration of Mindelheim,

62

money would have to be spent, but Marlborough intended from the start that economywould be the order of the day. When he wrote to Stepney that he left it to him 'toconsider with respect to good husbandry whether I ought to employ as many officersand make the same allowances as while the estate was in the Emperor's hands', he wasexpecting the answer, which Stepney gave, that 'In prudence wee ought to avoidmultiplying officers and salaries'.''^^ When, however. Stepney timidly suggested that,to avoid a difficult choice between equally qualified men, there should continue to betwo joint administrators, his advice was ignored.^^'^ There would be only oneadministrator in Marlborough's Mindelheim. Similarly, Stepney and Cardonnel urgedthe Duke to appoint a 'secretary or rather Chancellor' at a salary of i,ooo Gulden ayear who would be attached to his household and undertake his correspondence asprince of Mindelheim. They even found a suitable candidate in the polyglot son ofthe mayor of Hanover, but the Duke was not 'much enclin'd to that expence', eventhough it was customary for a German prince, however minor, to employ such anofficial. ^° In the end, as they had feared, these responsibilities were loaded, withoutextra pay, on to their already overburdened shoulders, despite Cardonnel's lament thatMarlborough's office was receiving letters, which he had to answer, 'for every minutein the four and twenty hours'.^^^ The Duke saved money, but Mindelheim wasundoubtedly less efficiently administered as a result.

Marlborough showed the same attitude in less crucial fields. He refused to listen tothe pleas of a Prague Jew, Isaac Bernard, to be employed as his court Jew andmintmaster. No doubt the Duke could have acquired the much sought after privilegeof minting coins through a mere 'coup de plume' to the Emperor. No doubt thehandsome Thalers commemorating Hochstadt and Ramillies 'avec de Jolyes rims' thatBernard proposed to mint would eventually have made a profit. But Marlboroughevidently felt his princely dignity could escape unscathed without the initial expenseand possible embarrassment in England.^^^ A convincingly argued request for employ-ment from the agent of Mainz and former agent of Mindelheim at the Imperial courtin Wetzlar, Dr. Franz Hoeglein, also seems to have met with no success: theReichskammergericht was notorious for its failure to produce anything but handsomeincomes for the lawyers of the town.^^^

But certain posts had to be filled, such as those of Grand Bailiff (Oberpfleger), oradministrator, Receiver-General (Kastner), Secretary (Gerichtsschreiber), Judge {Land-vogt), and Controller of the Receiver-General's accounts (Kastengegenschreiber), whicheven Max Philip had not been prepared to dispense with. An issue of principle aroseover these posts. Staffhorst, who in this was a typical German Protestant of his day,made it clear that he mistrusted the officers then in post. Being Catholics he suspectedthey were likely to be unduly influenced by the Bishop of Augsburg and were probablysecret partisans of the Bavarian Wittelsbachs too. He thus urged Marlborough to employa Protestant as secretary or judge and, simultaneously, as his representative to theSwabian diet, who 'pouroit avoir l'oeil a la conduite des autres officiers et prendre gardeque rien se fasse qui soit prejudiciable aux interets de Votre Altesse'.^ '' Stepney,

63

however, good Protestant though he too was, emphatically opposed the suggestion. Hefirmly believed that 'it were best to make at first as few Changes as is possible; but toleave the officers as they are unless . . . it appear that they are not proper for theiremployment'. Quite apart from the clause in the document of investiture safeguardingthe position of the Catholic Church, Stepney felt that 'honest men may be had of allProfessions' and that 'the Country being wholy Catholicks . . . it were better to keepentirely to such as are of that Profession whereby much Clamour will be avoided forthe Papists are of a turbulent spirit and the least Innovation among them may makethem fancy strange things'.^^^

That Marlborough was thinking along Staffhorst's lines even before receiving hisletter can be seen from Cardonnel's request to Stepney, of mid February 1706, whetherthere were any Protestants in Mindelheim, " but in late March the Duke was assuringStepney that he would have approved 'of what you propose relating to the Secretaryor Judge altho I was not restrained in matters of Religion by the special clause'. ^"^ Ashe was to write to Wratislaw a few months later, apropos of religion, 'Je scai combiencela est delicat et si on etoit partout de mon sentiment sur ce Chapitre, le monde seroitplus en repos qu'il n'est'.^^^ But he was influenced by Staffhorst's advice to the extentof stipulating that the officers to be appointed by Stepney could be 'removed andchang'd hereafter if it shall be found requisite'.^^^

When he was installing the administration of Mindelheim, Stepney executed theseinstructions, adding also that none of the chief offices could be disposed of withoutMarlborough's approbation.^^'^ The appointment of the Grand BaiHff called for specialcare, since he was to head the administration. From the start the Duke was insistentthat he should reside permanently in Mindelheim unlike his predecessors who drewthe income but deputed most of the work to the Kastner.^^^ The two administratorsappointed by the Austrians, Barons Volmar and Johann Joseph von Imhoff, initiallyapplied jointly, but on hearing that only one administrator was wanted, Imhoff appliedfor himself alone. ^ ^ Shortly afterwards, Imhoff's younger brother, Johann Adrian, anofficial in Innsbruck who had known Stepney for several years, also applied, allegingthat his brother would not be able to reside in Mindelheim because of his responsibilitiesas Chief Forester of Burgau and his ownership of a house in Augsburg. ^ The olderImhoff convincingly refuted this,^^ making the choice 'the most difficult part' ofStepney's business. ^ All three candidates were well qualified and had influentialsupporters. In the end, however, the choice fell on the older Imhoff, who had managedto gain the support of Sinzendorf and Prince Eugene, who was prepared to live inMindelheim, unlike Volmar, and who was already in occupation of the position, unlikehis brother. ^ ^ Staffhorst's inquiries had all been in his favour and the matter wasclinched when, on his arrival in Mindelheim, Stepney was presented with a petitionsupporting Imhoff, signed by many of the magistrates and local people. ^

Johann Adam Scharrer, who had already served fifteen years as Kastner and overforty as a Bavarian oflficial, Johann Anton Baumann, the Gerichtsschreiber, 'an old servantof known probity', Johann Anton Meyer, the Landvogt, and Johann Lorenz Rauch,

64

the Kastengegenschreiber, 'an old experienc'd man', were confirmed in their posts. Inaddition, making up the total, paid, domestic administration, there were Martin Santner,the Chief Huntsman (Oberfdger), with his four assistants whose job was 'to preservethe wood and game', the Land Lieutenant, Joseph Shrop, whose 'employment is toexercise the Peasants in the Use of Arms that they may serve as Militia upon occasion',and two servants belonging to the court of justice. ^ Marlborough took his dutiesseriously and when, in 17io, Scharrer died aged seventy-two, Imhoff was asked tojustify the existence of the post before the Duke agreed to the appointment of AndreasFelbinger, a lawyer with fifteen years' experience at the Swabian diet.^^^

It had originally been envisaged that the administrator would correspond weeklywith Marlborough. ' By the time of Imhoff's installation this had been reduced tothe submission of quarterly accounts. Over the following year Imhoff's repeated lettersto the Duke and Cardonnel were left unanswered, while Stepney in the Netherlands—who retained responsibility for Mindelheim affairs—proved a spasmodic correspon-dent. ^ During the period of Stepney's final illness in August-October 1707,Marlborough wrote Imhoff two letters but thereafter he seems to have been totallyneglected until 1709, when he complained of Cardonnel's failure to reply to his letters. ^ ^From then onwards a regular, if not frequent, correspondence between Imhoff andCardonnel did come about, with occasional letters from Marlborough, though littletrace of these survives. ^

Despite Stepney's assurances of the Duke's continuing esteem, Imhoff was far fromsatisfied at his neglect. For his articles of appointment had forbidden him to expendmore than 50 Gulden without special permission, yet he was an active enterprising manwith strong mercantilist ideas and considerable ambitions for Mindelheim. His policiesclosely resembled those then being pursued in the larger continental states. ^ He wishedto increase the principality's revenues by enforcing the seigneurial rights which hadbeen listed in 1616 but had since fallen into dissuetude, by reacquiring a 'tres belleforet' and five farms that had been mortgaged to or otherwise acquired by Max Philip'swidow, and by the adroit management of the sales of corn, so as to ensure the highestprices. At the same time, by similarly enforcing seigneurial rights and through theacquisition of neighbouring tracts of land, he intended to round off the principality'sborders and define them precisely: ^ a miniature version of the reunion policies pursuedby Louis XIV in Alsace after 1679 and by the Habsburgs in northern Italy after 1706.^^^The death of the Landgravine from smallpox in June 1706, unexpectedly presentedthe opportunity of realizing several of these ambitions. The Emperor, to whom thebulk of her lands fell, sincerely admired the Duke, while the heir to her allodial goodsand private estates, the Prince d'Auvergne, was serving with Marlborough.

