Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 31, 1717. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1960.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
'Appendix: The 1715 Commission for Army Debts', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 31, 1717, ed. William A Shaw, F H Slingsby( London, 1960), British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol31/pp732-857 [accessed 8 November 2024].
'Appendix: The 1715 Commission for Army Debts', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 31, 1717. Edited by William A Shaw, F H Slingsby( London, 1960), British History Online, accessed November 8, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol31/pp732-857.
"Appendix: The 1715 Commission for Army Debts". Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 31, 1717. Ed. William A Shaw, F H Slingsby(London, 1960), , British History Online. Web. 8 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol31/pp732-857.
The 1715 Commission for Army Debts
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The difficult subject of Army Debt has been dealt with at various points in thisCalendar. The operation of the Disbandment after the Treaty of Rijswick is outlined in the Introduction to Vol. IX, pp. cclxxviiiseq., and in the Introduction to Vols. XI–XVII, pp. ccixseq. In the main it is possible now to say that the House of Commons provided Supply for the Disbandment so far as concerned the ordinary soldier by the second 3s. Aid and the third 3s. Aid of the years 1697 and 1698. But after the arrears of the private soldier had been provided for there remained the debts due to the General or Staff Officers, Regimental Officers, Artillery Officers, Officers and Gunners of the Garrisons and Regimental Army clothiers. The complication of these debts was increased by the system which made the Colonel of the Regiment responsible for the clothing contract. He could only meet the liability by assigning to the clothier the deductions from the soldiers' pay for a twelvemonth ahead and if the Regiment was disbanded before expiry of the twelvemonth, then the clothier looked to the Colonel to be recouped. In this case an obligation which was essentially national fell on the shoulders of an individual, and he could only save himself by petitioning the King or the Treasury for relief. Furthermore, the system of recruiting easily could, and often did, impose a personal liability on the Captain of a Company. Respits and non-effective money were generally supposed to be available as a fund for recruiting and as equivalent to the Levy Money which was granted for the raising of Companies. But the system did not work automatically. The Captain had to petition for the removal of the respits and the process involved endless delay and in the meantime the Captain was out of pocket for all his recruiting expenses.
Whilst therefore the pay of the private soldier was paid (and perforce had to be paid) instanter on his disbandment, the arrears of the Officers might remain for years unstated and unpaid. The Officer might die, many of them did die, before the accounts of the Regiments were adjusted and cleared and the balance of arrears due to themselves finally paid. The cruelty of such a system was still further increased when the Colonel of the Regiment happened to be a scoundrel. The Paymaster General of the Forces paid out the moneys which he received from the Exchequer for each or any Regiment to the Colonel of it or to the Colonel's agent if he had one. The Colonel thus became an imprest accountant under the Paymaster General, and he might easily be a delinquent for years before he was found out. He would make a point of paying subsistence money, otherwise there would have been a mutiny. But he could keep his hands on the deductions and delay the clearing of the Regiment almost indefinitely. One particularly vicious instance of this type of scoundrelly Colonel was referred to in the Introduction to Vol. XIX of thisCalendar (p. lxiii), viz. that of Robert Byerley. For three years, from 30 Dec. 1689 to 31 Jan. 1692–3, Byerley had been Colonelof a Regiment of Horse (the Carabineers, later known as the Sixth Dragoon Guards). When he handed over the Regiment to Col. Hugh Wyndham in Jan. 1692–3 Byerley was in debt to it over £5,000. The Paymaster General, the Earl of Ranelagh, had issued to him as imprests for the Regiment a sum of 28,277l. 2s. 9½d., and of that sum Byerley could only account for 22,641l. 10s. 11¼d. as paid out by him. The balance due from him to the captains or to the clothiers or to Clearings was 5,585l. 11s. 9¾d. Ten years later, in the year 1703, this sum was still unpaid.
What made this particular instance more vicious was that Byerley was a tool and an associate of Robert Harley, and the mere political influence of Harley was so powerful in the House of Commons that Byerley was voted as a member of the Commission for Army Debts in Jan. 1702–3, and again in March 1703–4, in both cases by quite a large majority vote. It was not until two of the Officers or soldiers of his old Regiment petitioned the House of Lords and showed up his proceedings and his true character that the matter of his debt to the Regiment became known. In the meantime Byerley had acted for more than a twelvemonth on the Commission and as a member of it had been making unfounded and bitterly venomous charges against the Paymaster General—charges which were intended merely to divert attention from his own delinquency.
