Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/266

 256 p. Mantoux speeches.' In one instance we have found among them a series of detached reports concerning Lord Lovat's trial in the House of Lords. ^ In time of peace, when nothing stood in the way of regular intercourse, difficulties of another kind now and then arose. The repeated attempts of both Houses to stop the publication, though the Houses had finally to abandon them, often resulted in making far from easy the work of those who collected information for the French embassy. Count de Cambis wrote on February 13, 1738: I almost despair of being able to send you the debates and speeches in both Houses. The compliance by which we were enabled to procure them in the days of M. de Chavigny and M. de Bussy' is now abso- lutely forbidden, owing to the strict orders given this year to let nobody in when they are transacting business. If I can find nevertheless any practicable means to procure them, I will spare no trouble or expense, but I am convinced that I shall succeed only by dint of money, for the men who report the debates have to pay a dear price for the ushers' compliance, and to employ several copyists who cost them much. It is still likely that such difficulties, which never stopped the editors of the magazines, cannot account for all the gaps we have noticed in the series of reports. In the course of that same year, 1738, in spite of all orders, Cambis managed to send to Versailles the report of the most important debates, namely, of the debates in the House of Commons of February 3/14, on the number of the land forces; of March 28/ April 8, on the same question; and of May 15/26, on the occasion of a bill moved by Mr. Pulteney, concerning captures at sea.* Thus a number of documents relating to the English parlia- mentary debates, which ought to be among the records of the French Foreign Office, are now missing, either because they were not regularly forwarded, or because the people for whom they were intended did not care to keep them after they had read them. The greatest gaps are those connected with periods of war. They are particularly to be deplored: from 1758 to 1768 the scarcity of docu- ments collected by the editors of the Parliamentary History makes us anxious to bring to light new sources of information. Un- fortunately the records at the Quai d'Orsay cannot supply us with any intelligence concerning that period. ' Pitt's speech in the letter dated February 5, 1745 (vol. 419. fF. 103 ct scqq.) ; Sir John Barnard's and Pelham's speeches, in the letter dated April i. 1746 (vol. 422, f. 136). ^Vol. 423, ff. 106-107, 109-111, 114-116, 117-120. 'M. de Chavigny, minister plenipotentiary in London from 1731 to 1737. M. de Bussy, sent on an extraordinary embassy to London in 1737, and later (1740) minister plenipotentiary. <Vol. 397, flf. 1 18-129; vol. 398, ff. 2i-26; vol. 398, ff. 156-157-