Imhoff had urged his ideas on Stepney and his assistant. Dr. Heiland, in May 1705and he repeated them in his later letters to the Duke and Cardonnel. They were notunattractive,"^ but did in certain respects conflict with Stepney's ideas. Only too wellaware of the unrest caused by Habsburg insensitivity and rapacity in Hungary andBavaria, Stepney wished to conciliate and reassure the inhabitants of Mindelheim

65

through a policy of moderation and conservatism. He had borne this in mind whenselecting the administration, in paying special attention to the Jesuits and English nunswhile in Mindelheim, and by ensuring that the latter, who were 'very charitable . . .usefull and . . . much esteem'd' continued to receive the annual payment they hadreceived from Max Philip, which, indeed, he had increased from 470 to 500 Gulden^even though they had recently been generously endowed with lands, rights, and revenuesin the Landgrave's will (a fact that Stepney chose not to divulge to the Duke).^^^ Withthe same objective, the traditional privileges of the citizens of Mindelheim had beenconfirmed by a declaration of 6 August 1706.^^^ By the end of the year he was anxiouslyurging Imhoff to use restraint in reasserting the Duke's seigneurial rights 'pour ne pasfaire trop crier ni le comte de mougenthal ni les autres qui relevent de Mindelheim,car telles exactions quoyqu'autorisees, ne laissent pas de causer des mecontentementsau commencement d'une Regence'.^'"^

There were also weighty objections to the purchase of the Landgravine's estates ofMattsies and Angelberg and the forests. They were likely to cost at least 100,000 Guldenand, after a brief flirtation with the idea. Stepney's private memorials to this end inVienna being given the Duke's covert approval, Marlborough decided not to proceed.Having already expended a considerable sum in securing possession of Mindelheim henow wanted 'de toucher une partie des Revenus avant que de se jetter dans une depenseplus grande',^"^^ particularly since, without the female succession, it would be tantamountto throwing his money away in the long term.- ''" Even had Marlborough been willingto buy the lands, the Emperor and his ministers would not have allowed him to. Theywished to sell them to the Bishop of Augsburg, Joseph's uncle, and, as a PalatineWittelsbach, a rival of the Bavarian branch of the family. They were to be a rewardfor not having made difficulties, on his Chapter's behalf, over the grant of Mindelheimto the Duke, and compensation for the damage his lands had suffered during the war.Sinzendorf, who as Court Chancellor played the decisive role in the negotiations wasa Palatine protege, who was unmoved by counter-arguments, and in April 1709 thelands were formally bestowed on Augsburg by Imperial decree, though, in return, theBishop renounced his claim to Mindelheim. "^ Imhoff, however, had refused to acceptthe Duke's lack of interest and as late as January 1709 he had tried to get Stepney'ssuccessor in Vienna, Sir Philip Meadows, to thwart the Bishop on the grounds thatthe lands were 'more desirable for His Grace than for any other'.^"^

Imhoff had a freer hand over Mindelheim's domestic financial pohcy and, despiteStepney's apprehensions, he made full use of it. The money collected by the officeof revenues, apparently consisting mainly of income from customs, taxation, and variousseigneurial rights, since the income from grain, beer, and fish figured separately in theaccounts, rose from 3,659 Gulden 27 Kreutzer and 3 Groschen for 1704, the last completeyear of Max Philip's rule, to 11,700 Gulden 13 Kreutzer 4 Groschen in 1707, the firstfull year of Marlborough's regime, though it fell to 9,331 Gulden in 1709. '' ^ It seemsto have been this income that enabled the principality's revenues to remain relativelysteady throughout the first few years of the Duke's rule, '** since a succession of bad

66

harvests in the last years of the decade, and a slackening in the number of passingtroops after 1707, when war effectively ceased in Italy and the French concentratedtheir efforts on defending their northern borders, must seriously have depressed theincome derived from corn, beer, and other wares.

Imhoff could at first do virtually nothing with these revenues, since for several yearsthe Duke did not indicate how much he wanted to retain for himself. It was only inthe late summer of 1707 that Imhoff was instructed to remit the Duke's money toBenjamin Sweet, his banker in Amsterdam who simultaneously functioned as treasurerto the British forces on the Continent. ^'^'^ Even then Imhoff was given no idea of theregularity desired of future payments, with the result that the amounts forwarded inlots of 5,000 Dutch florins (£500) a time ranged from 10,000 Dutch florins in 1707 todouble that sum in 1709 and 1710—which was very close to the estimates ofthe Duke'slikely income produced by Huldenberg, Stepney, and Heiland in 1705-6.^^ The GrandBailiff was unable to utilize any surplus that remained after these remissions becauseMarlborough seems never, before 1710, to have authorized him to spend more than50 Gulden over normal expenses. Indeed he waited for over a year before authorizingImhoff even to sell the grain ofthe harvest of 1706 in the way he wished. "^

Marlborough's almost total silence was primarily due to his preoccupation with theconduct ofthe war. By the autumn of 1709, however, it seemed that peace was imminentand Cardonnel was authorized to inform Imhoff that, once peace came, 'My Lord seraa loisir de regler les affaires de la Principaute et de mettre le tout sur un pied qui seraa votre satisfaction'.^^^ In the event peace did not come, but the Duke did begin totake a closer interest in Mindelheim's affairs, perhaps suspecting that his principalitywould play a bigger role than it had hitherto in his life—as a refuge from his enemiesif the worst came to the worst—following the Queen's dismissal of Godolphin and theother ministers with whom Marlborough had been closely identified, in the course of1710. In the middle months of that year, the Duke had his principality's accounts since1704 audited by one ofthe Duke of Wiirttemberg's financial advisers. Imhoff collaboratedfully, the outcome was completely satisfactory and during the following year an agreementwas reached between Marlborough and his Grand Bailiff whereby 15,000 Dutch florins(£i>5oo) was to be paid annually to the Duke, with Imhoff apparently being left freeto expend the surplus as he thought fit.^^^ The results were not long in coming. Beforethe end of 1710 Imhoff had established a paper mill near Mindelheim and two yearslater a printing press and glassworks followed, thereby lessening the principality'sdependence on grain and cloth. The most lasting achievement of these years was therebuilding of Mindelheim's parish church, the foundation stone of which was laid byImhoff on 9 May 1712, with the church being rededicated on 22 October 1713. 52 ^^official funds seem to have been provided for the church, but the conditions whichmade such an expensive project practicable in wartime may be attributed to Imhoff'swise government.

Marlborough seems to have come off slightly worse from the agreement thanMindelheim. He received 15,000 florins in 1711, but apparently only 10,000 florins in

67

the succeeding three years, ImhofF explaining this in terms of the fall in the price ofgrain as the war effort decreased, and the cost of the reinvestiture (1712), the Duke'svisit (1713), and of employing agents in Vienna on the Duke's behalf (1714 onwards).The accounts in his papers for this last period are fragmentary, but as late as 1718efforts were still being made to obtain money which the Duke and Duchess felt weredue to them from Mindelheim.-^"

Marlborough's Mindelheim played its part on the German stage, and the Duke'spride in possessing a seat on the Imperial diet may be judged from his retention ofall Schrader's letters before 1712, which were sent at a rate of about two a month untilmid 1707 and monthly thereafter—Imhoff's letters seem not to have been so lucky.^^Similarly Imhoflf's salary of 600 Gulden^ plus 250 Gulden in perquisites plus a house—which he felt was inadequate—was the same as that of his predecessor under MaxPhilip.^^^ But Schrader and his secretary. Reck, whom Marlborough uncharacteristicallyagreed to employ in addition, received not the 450 Gulden in toto originally envisaged,but 750 Gulden.^^^

