Matveof, it seemed, was arrested by his creditors, who feared that, since he had taken leave at Court, they would never be paid.  Peter the Great was angry at the indignity thus offered his representative, and was only unwillingly pacified by the above Act. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5:  Richard Dyet, J.P., “is discovered to have counterfeited stamped paper, in which he was a commissioner; and, with his accomplices, has cheated the Queen of L100,000” (Swift’s “Journal to Stella,” October 3rd, 1710, vol. ii., p. 20 of present edition).  He was tried for felony at the Old Bailey, January 13th, 1710/1, and was acquitted, because his offence was only a breach of trust.  He was, however, re-committed for trial on the charge of misdemeanour. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6:  “Some very considerable abuses,” the chancellor of the exchequer informed the House of Commons on January 3rd, 1710/1, “have been discovered in the victualling.”  It appears that the seamen in the navy were allowed seven pints of beer per day, during the time they were on board.  In port, of course the sailors were permitted to go ashore, but the allowance was still charged to the ship’s account; and became a perquisite of the purser.  It often happened that the contractors did not send in the full amount of beer paid for, but gave the purser money in exchange for the difference.  The scandal was brought to the attention of the House as stated, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the abuse.  On February 15th the House considered the committee’s report, and it was found that Thomas Ridge, Member for Portsmouth, contracted to supply 5,513 tons of beer, and had delivered only 3,213.  Several other brewers of Portsmouth had been guilty of the same fraud.  Mr. Ridge was expelled the House the same day. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7:  See Swift’s “Journal,” quoted in notes to No. 33, ante, p. 214. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8:  This Act was passed in 1708.  See No. 18, ante, and note, p. 105. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9:  The Address from both Houses, presented to the Queen, February 18th, 1709/10, prayed that she “would be pleased to order the Duke of Marlborough’s immediate departure for Holland, where his presence will be equally necessary, to assist at the negotiations of peace, and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10:  The Address of both Houses to the Queen, presented on December 23rd, 1707, urged:  “That nothing could restore a just balance of power in Europe, but the reducing the whole Spanish monarchy to the obedience of the House of Austria; and ...  That no peace can be honourable or safe, for your Majesty or your allies, if Spain, the West Indies, or any part of the Spanish Monarchy, be suffered to remain under the power of the House of Bourbon.”  The resolutions as carried in the House of Lords on December 19th did not include the words “or any part of the Spanish Monarchy”; these words were introduced on a motion by Somers who was in the chair when the Select Committee met on December 20th to embody the resolutions in proper form.  The altered resolution was quickly hurried through the Lords and agreed to by the Commons, and the Address as amended was presented to the Queen.  By this bold move Somers prolonged the war indefinitely.  See also note at the commencement of this number. [T.S.]]