For very shame the House of Commons had to drop him as a member of the renewed Commission, but the disgrace did not affect his association with Robert Harley. The significant point about this illustration is its bearing not on abstract morality but on concrete financial methods. The House of Commons voted Supply in all good faith for an Army Establishment of so many and such and such Regiments. In strict accordance with the Vote the Treasury Lords as and when it was convenient issued the money to the Paymaster General and in equal good faith the Paymaster General paid the money to the Colonel or the Regimental Agent of each and every Regiment as an imprest—and then anything might happen. Under any conditions that particular year's imprest would not be cleared until the muster rolls had been sent in, until all deductions had been made and accounted for and until the clothing contract had been met and settled and until all respits and stoppages had been finally allowed or removed. When the cycle of these operations was complete there would be left a net balance of clearings due to the Regiment, men and Officers according to their share, and when that balance of clearings had been paid out the Colonel could clear his own imprest with the Paymaster General and in turn the Paymaster General could submit that particular year's account to the Auditors of Imprests. In other words, in spite of the utmost financial rectitude on the part of the House of Commons, and of the Treasury and of the Paymaster General, it was impossible to avoid the necessity of these ever recurring Commissions for Army Debts simply because the Army accountancy system admitted of so much slack rope, and financial slack rope meant financial suffering to Officers and men alike.
The application of the above general statement to the sequence of events under William III. and Queen Anne is illuminating. The episode of the Disbandment after the Treaty of Rijswick might be considered as on the whole fairly liquidated—the soldiers by means of Parliamentary Supply and the Officers by means of Debentures on forfeited Irish lands. Bnt there were exceptions. The arrears of the Enniskillin Regiments and of the Londonderry Regimentswere not paid and to these was added at the time of William's death a long list of pensions, individual half-pay claims and other Equitable Claims arising out of Army services. The list of these arrears, regimental as well as individual, is printed in full in the Appendix to Vol. XVII of thisCalendar, pp. 1078–1204. They amounted to a total of 372,452l. 4s. 93/8d. One and all they remained unpaid in 1710, and they remain unpaid to-day.
The political rancour which was aroused by the party struggles at the close of William's reign sufficiently account for the neglect of these claims in 1702, but that the subject should have been shelved during the years 1702–1710 and then dropped completely was due entirely to the persistent vilification of William's memory by a faction in the House of Commons.
When the subject of Army Debts was again brought to the notice of Parliament the situation had changed so far as the chief actors were concerned. Harley was in power as Lord Treasurer and his animus was no longer directed against Wm. III., but against Marlborough. An Act, 10 Anne, c. 38, for appointing Commissioners for Army Debts was rushed through (the debts due to the Army, Transport Service and Sick and Wounded) in eight days at the very close of the Session of June, 1711. The Commissioners were all tools of Harley and the preamble of the Act was in his best style of poisonous innuendo. But Marlborough was too big a figure to be touched and beyond engineering a vote in the House of Commons condemning him for taking from the Allied Princes a percentage deduction as a contribution to the military Intelligence service Harley discreetly left him alone. The Army Debts Commission made an interim Report dated 4 March 1712–13 in which they briefly recounted the difficulties in the way of clearing the Regimental accounts and there they left the subject, contenting themselves with setting out the reasons why the Paymaster General, James Brydges, could not close and attest the accounts pursuant to the Commissioners' precepts; the reason being in every case the absence of muster rolls or of Establishments or of disbandment date. This answer applies to the Regiments in the following order: viz. Brigadier Lepell; Lieut. Gen. Stanhope; Col. Bouchetiere; Earl of Galway's Spanish Foot; Gorge; Strafford's Dragoons; Nassau, late Edward Stanhope; Magny's Foot; Col. Clayton; Brigadier Munden; Brigadier Gore; Mountjoy; Windsor, late Mordaunt; Hill; Sir Robert Rich; Brigadier Dalzel; Brigadier Stanwix; William Stanhope, late Richards; Lord Stanes; Col. Jones; Col. Tyrrel; Col. Feilding; Sir Daniel Carroll; Marquis D'Assa; Brigadier Withers; Col. Deborde's Dragoons; Col. Gwaly's Dragoons; Col. Foissac's Dragoons; Col. Magny's Dragoons; Col. Sailand's Dragoons; Franks; Brigadier Vesey; Portmore; Farrington; Blossett: French Dragoons called Guiscard's; Hotham; Harrison; Stewart; Harvey; Pepper; Newton; Sankey; Wightman; Barrymore; Elliot; Fuziliers; Whetham; Phillips; Molesworth; Johnson, late Brudenal; Wade; Bowles; Leigh; Butler; Dubourgay; Lord Mark Kerr; Dormer; Creighton; Windress; Pearce's Dragoons; Pearce's Foot; Montandre; Haye, now Desney. In the case of 12 of the above Regiments, taken prisoners at Almanza, the muster rolls were duplicated, one for the prisoners in Spain returned as complete, the other for the new raised substitute; with further complications of duplicated Officers and levy money and Catalan recruits or contingents.
For the remaining Regiments the Paymaster General certified briefly:
“The Muster Rolls for these Regiments to the 21 December 1712 were received at the Pay Office the 31 of January last, and the Establishment for the said Regiments being now signed by her Majesty and ready to be countersigned at the Treasury there will be no further difficulty in closing and attesting their accounts to the 21 December 1712: which shall be done as soon as possible.”