The Duke's activity in the Imperial and Swabian diets seems to have been primarilyintended to increase his own credit with the Emperor, the Elector of Hanover, theKing of Prussia, and indirectly with the English Protestants and the Allies as a whole.It was therefore of no concern to him that Mindelheim's votes were occasionallycontradictory, on account ofthe conflicting interests of Prussia, Hanover, and Wtirttem-berg, though it did perplex at least Marlborough's representative in the Swabian diet. ^^The selection of Schrader was clearly meant to flatter his master and the Duke's futureking, the Elector of Hanover, since in other respects Metternich, the delegate of Prussiawhich supported the female succession in Mindelheim, would have been the moreobvious choice. After November 1706 Marlborough ensured that his principality's votewas invariably cast in support of Hanover's pretensions and interests, and Schraderwas given similar instructions with regard to Hanover's rival, Prussia. ^ Since at thistime Hanoverian and Habsburg interests largely coincided, he was thereby able to layin a store of credit with the Emperor and clearly hoped to do so with the King ofPrussia, one of the most awkward of the Allied rulers. Inside the Swabian Circle,Marlborough pursued a similar policy of combining support for the Protestant princeswith support for the Emperor and the war effort. His representative on the diet wasthe second delegate of Wurttemberg, Wilhelm Ludwig von Maskosky, and Mindelheim'svote always conformed to that of Wurttemberg, which generally followed the Emperor'slead, though there was hostility at times between the Duke of Wurttemberg and theElector of Hanover. ^ ^ Throughout the war Marlborough was punctihous in furnishingMindelheim's quota of seventy-six men to the Circle and meeting its other Imperialand provincial dues.- *

However, the Duke decided to leave the pursuit of his primary objective with regardto Mindelheim, its conversion into a female fief, to his direct, informal contacts withViennese leaders after the failure at the Imperial and Swabian diets in 1706. He bidedhis time until December 1706 when he was able to use the extension to his daughters

68

of the succession to his English dukedom, after the victory at Ramillies, as a precedent.His initial efforts, in letters to Wratislaw and, at Cardonnel's suggestion, to SinzendorP*^^did not, however, produce the desired result, Sinzendorf replying in his colleagues'names that 'bien des difficultez' would be encountered in proposing it to the Emperorat that time and that it would be better to see 'si vers le tems de la paix Ton ne pourroitpas trouver une occasion plus favorable'.^^^ Marlborough accepted this, despite Imhoff,Schrader, and Staffhorst's suggestions of alternative methods. *^ As was the case overthe purchase of the Landgravine's lands, and over the princely title itself, he did notwish to be seen publicly to be pursuing a policy of self-aggrandisement.^^ On theEmperor's death in 1711 and the accession of his brother Charles, who had until thenbeen largely dependent on British goodwill for his survival in Spain as the Alliedclaimant to the throne, Marlborough felt emboldened to try again and requested Imhoffto broach the subject if the chance arose when he was in Vienna to take the investitureof Mindelheim. ^

This too produced no immediate fruit, but the following years brought a change inthe Imperial attitude. As the likelihood grew that Britain under its new Tory ministrywould make its peace with France and that the Dutch, albeit reluctantly, would follow,Vienna realized that it had either to accept a peace that would involve the sacrifice ofmuch that it held precious—its position in Germany and Italy and the loss of Charles'sSpanish throne—or be prepared to fight on alone. Marlborough, who had been strippedof all his offices on the last day of 1711, and his Whig friends seemed among the fewbeacons of hope on the horizon. They might yet succeed in overturning the ministryat the polls and averting the conclusion of a bilateral Anglo-French peace. Even if theyfailed, they might manage to raise a loan sufficient to enable Charles and the Empireto continue the fight alone with some chance of success, for among the Whigs werecounted some of the wealthiest bankers and individuals in Europe, not least Marlboroughhimself. "^ Thus, at the very time of his greatest unpopularity in his homeland, theDuke became, once again, a suitable object for Imperial flattery. At the turn of the year1712-13 Marlborough, fearing impeachment if he remained in England, went abroad,ostensibly for his health. Once on the Continent he asked in the greatest secrecy forImperial support for his plan to invade England at the head of an army of British,Dutch, and German troops, to overthrow the ministry before any peace was concludedand ensure the Hanoverian succession. To demonstrate their goodwill towards Marl-borough without rashly committing themselves to his plan, Charles and his ministersinstructed Sinzendorf, who was then in Utrecht, to inform the Duke that TEmpereurvous voulant continuer les marques de son affection a fait la disposition suivante de laprincipaute de mindelheimb en votre faveur . . . laissant passer ce fief a vos filles'.^^^The retention of Italy and Bavaria would, after all, be worth the sacrifice of theprospective Habsburg vote in the Swabian diet. However, there was already a risk thatthe Austrians might be forced to return Mindelheim to the Elector of Bavaria and byemphasizing that *la malheureuse constitution des nos affaires' prevented the Emperorfrom guaranteeing that his intentions would take effect 'sans oposition et contradiction'

69

Sinzendorf left Charles the option of not fulfllling his undertaking should circumstancesfor any reason alter. None the less, the Emperor and his ministers continued to keepMarlborough's hopes high for the rest of the year when, following their rejection oflast-minute French demands at Utrecht in April 1713, they found themselves alone atwar with the French and needing all the friends and money they could find.^*^^

In the second week of June 1713 the Duke finally visited Mindelheim. It had beenwidely rumoured at the time of his departure from England that he would retire there^^and news of his visit gave substance to these ideas, thereby helping to mislead thegeneral public as to his actual intentions. At the same time it demonstrated his ownattachment to Mindelheim for the Emperor's benefit and satisfied his own naturalcuriosity. On his arrival^without his wife, who seems never to have shown any realinterest in the principality—he was received with all the honours due to a ruling prince,no doubt a gratifying experience for an exile from his own land. He resided at theMindelburg, the castle near Mindelheim, which must have been refurbished for theoccasion. Considerable sums were spent on his entertainment, and the boys of theJesuit school and girls of the English nuns' school presented plays in his honour, forthe latter of which the Duke was joined by his neighbour. Abbot Rupert II ofOttobeuren.^'^^ Nevertheless, although he had been pleasantly surprised by his princi-pality—as Stepney had been seven years earlier—half a week there was quite sufficient.As he wrote to James Craggs senior, his man of business in England shortly afterwards,he had 'stay'd but four days at Mindelheim, which place I liked much better then Iexpected but not so, as to think of living there'. ^ ^

Despite the Emperor's fair words and his own visit, however, Marlborough wasdestined to lose Mindelheim. As early as June 1712 he had nervously written toWratislaw to bear him and Mindelheim in mind during the peace negotiations 'puisque. . . Je ne dois m'ettendre a aucun appuis de la part de nos ministres'.^"^^ The negotiationsand the campaign of 1713 had not gone well for the Emperor. Eugene of Savoy's skilland boldness in his negotiations with the French Marshal Villars at Rastadt in thewinter of 1713-14 mitigated the consequences of his earlier military failure, but henevertheless had finally to accept Max Emmanuel's restitution to all his lands, includingMindelheim, in the peace that was signed between the two men on 7 March 1714.This treaty, however, brought peace only between Louis XIV and Charles VI and, inthe hope that the terms might still be amenable to alteration at the congress in Badenin Switzerland where peace between France and the Empire was to be negotiated,Marlborough submitted a memorial to the Emperor requesting that Mindelheim beexcluded from the territories to be restored to Max Emmanuel. "^

In reply the Emperor assured him, through Eugene and Count Bonneval, that hewould do 'all that is possible' to meet his wishes at Baden but that, in case of failure,he would 'give His Highness an Equivalent Principality out of his own hereditaryDominions'.^"^"^ However, the full restitution of Max Emmanuel was again stipulatedin the Treaty of Baden, signed on 7 September 1714, and on 25 January 1715 hisrepresentatives took possession of Mindelheim. "^

