[276] Floridablanca to Montmorin, January 20, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) The same is published In Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, III, 341. This author quotes it from Cantillo, Collecion de Tratados de España. See p. 366 ante [note c].
[277] Floridablanca to Fernan Nuñez, April 6, 1790; Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, III, 342.
[278] Fernan Nuñez to Floridablanca, Paris, May 11, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)
[279] This episode of the recall of Vauguyon is treated at length by Grandmaison, L’Ambassade Française en Espagne pendant la Révolution, 21 ff. This author thinks that the suspicion originated with British emissaries in Paris, who wished to produce an estrangement between the Courts of France and Spain. This was, at least, its result. He quotes several letters that passed between Louis XVI and Charles IV regarding the matter. The Spanish King’s attitude unfortunately made it seem that there was some ground for the suspicion of Vauguyon. The French Court was considerably embarrassed thereby. There seems to be no doubt of the fact that Vauguyon was innocent, at least in so far as any complicity with the French Court was concerned.
[280] On May 7 the British Court had given orders to Lord Robert FitzGerald, chargé at Paris, to make this explanation to Montmorin. (See Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 68)
[281] Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 510, session for May 14, 1790.
[282] Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 515-519 (May 14, 1790); Willert, P. F., Mirabeau, 164-170; Loménie, Les Mirabeaus, V, 144-149; Stern, Das Leben Mirabeaus, II, 151-164.
[283] Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 526-661 (May 16-22, 1790). Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 188, discusses briefly the debate.
[284] Montmorin to Floridablanca, Paris, May 21, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)
[285] Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 705 (May 28); Id., XVI, 185 (June 12); Id., XVI. 206 (June 13).