70

By this time the death of Queen Anne, the fall of the Tory ministry, and the accessionof George I had led to the restoration to favour and all his English posts of the Dukeof Marlborough who had returned to England in the Queen's last hours. He could notbe neglected, and in his letters of 24 November and 19 December 1714, informinghim of the final loss of Mindelheim, the Emperor again undertook to compensateMarlborough from his own dominions while confirming his and his male and femaledescendants' rights to the princely title with the attendant privileges, including, in theDuke's case, a seat on the Imperial diet.^^^ Marlborough subsequently sought anequivalent for Mindelheim with some energy. Imhoff expended a considerable amounton agents in Vienna while James Stanhope, who went on an official mission to theEmperor late in 1714, and William Cadogan, who followed in the next spring, bothpressed the Austrian ministers on the Duke's behalf. At the time it still seemed thathe would continue to play a major part in British affairs and the Austrians hoped, bya show of activity, to retain his support for the Emperor's interests in Britain'snegotiations with France and the Dutch Republic. Certain lordships in the Tirol werediscussed and, according to a widespread rumour, the lordship of Nellenburg nearLake Constance in Swabia was also considered. A decision was, however, always deferredon the grounds that further information was needed from Innsbruck. Gradually itbecame clear that the Duke no longer exerted the influence he once had and after May1716 he was effectively removed from the political scene by a series of strokes. Sinzendorflast wrote to him about an equivalent on 15 May 1716 when the Treaty of Westminster,re-establishing the old Anglo-Austrian alliance, was being concluded, but Marlboroughwas still petitioning for an equivalent in 1717. ' ' Indeed, in 1825, the 5th Duke ofMarlborough sought a financial indemnification for Mindelheim through the Britishambassador in Vienna. Metternich's uncompromising refusal to consider such a thingbrought the matter to a final close. "^

Mindelheim was treasured by Marlborough not for itself but because it addedsubstance and dignity to his otherwise empty princely title. He had been prepared todrop Mindelheim's arms from his arms as a prince of the Empire, and in 1706 heoffered it to Max Emmanuel to seduce him from the French.^''^ After 1714, too, heshowed little hankering after Mindelheim as a principality. Nevertheless, while he wasprince of Mindelheim he had taken his princely responsibilities as seriously as thepressures of war and diplomacy allowed. Although at times his passion for economyand reluctance to invest heavily in Mindelheim worked against the principality's interests,during his eight and a half year rule he was, on the whole, a prudent and relativelyenlightened prince. He ensured that Mindelheim was administered by capable men,resident there and acceptable to the population as a whole, while retaining for himself thefinal say over personnel and policy. He showed sensitivity in his dealings with hisCatholic subjects and his essential benevolence, particularly after 1710, by acquiescingin policies that positively benefited them, even though he received a somewhat reducedincome as a result. Had circumstances permitted he may well have made good hispromise to devote more time to Mindelheim after the war, and as it was he seems to

71

have taken a closer interest than most absentee princes in their principalities. Theruling princes of Liechtenstein, for instance, waited for well over a century beforevisiting the principality, to which they gave their name, for the first time.

In 1706 Cardonnel had complained to Stepney that the possession of Mindelheimwas a hindrance to Marlborough in his deahngs with the court of Vienna 'for theyimagine we can never do enough to acknowledge it, tho for my own part . . . if theywould give me those lands I would not accept them because I would owe them noobligation'. ^" It cannot be denied that there was much truth in the accusation as faras Vienna was concerned, but there is no evidence that his German lands and honoursdid influence the Duke, if only because he regarded them as fully deserved and becausethey were of no financial consequence to him. Always the gentleman, and by natureand upbringing more benevolently disposed towards the Imperial court than most ofhis colleagues, who looked with greater kindness on the Dutch, he was careful neverto appear anything other than obliging to the Emperor and his ministers. ^ When,however. Imperial and British interests came into direct conflict, as they did over Italyin 1707, with Vienna wanting to invade Naples and the British wanting to attackToulon, he did not hesitate to oppose Imperial policy as effectively—albeit politely—ashe could.^^^

Marlborough made a clear profit of several thousand pounds from his reign as princeof Mindelheim, but the only lasting legacy of this episode in his life is the princelytitle which has descended through the female line to all his descendants male and female,in accordance with the Imperial patent of 14 November 1705, which was confirmedin 1714. It still figures among the present Duke of Marlborough's titles, and means,technically, that it was a German prince that led Britain to victory over Germany in1945 and that it will be a German prince or princess, through the descent of his or hermother as well as father, who will be Britain's future sovereign.

1 All dates are New Style except where otherwiseindicated. Leopold I to Wratislaw, 20 June 1704,Feldzuge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen, 20 vols.(Vienna, 1876-92), ist ser., vol. vi, p. 739 (citedas Feldzuge); O. Klopp, Der Fall des HausesStuart, 14 vols. (Vienna, 1875-88), vol. xi, pp.187-8 (cited as Klopp).

2 E- Holzmair, 'Miinzgeschichte des Osterreich-ischen Neufursten', Wiener Numismatische Zeit-schrift, Ixxi (1946), pp. 6-73, discusses Austrianprinces and their Imperial fiefs or lack of them.Wratislaw to Marlborough, i t February t7O5(Add. MS. 61217, fol. 73) is most revealing. Theappendix to H. F. Schwarz, The Imperial PrivyCouncil in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge,Mass., 1943) contains biographies illustratingthis theme. Standard histories of Germany dis-cuss Imperial institutions in general, e.g. H.

Holborn, A History of Modern Germany, vol. 2,1648- 1840 (New York, 1959), but see particu-larly, F. L. Carsten, Princes and Parliaments inGermany (Oxford, 1959); R. Wines, 'The Im-perial Circles. Princely Diplomacy and ImperialReform 1681-1714', Journal of Modern History(1967) for the extent of princely power; andL. Gross, Die Geschichte der deutschen Reichs-hofkanzlei (Vienna, 1935) for the ImperialChancery. J. Falke, Geschichte des fiirstlickenHauses Liechtenstein (Vienna, t868), particularlypp. 343-7, gives the history of the best-knownprincely family.

3 George I's morganatic wife Melusine von derSchulenburg, was created Princess of Ebersteinin 1722 when Vienna wanted to use her influencewith the King to improve Anglo-Austrian rela-tions, R. M. Hatton, George I, Elector and King

(London, 1978), p. 138, and [Austria], Haus-,Hof- und Staatsarchiv, 'Vortrage an den Kaiser'{1722), passim.

4 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 22 August 1704 (KIopp,xi/89; Feldzuge, vi/865-7); 12 September 1704{Feldzuge, vi/876-7).

5 Marlborough to Duchess, 4/15 June, 5/16 July1704, H. L. Snyder (ed.), The Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1975),vol. i, pp. 319, 338 (cited as Snyder); W. Coxe,Memoirs of John Duke of Marlborough, 3 vols.(London, 1818), vol. i, pp. 252-3 (cited asCoxe).

6 W. S. Churchill, Marlborough. His Life andTimes, 4 vols. (London, 1967), vol. ii, p. 395 (citedas Churchill); Coxe, i/542.

7 S. B. Baxter, William HI (London, 1966) pp.32-6.

8 Churchill, i/396-7; Klopp, xi/188-9; Wratislawto Leopold, 22 August, 12 September 1704 {Feld-zuge, vi/867, 876-7).

9 Snyder, i/318-20, 340-1; Coxe, i/253 andChurchill, ii/395 misread the cipher as 'war'.

10 Marlborough to Duchess, 16 July 1704 (Snyder,

i/338).11 Marlborough to Hariey, 20 July 1704, G. Murray

(ed.). Dispatches of John Churchill, First Duke ofMarlborough from iyo2 to 1J12, 5 vols. (London,1845), vol. i, pp. 362-3 (cited as Murray);Wratislaw to Leopold I, 4 July 1704 {Feldzuge,11/839); Coxe, i/278-9; Churchill's account

(ii/395) is erroneous.12 Klopp, xi/i88; Snyder, i/356; Hoffman to Leo-

pold I, 5 August 1704 (translated extract) (Add.MS. 61105, fol. 109).

13 Klopp, xi/189. Marlborough to Duchess, 25August 1704 (Snyder, i/358).

14 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 22 August 1704 {Feld-zuge, vi/865-7); Klopp, xi/189; Churchill, ii/397.

15 Marlborough to Godolphin, 25 August 1704, toDuchess, 25 August 1704 (Snyder, i/355-6, 358;Coxe, i/326-7).

16 Coxe, i/325-6 followed by later historians includ-ing Klopp (xi/190), Churchill (ii/395-6) andSnyder (i/370 note 5) confuses the text of thisletter with that of the later letter. The originalof the first letter is not to be found among theDuke's papers, but a copy and English transla-tion have survived (Add. MS. 61211, fols. 20,22). The two letters are very similar except fora few all-important phrases. See below.

17 Marlborough to Godolphin, 22 September 1704

(Snyder, i/370-i); Klopp, xi/190; Coxe, i/327;Churchill, ii/397-

18 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 13 October 1704 {Feld-ziige, vi/898); Klopp, xi/191.

19 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 12 September {Feld-zuge, vi/877). Klopp's transcription (xi/190) isfaulty.

20 Marlborough to Harley, 13 November 1704(Murray, i/538); the actual letter is now Add.MS. 61211, fol. 18; Coxe, i/325-6, Murray,i/538-9 give English translations.

21 Stepney to Marlborough, 21 January 1705 (Add.MS. 61443, fol. 99).

22 E. Holzmair, art. cit., passim; Wratislaw to Marl-borough, 27 December 1704, 11 February 1705(Add. MS. 61217, fols. 49, 73).

23 Wratislaw to Marlborough, 27 December 1704(Add. MS. 61217, fol. 49).

24 C. Nebinger, 'Entstehung und Entwicklung derMarkgrafschaft Burgau', F. Metz (cd.), Vorder-osterreich, 2 vols. (Freiburg, 1959), vol. ii, pp.733"4i J- ^- Vann, The Swabian Krets. Institu-tional Growth in the Holy Roman Empire, 1648-1715 (Brussels, 1975), pp. 165, 252, 264; H.Altmann, Die Reichspolitik Maximilians I. vonBayern (Munich, 1978), passim.; M. Nautnann,Osterreich, England und das Reich ijig-;^2(Berlin, 1936), pp. 9-24; H. Hantsch, Reichsvize-kanzler Friedrich Karl Graf von Schonborn{16J4-IJ46) (Salzburg, 1929).

25 Marlborough to Duchess, 15 June 1704 (Snyder,

i/3i9)-26 Stepney to Marlborough, 31 December 1704

quoting Wratislaw (Add. MS. 61143, fol. 84) andsee Wratislaw to Leopold I, 12 September 1704{Feldziige, vi/877), ^^ Marlborough, 27 Decem-ber 1704, II February 1705 (Add. MS. 61217,fols. 49, 73).

27 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 22 August 1704 {Feld-zuge, vi/867).

28 Stepney to Marlborough, 2T January 1705 (Add.MS. 61143, fol. 99).

29 Marlborough to Stepney, 26 January/6 February1705 (Murray, i/585); 27 November 1704 (Add.MS. 7058, fol. 30).

30 Marlborough to Stepney, 27 November 1704(Add. MS. 7058, fol. 30); Wratislaw to Leopold I,22 August 1704 {Feldzuge, vi/865-7); J- Spiel-man, Leopold I of Austria (London, 1977), pp.186-95. By the 'King of Spain' was meant theAllied candidate for the throne, Joseph's youngerbrother Charles.

73

31 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 12 September 1704{FeldzUge., vi/877).

32 Wratislaw to Marlborough, 27 December 1704.See also his letter of 11 February 1705 (Add.MS. 61217, fols. 49, 73).

33 Add. MS. 61344, fols. 5-11 (Memorial); Marl-borough to Godolphin, 23 November 1704(Snyder, i/400); Marlborough to Stepney, 27November 1704 (Add. MS. 7058, fol. 30). M.Spindler (ed.), Handbuch der bayerischenGeschichte, 3 vols. (Munich, 1971), vol. iii, pp.1033-5 (cited as Handbuch); J. A. Vann, op. cit.,

P- 31-34 Marlborough to Godolphin, 23 November 1704

(Snyder, i/400).35 Stepney to Marlborough, 17 December 1704

(Add. MS. 61143, fol. 79); Handbuch^ iii/1034;J. A. Vann, op. cit., p. 157.

36 Stepney to Marlborough, 31 December 1704(Add. MS. 61143, fol. 84); Wratislaw to Marl-borough, 27 December 1704 (Add. MS. 61217,fol. 49).

37 Stepney to Marlborough, 21 January 1705 (Add.MS. 61143, fol. 99); Coxe, i/525-6. There wereabout eight Gulden or German florins to thepound sterling (see, e.g.. Stepney to Cardonnel,19 May 1706, Add. MS. 61412, fol. 22). Germanflorins are referred to as Gulden throughout thearticle to avoid confusion with Dutch florins.

38 Marlborough to Wratislaw, 9/20 January 1705(Murray, i/573-S)-

39 Marlborough to Wratislaw, 23 February/6 March1705 (Murray, i/600); Marlborough to Sinzen-dorf, 27 May 1705 (Murray, ii/53-4); Marl-borough to Stepney, 9/20 January, 16 March1705 (Murray, i/575, 606).

40 Wratislaw to Marlborough, 11 March 1705 (Add.MS. 61217, fol. 83); Sinzendorf to Marlborough,13 May, 10 June 1705 (Add. MS. 61214, fols.76, 83).

41 Marlborough to Sinzendorf, 27 May 1705(Murray, ii/53-4)-

42 F. Zoepfl, Geschichte der Stadt Mtndelheim inSchwaben (Munich, 1948), pp. 113-319 (cited asZoepfl); Stepney to Marlborough, 21 May 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 72); Stepney to Marl-borough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe, i/529-38); Stepneyto Baron von der Halden, 14 April 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fo'- 35); Heiland to Marlborough,16 June 1706 (Add. MS. 61344, fols. 47-64);Mindelheim's financial accounts (Add. MS.61344, fo's. 91, 102, 108, 112, 163 ff.), Stepney's

accounts (Add. MS. 61412, fols. 23-4); the'Chart of the Principality of Mindelheim' (1705)(Add. MS. 61345); Huldenberg's history, 20November 1705 (Add. MS. 61344, fols. 12-17);W. Eberle, Das Rekhsfurstentum Mindelheimunter Marlhorough IJ05-IJ15 (Bayreuth, 1917),passim (cited as Eberle).

43 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe,i/536).

44 A volume from this library, with the bookplateof Max Philip and his wife, is now Add. MS.24910.

45 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe,i/532)-

46 The principality of Liechtenstein produced onlyll^000 Gulden Q. Falke, op. cit., pp. 343-7) whileOrange had to be subsidized by Wilham III(S. B. Baxter, op. cit., p. 32). For the estimatessee Add. MS. 61344, fols. 16,47 (Huldenberg andHeiland), Coxe, i/533 (Stepney).

47 Heiland to Marlborough, 16 June 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fol. 64^); Cardonnel to Duchess, 7October 1717 (Add. MS. 61475, fol. 104).

48 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May, 24 February1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fols. 84, 45).

49 Zoepfl, 13-39, 55-60; Handbuch, 990; R. Vogel,Die Territorialpolitik der Wittehbacher im RaumMindelheim (Mindelheim, 1968).

50 Zoepfl, 59-60, 76-9, 8i~2, 334; Handbuch., iii/990, 1003; Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May1706 (Coxe, i/537).

51 Zoepfl, 81. ^52 Stepney to Cardonnel, 4 August 1706 (Add. MS.

7077, fol. 82).53 Zoepfl, 338-9; Eberle, p. 15, wrongly states that

Augsburg did protest, but see Huldenberg'shistory (Add. MS. 61344, fol- i7)> Stepneyto Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe, i/531-2),to Cardonnel, 4 August 1706 (Add. MS. 7077,fol. 82).

54 Zoepfl, 82; Imhoff to Stepney, 25 January 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 41); Add. MS. 61345-

55 J. A. Vann, op. cit., pp. 33, 287; the Emperorhad, of course, an ex-officio place (Vann, op. cit.,pp. 250-93). Stepney memorial to Sinzendorf,January 1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fol. 25); Staff-horst to Stepney, 10 April 1706 (Add. MS.61412, fol. 15).

56 H. Altmann, op. cit., p. 97, note 9.57 Wratislaw to Leopold I, 22 August 1704 [Feld-

zuge, vi/865).58 C. Granier, Der deutsche Reichstag wahrend des

74

Spanischen Erbfolgekrieges {iyoo-iyi4) (Bonn,

1954). PP- 83-9, 118, 127.59 D. McKay, Prince Eugene of Savoy (London,

1977), pp. 93, 101-2; M. Braubach, Prinz Eugenvon Savoyen. Eine Biographie., 5 vols. (Vienna,1963-5), vol. ii, pp. 143-5; H. L. Mikoletzky,'Die grosse Anleihe von 1706. Ein Beitrag zurosterreichischen Finanzgeschichte', Mitteilungendes osterreickischen Staatsarchives, vol. vii (1954),pp. 268-93; Churchill, iii/44; Add. MS. 61330,fols. 1-32^.

60 The patents, dated respectively 14, 17, and 18November, are not in the Blenheim archives,having disappeared before 1910 (L. G. Lindsayto 9th Duke ofMarlborough, 29 December 1910,Add. MS. 61143, fol. 156). The copies are Add.MS. 61143, fols. 152-5, 158-70, that of 18November being an official copy executed in theHofkanzlei. Partly published in Coxe, i/526-7.

61 J. A. Vann, op. cit., pp. 136, 284-7; Zoepfl,82.

62 Stepney memorial to Sinzendorf, January 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 25).

63 Stepney to Marlborough, 27 January 1706, andmemorial to Sinzendorf (Add. MS. 61144, fols.

I9» 25).64 Charles VI to Marlborough, 19 December 1714

(Add. MS. 61212, fol. 148).65 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 January 1706 (Add.

MS. 61144, fol. 31).66 Add, MS. 37156, fol. 240 (a duplicate of

Stepney's full powers signed and sealed byMarlborough as Prince of Mindelheim).

67 Cardonnel to Stepney, 22 December 1705/2January 1706 (Add. MS. 7063, fol. 165); Marl-borough to Stepney, 15/26 March 1706 (Murray,ii/449).

68 Marlborough to Staffhorst, 26 November 1705(Murray, i/332); Staffhorst to Marlborough,2 January 1706 (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 21).

69 Schrader to Marlborough, 27 January 1707 (Add.MS. 61237, fol- 88).

70 Stepney to Marlborough, 23 December 1705(Add. MS. 61143, fol. 180): D. McKay, op. cit.,

P- 95-71 A copy of the Revers is Add. MS. 61144, fol. 39;

• Stepney to Marlborough, 2,9,23 December 1705(Add. MS. 61143, fols. 149, 172, 180), 6, 27January 1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fols. r, 19);Baron von der Halden to Stepney, 14 January1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fol. 23).

72 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 January 1706 (Add.

MS. 61144, fol. 31); Cardonnel to Stepney, 22December 1705/2 January 1706, 5/16 February1706 (Add. MS. 7063, fols. 165, 169); copies ofFiegher's full powers and the Revers (dated 18November 1705) are Add. MS. 61144, fols.

35, 39-73 Stepney to Marlborough, 31 March 1706 (Add.

MS. 61144, fol. 55); Baron von der Halden toStepney, 23 March, 29 April 1706 (Add. MS.61144, fols. 58^, 66); Joseph I to the Innsbruckgovernment, 14 April 1706 (Add. MS. 61211,fol. 54); Churchill, iii/46 confuses the Innsbruckinvestiture with the taking possession of Mindel-heim's seat at the Imperial diet.

74 Stepney to Marlborough, 2 December 1705(Add. MS. 61143, fol. 149), 6 January 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. I); accounts for them: Add.MS. 61412, fols. 11-12, 23.

75 Add. MS. 61344, fols. 12-15.76 Add. MS. 61345 and see Stepney to Marl-

borough, 2, 9 December 1705 (Add. MS. 61143,fols. 149, 172). Add. MS. 61412, fols. 12-15.Eberle, pp. 101-3.

77 Stepney to Marlborough, 2 December 1706(Add. MS. 61143, fol. 149); to Cardonnel, 24February 1706 (Add. MS. 61412, fol. 4); Coxe,i/541, 543. Add. MS. 37156, fol. 243^ contains animpression of the original seal. Eberle, p. 107.

78 Stepney to Marlborough, 21 May 1706 (Add.MS. 61144, fol. 72). Stepney to Marlborough,30 May 1706 (Coxe, i/534).

79 Stepney to Marlborough, 21 May 1706, to CountEffren, 20 May 1706; Count Effren to Stepney,21 May 1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fols. 72, 74, 76).Accounts relating to contributions: Add. MS.61344, fols. 155-61.

80 Stepney to Marlborough, 21 May 1706 (Add.MS. 61144, fol. 72); Coxe, i/532.

81 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe,i/532)-

82 Bestowed in 1665-6 (Zoepfl, 76-7); Muggenthalmade difliculties over the manner of taking theinvestiture in 1706 (Heiland to Marlborough,16 June 1706, Add. MS. 61344, fol- 47)-

83 Stepney to Marlborough, 2r May 1706 (Add.MS. 61144, fol. 72), 30 May 1706 (Coxe, i/529-38); Heiland to Marlborough, 16 June 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fols. 47-52)-

84 Cardonnel to Imhoff, 6 June, 10 November 1711(Add. MS. 61402, fols. 43, 144 '); flnancialaccount: Add. MS. 61344, fol- T69.

85 Cardonnel to Stepney, 22 December 1705/2

75

January 1706 (Add. MS. 7063, fol. 165); Coxe,i/541 omits the first point.

86 Stepney to Marlborough, 9 December 1705(Add. MS. 61143, fol. 172).

87 Stepney to Marlborough, 9 December 1705,31 March, 12 May 1706 (Add. MSS. 61143, fol.172; 61144, fols. 55,64); to Cardonnel, 31 March,19 June (but mistakenly written May) 1706 (Add.MS. 61412, fols. 9, 21); to von der Halden,14 April 1706 (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 35); Step-ney's accounts for investiture and introduction,19 June 1706 (Add. MS. 61412, fols. 23-4);receipted accounts of Innsbruck Chancery,28 April, ioMay 1706 (Add. MS. 61412, fols. 18-20); see Coxe, i/540-1. Churchill's figures(iii/44-5) are much exaggerated and apparentlybased on a confusion between Gulden and poundssterling.

88 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe,i/537); 10 Cardonnel, 11 September 1706 (Add.MS. 7064, fol. 18).

89 Stepney to Marlborough, 12 May 1706 (Add.MS. 61144, fol. 64).

90 'Abrege des touts les Revenues dans la Princi-paute de Mindelheim . . . 1706 . . . (a)i7i2'(1713) (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 169).

91 Joseph I to the German princes, 13 January 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 27).

92 e.g. Add. MS. 61253, fol- 93 (Directors ofSwabian Circle); Add. MS. 61247, fol- i44(Hesse-Cassell); Add. MS. 61229, fol. 56(Prussia). For Marlborough's sensitivity: Car-donnel to Stepney, 18/29 December 1705 (Add.MS. 7063, fol. 163).

93 Cardonnel to Stepney, 18/29 December 1705(Add. MS. 7063, fol. 163); Stepney to Marl-borough, 23 December 1705 (Add. MS. 61143,fol. 180), 6 January 1706 (Add. MS. 61144,fol. i).

94 His activities can be traced in Stepney's letters toMarlborough, December 1705-November 1706,enclosing many documents drafted by him (Add.MSS. 61143-4), in the drafts in Add. MS. 61344,fols. 66-75 and his own letters to Marlborough,May-December 1706 (Add. MS. 61237).

95 Add. MSS. 61237-8, passim; C. Granier, op. cit.,

pp. 126-36.96 For this introduction of Mindelheim see C.

Granier, op. cit., pp. 126-7; Add. MS. 61237;T. Pfannen, Ewiges Monument der EngellandischenTapfer- und der Teutschen Danckbarkeit . . .(Gotha, 1707) and A. M. v. W., Erhohung in

Reichs-Fursten-Stand und Introduction in dasReichs-Raths Collegium des durchlauchtigstenFUrsten . . . Johannszen . . . Hertzogs zu Marie-borough (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1707) printmost of the relevant documents. Eberle, pp.18-25.

97 Schrader to Marlborough, 21 June, 19 July,16 August 1706 (Add. MS. 61237, fols. 10, 15,

19).98 Schrader to Marlborough, 31 May, 10, 21 June,

19 July, 23 August, 16 September 1706 (Add.MS. 61237, fols. r, 5, 10, 15, 23). For theevolution of the declaration: Add. MSS. 61237,fols. 7, 12; 61344, fol- 66.

99 Protocol of the college of princes, 16 August1706 and of the college of electors, 18 August1706 (Add. MS. 61237, fols. 25-32, 35-8; Coxe,

i/538)-100 Add. MS. 61237, fols. 41-4.101 Coxe, i/539-40 describes the ceremonial.102 Cardonnel to Stepney, 27 July, 27 December

1706 (Add. MS. 7063, fols. 223,261); Add. MS.61237, fol. 82.

103 Add. MS. 61237, fol. 82; Add. MS. 61412, fol.25; Stepney to Marlborough, 3 December 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 106).

104 The course of the negotiations can be followedin Staffhorst's correspondence with Marl-borough, Cardonnel and Stepney in Add. MSS.7063-4; 21551, fol. 40; 61253; 61143-4; 61344;61398, fol. 62; 61412; and in Murray, ii/332,428.

105 Staffhorst to Stepney, 10 April 1706 (Add. MS.61412, fol. 15).

106 Protocol of Swabian diet, 4 November 1706(Add. MS. 61253, fol. 99).

107 Marlborough to Stepney, 20 June 1705 (Add.MS. 7058, fol. 48); Stepney to Marlborough,4 July 1705 (Add. MS. 61143, fol. 197); J- A.Vann, op. cit., pp. 130, 157-9- Stepney's lettersto Marlborough, 1705-6 in Add. MSS.

61143-4.108 Marlborough to Stepney, 15/26 March 1706

(Murray, ii/449); Stepney to Cardonnel, 17April 1706 (Add. MS. 61412, fol. 13).

109 Stepney to Cardonnel, 24 February 1706 (Add.MS. 61412, fol. 4).

n o Stepney to Marlborough, 27 January 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 19); to Cardonnel, 17April 1706 (Add. MS. 61412, fol. 13); Cardonnelto Stepney, 5/16 February, 4 May 1706 (Add.MS. 7063, fols. 169, 187).

76

111 Cardonnel to Stepney, 17 June 1706 (Add. MS.7063, fol. 252).

112 Isaac Bernard to Marlborough, 12 July 1706(Add. MS. 61344, fol. 174). He wrote again on9 June 1707 (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 176). Seealso E. Holzmair, art. cit., passim. S. Stern,The Co«r/Jf IP (Philadelphia, 1950), pp. 162-76,and for Marlborough's reluctance to be por-trayed on coins and medals my forthcomingnote 'Marlborough and the Medal', Seaby'sCoin and Medal Bulletin (1982).

113 Dr. F. Hoeglein to Marlborough, 13 April 1707(Add. MS. 61344, fols. 182-7).

114 Staffhorst to Marlborough, 15 February 1706(Add. MS. 61344, fol- 26).

115 Stepney to Marlborough, 24 February 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 45).

116 Cardonnel to Stepney, 15/26 February 1706(Add. MS. 21551, fol. 40) and for the Duke'sinitial approval, Marlborough to Staffhorst,18 February/i March 1706 (Murray, ii/428).

117 Marlborough to Stepney, 15/26 March 1706(Murray, ii/449). Eberle, p. 46.

118 Marlborough to Wratislaw, 31 July 1706(Murray, iii/36).

119 Cardonnel to Stepney, 15/26 February (Add.MS. 21551, fol. 40).

120 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe,

i/533)-121 J. J. Imhoff to Stepney, 25 January 1706 (Add.

MS. 61144, fol. 41).122 J. J. Imhoff and Volmar to Marlborough,

10 January 1706, J. J. Imhoff to Stepney,25 January 1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fols. 47,41)-

123 J. A. Imhoff to Marlborough, 13 February 1706(Add. MS. 61344, fol. 23); Stepney to Marl-borough, 10 February 1706 (Add. MS. 61144,fol. 43).

124 J. J. Imhoff to Stepney, 25 February 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fol- 81).

125 Stepney to Marlborough, 10 February 1706(Add. MS. 61144, fol. 43).

126 Sinzendorf to Marlborough, 27 February 1706(Add. MS. 61214, fol. 155); Eugene to Marl-borough, II February 1706 (Add. MS. 61221,fol. 86); Imhoff to Stepney, 29 April 1706 (Add.MS. 61144, fol. 67); Cardonnel to Stepney,19 February/3 March 1706 (Add. MS. 61397,fol. 132).

127 Staffhorst to Stepney, 10 April 1706 (Add. MS.61412, fol. 15); Stepney to Cardonnel, 17 April

1706 (Add. MS. 61412, fol. 13); Stepney toMarlborough, 12, 30 May 1706 (Add. MS.61144, fols- 64, 80); Heiland to Marlborough,16 June 1706 (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 47).

128 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Add.MS. 61144, fol. 80); Imhoff to Stepney,25 January 1706 (Add. MS. 61144, fol, 41).For their salaries: Stepney to Marlborough,30 May 1706; Heiland to Marlborough, 16 June1706 (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 60). Eberle, pp.

25-43-129 Imhoff to Marlborough, 11 June 1710 (Add.

MS. 61344, fol. no) ; Cardonnel to Imhoff, 10July, 14 September 1710 (Add. MS. 61401, fols.68^, 88); Felbinger to Marlborough, 23 Novem-ber 1711 (Add. MS. 61344, fol- 189).

130 J. A. Imhoff to Marlborough, 13 February 1706(Add. MS. 61344, fol- 23).

131 Stepney to Imhoff, 7 December 1706 (Add. MS.7075, fol. 68).

132 Marlborough to Imhoff, 12 August, 12 October1707 (Murray, iii/511, 617); Imhoff to Marl-borough, 29 January 1709 (Add. MS. 61344,fol. 104).

133 See note 129; Marlborough to Imhoff, 18/29January 1715 (Add. MS. 61344, fol- 119)-

134 Coxe, i/533. handbuch, iii/1053; Zoepfl, 81-4.J. A. Vann, op. cit., pp. 213-15. Eberle, pp.26-37.

135 Heiland to Marlborough, 16 June 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fol. 47); Stepney to Imhoff, 7December 1706 (Add. MS. 7075, fol. 68);Imhoff to Marlborough, 20 June 1706, 26January 1707 (Add. MS. 61344, fols, 85, 89).Eberle, pp. 41, 60.

136 Imhoff to Marlborough, 20 June 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fol- 85); Cardonnel to Stepney,24 July 1707 (Add. MS. 7063, fol. 219).

137 See Stepney's annotations to Heiland's reportof 16 June 1706 (Add, MS. 61344, fol- 47).

138 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Coxe,i/534-5); petition of nuns, 25 May 1706 (Add.MS. 61344, fol. 170); statistics for 1704 (Add.MS. 61344, fol. 62); Zoepfl, 83, 307; Cardonnelto Stepney, 17 June 1706 (Add. MS. 7063, fol.252); Stepney to Cardonnel, 7 August 1706(Add. MS. 7064, fol. 7); statistics for 1707 (Add.MS. 61344, fol- 103).

139 Zoepfl, 83-4.

140 Stepney to Imhoff, 7 December 1706 (Add. MS.7075, fol. 68), for Cardonnel's agreement withStepney's views. Cardonnel to Stepney, 27

77

December 1706/7 January 1707 (Add. MS.7063, fol. 261). Eberle, pp. 40-1.

141 Stepney to Imhoff, 7 December 1706 (Add.MS. 7075, fol. 68).

142 Cardonnel to Stepney, 24, 27, 31 July 1706(Add. MS. 7063, fols. 219, 223, 226); Stepneyto Cardonnel, 28 July 1706 (Add. MS. 7064,fol. 4).

143 Stepney to Cardonnel, 4 August 1706 (Add.MS. 7077, fol. 82); Zoepfl, 338-9; Schrader toMarlborough, 19 December 1709 (Add. MS.61238, fol. 80).

144 Meadows to Marlborough, 19 January 1709(Add. MS. 61149, fol, 163), Sinzendorf statedto Meadows that the price finally paid byAugsburg for the lands around Tiirkheim was150,000 Gulden.

145 For 1704, 1707, and 1709: Add. MS. 61344, fols.64, 103, ioB^. An undated 'summarischerExtract der in dem furstenthumb MundelheimbJahrliche Ertragung', apparently in Imhoff'shand, gives details of the sources of the office ofrevenues income and the amounts (e.g. 'Muhl-straffen', 'Brandtwein Umbgelt', 'Ehebruch-straffe', 'Vormundt tax', 'Statt Siglgelt'), to atotal of 14,500 Gulden for the unnamed year,with expenditure. It was possibly presented tothe Duke in Mindelheim and may cover theyears 1712-13 (Add. MS. 61344, fols, 163-7).See also Eberle, pp. 40-1, 59-84, who empha-sizes the severity of the special 1707 accessiontax ('Hauptfall').

146 Add. MS. 61344, fols- 64, 91, 103, 112,168.

147 Marlborough to Imhoff, 12 August 1707(Murray, iii/511). In May 1713, however,Imhoff sent the money directly to Frankfurtwhere the Duke was in residence (Add. MS.61344, fol- 169)-

148 Imhoff to Marlborough, 27 February 1708,29 January 1709, 30 January 1710 (Add. MS.61344, fols. 100, 104, 106). The payments canbe traced in Imhoff's accounts (Add. MS.61344, fols. 64, 91, 103, 108, 168) in Sweet'sreceipts from 13 October 1707 to 2 December1712 (Add. MS. 61344, fols. 121-52) and inSweet's accounts (Add. MS. 61406); and seenote 46.

149 Imhoff to Marlborough, 26 January, 23 Sep-tember 1707 (Add. MS. 61344, fols. 89, 93).Marlborough to Imhoff, 12 October 1707(Murray, iii/617).

150 Cardonnel to Imhoff, 15 September 1709 (Add.MS. 61400, fol. 200).

151 Imhoff to Marlborough, 11 June 1710 (Add.MS. 61344, fol. no) . Cardonnel to Imhoff,6 June 1711 (Add. MS. 61402, fol. 43); Cardon-nel to Duchess, 7 October 1717 (Add. MS.61475, fol. 104).

152 Zoepfl, 84, 269-70. Eberle, pp. 47, 80-4.153 Add. MS. 61344, fol- 169; Imhoff to Marl-

borough, 5 November 1714 (Add. MS. 61344,fol. 117); Cardonnel to Duchess, 7 October 1717(Add. MS. 61475, fol. 104). Eberle, p. 96.

154 Add. MSS. 61237-8.155 Stepney to Marlborough, 30 May 1706 (Add,

MS. 61144, fol. 83). Eberle, p. 37.156 Drafts of their documents of appointment are

Add. MS. 61344, fols. 70, 73; Schrader'smemorial concerning secretary (1705): Add.MS. 61143, fol. 182. Pay in 1707: Add. MS.61344, fot- 103.

157 Maskosky to Marlborough, 21 October 1707(Add. MS. 61344, fol- 153)-

158 Marlborough to Schrader, 29 March/9 April,14 August 1707 (Murray, iii/338, 512). For theactivities of the Reichstag and Habsburg andHanoverian policy see C. Granier, op. cit., whoconsulted Schrader's reports to the Elector, andG. Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers im Zeitalterder neunten Kur und der englischen Sukzession1674-1714., 3 vols. (Hildesheim, 1938, 1976,1979)-

159 Marlborough to Maskosky, 28 October 1707(Murray, iii/632); Cardonnel to Imhoff, 14 Sep-tember 1710 (Add. MS. 61401, fol. 88); J. A.Vann, op. cit., pp. 151, 159, 280. For theWurttemberg-Hanover dispute: Vann, op. cit.,pp. 156-7, 266.

160 Colonel Vauchoux to Marlborough, 24 Decem-ber 1705 (Add. MS. 5i344> fol- 19); Cardonnelto Imhoff, 15 September 1709 (Add. MS. 61400,fol. 200). For the dues see Huldenberg's historyand Heiland to Marlborough, 16 June 1706(Add. MS. 61344, fols. 14, 15, 54, 63); Zoepfl,136. Eberle, pp. 42-60.

161 Marlborough to Wratislaw, 24 December 1706/4 January 1707, to Sinzendorf, 27 December1706/7 January 1707 (Murray, iii/265, 271);Cardonnel to Stepney, 24 December 1706/4 January 1707 (Add. MS. 7063, fol. 259).

162 Sinzendorf to Marlborough, 5 February 1707(Add. MS. 61215, fol. 93).

163 Imhoff to Marlborough, 20 January 1708 (Add.

MS. 61344, fol. 97); Schrader to Marlborough,24 January 1707 (Add. MS. 61237, fol. 84);Staffhorst to Stepney, 21 January 1707 (Add.MS. 61344, fol. 79).

164 His sensitivity is apparent in Cardonnel toStepney, 24 December 1706/4 January 1707(Add. MS. 7063, fol. 259).

165 Cardonnel to Imhoff, 6 June 1711,10 November1711 (Add. MS. 61402, fols. 43, 144^).

166 E. G. Gregg, 'Marlborough in Exile, 1712-1714', Historical Journal., xv (1972), pp. 593-618; p. 600 also for information below.

167 Sinzendorf to Marlborough, 15 February 1713(Add. MS. 61216, fol. 131) and see Eugene toMarlborough, 25 January 1713 (Add. MS.61223, fol. 121).

168 M. Braubach, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 183, 420 note,

145-169 e.g. A Trip to Germany: Or The D. of M—h's

Farewelto England., who with his D—hess is goingto live in Germany as a Prince of the Empire[1713], contains the couplet 'all Pomp of LifeI'll disesteem / And live Incog, at Mindelheim';and see E. G. Gregg, art. cit., p. 595.

170 Coxe, iii/537; Cardonnel to Duchess, 7 October1717 (Add. MS. 61475, fol- 104); Duchess toCountess of Kildare, 28 May/9 J^^ne 1713(Sotheby, Parke-Bemet, Sale of manuscripts,20 July 1981, 593); Duchess to J. Craggs, senior,28 May/9 June 1713 (B.L., Stowe MS. 751,fol. 61); Zoepfl, 84. Eberle, pp. 92-3.

171 Marlborough to J. Craggs, senior, 22 June 1713(B.L., Stowe MS. 751, fol. 67^').

172 Marlborough to Wratislaw, 10 June 1712 (Add.MS. 9093, fol. 134).

173 Add. MS. 9093, fol. 58; Eugene to Marl-borough, 7 March 1714 (Add. MS. 61223, fol.129).

174 Bonneval to Duchess, 8 April 1714 (Add. MS.61475, fol- 70); most unusually for a letter fromthe Continent, in English. Coxe, iii/550 in-correctly gives date as 8 August; Eugene toMarlborough, 25 May 1714 (Add. MS. 61223,fol. 133; Coxe, iii/550).

175 Zoepfl, 84. Eberle, p. 45.176 Charles VI to Marlborough, 24 November 1714

(transcript in Cardonnel's hand) (Add. MS.61212, fol. 146).

177 Cardonnel to Duchess, 7 October 1717 (Add.MS. 61475, fol- 104); Marlborough to Imhoff,18/29 January 1715 (Add. MS. 61344, fol. 119);Eugene to Marlborough, 24 December 1714,26 March 1715 (Add. MS. 61223, fols. 137,140); Charles VI to Marlborough, 19 December1714 (Add. MS. 61212, fol. 148); Coxe, iii/55i-2(inaccurate in details and the letters of 1716-17are not among the Blenheim papers in theBritish Library); Churchill, iv/532-3, 539-40for Marlborough's strokes; D. McKay, 'Diplo-matic Relations between George I and theEmperor Charles VI 1714-1719', unpublishedPh.D. thesis (London, 1971).

178 Metternich to Sir H. Wellesley, 24 November1825 (with related papers) (Add, MS. 61344,fol. 195-202).

179 Churchill, iii/144, 147, No doubt expecting anequivalent from a grateful Emperor.

180 Cardonnel to Stepney, 21 August 1706 (Add.MS. 7063, fol. 235).

181 e.g. Marlborough to Wratislaw, 6 August 1706(Murray, iii/53).

182 M. Braubach, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 185-205; D.McKay, Prince Eugene of Savoy (London,1977), PP- 102-7; Churchill, iii/230-43.

•2,- < / •

Marlborough's signature and seal as Prince of Mindelheim, Add. MS. 37156, fol. 247'

79