The Regiments to which this certificate applies were as follows: viz. Lumley; Wood; Cadogan; Palmes; Harwich; Stair; Ross; Orkney; Selwyn; Webb; North; Hertford; Durell; Sterne; Orrery; Sabine; Primrose; Preston; Newton; Sutton; Evans; Pocock; Hamilton; Sybourg; Wynn; Hane [Kane].
At the accession of George I. the tables were turned upon Harley. An Act (1 Geo. I., St. 2, c. 24) was passed to appoint Commissioners to take, examine and state the debts due to the Army from 24 Dec. 1701; and it is the Report of that Commission which is here printed as an appendix. In a single sentence the Report shows that the Regimental accounts for the reign of Anne had all been cleared up to the time when Harley became Lord Treasurer and that under his administration of the Treasury not a single Regimental account had been cleared and a total debt of 205,800l. 9s. 10¾d. had accumulated.
But beyond and above the question of the claims of the Regiments, the proceedings connected with this Act are instructive as an illustration of the financial methods employed in dealing with a simple matter of debt.
The preamble of the Act recites as follows:
Whereas several arrears of pay are due to Officers who served her late Majesty Q. A. with great honour, courage and fidelity in the last war, and many great demands are made by the Officers and others employed in her late Majesty's service during the late war against France, of sums of money claimed to be due to them for services performed in carrying on the said war and for other causes, matters or things relating to the Army,
to the end … that it may more fully appear what the said arrears of pay and debts do justly amount unto and that the accounts thereof may be stated and examined in order for a provision to be made by Parliament for the payment of the same: therefore
(fn. 1) Thomas Smith, of Glasgow, Esq.
Thomas Pelham, Esq.
Grey Nevill, Esq.
John Plumptre, Esq.
Leonard Smelt, Esq.
Sir Wm. Gordon, bart.
Sir Thomas Palmer, bart., are appointed Commissionersad hoc. The Regiments concerned are those of Lepell; Stanhope; Bouchetiere; Galway's Spanish Foot; Strafford; Nassau (late Edward Stanhope); Magny's Foot; Clayton; Mundon; Gore; Windsor (late Mordaunt); Hill; Rich; Dalzal; Stanwix; Wm. Stanhope (late Richards); Slane; Jones; Rooke and Price; Tyrrel; Fielding; Carroll; D'Assa; Withers; Desbordes; Galley; Foissac; Magny's Dragoons; Sarland; Francks; Vesey; Farrington; Guiscard; Blossett;Hotham; Harrison; Harvey; Pepper; Newton; Sankey; Barrymore; Fuziliers; Whetham; Philips; Molesworth; Johnson, late Brudenall; Leigh; Butler; Dubourgay; Kerr; Dormer; Creighton; Grant; Windress; Pearce's Dragoons; Pearce's Foot; Montandre; Desny, late Islay; and other Regiments as shall appear to be in the like case.
In all these Acts relating to Army Debts the procedure or routine of payment was modelled on that adopted after the disbandment of 1697. After ascertaining the amount of the debt the Commissioners made out a certificate addressed to the Paymaster General of the Forces specifying the Officer's name and the amount due. Thereupon the Paymaster General made out a Debenture charged upon whatever Fund he was empowered to charge. In 1697 the Debentures were charged on the sale of the resumed Irish Forfeited lands or were made subscribable towards the purchase of such lands. In 1715, however, such Fund no longer existed and a different procedure was adopted. By the Act of 7 Geo. I., St. 1. c. 30, the certified debt was to carry an annuity of 4 per cent. as from 24 June 1717, which annuities were to be charged upon and payable out of the Customs and other Duties composing the General Fund established by 3 Geo. I., c. 7, and the Treasury was authorised to issue orders for payment of such annuities. This arrangement was confirmed by Clause 35 of the Act 9 George I., c. 5. by which all doubts were removed as to the power of the Deputy Paymaster of the Forces to act therein legally in place of the Paymaster General himself.
The upshot of this dilatory and complicated procedure was that in 1722 the British Officers who had fought with glory under Marlborough in the war against Louis XIV were finally settled with, 12 years or more after their service was performed.
The cruelty of the procedure lay in the delay of payment as well as in the method of it. Many of the Officers died before payment was even arranged and many others were driven to compound with their creditors by surrendering their titles to annuities. In the same way many of the Officers of the war under Wm. III. had been driven by starvation to dispose of their debentures on Irish lands at any conceivable discount. The private individuals or companies which bought up the debentures were simply gambling in Irish land, but the cost of their gamble was unspeakable misery to the British Officer. The utmost that can be said for Parliament was that having voted Supply for the Regiments in accordance with the submitted Estimates it considered itself entitled to wash its hands of any debt arising from misapplication of such Supply. Such a device as a Supplementary Estimate was then unknown. The House could be and not infrequently was induced to provide special Supply for Debts which could be classed as Extraordinaries, but Regimental pay did not fall under such a head.
Report from the Commissioners appointed to examine and state the Debts due to the Army. (4 March 1716–17. T64/15)
Your Commissioners in pursuance of the trust reposed in them have examined into the accounts of several debts incurred for matters and things relating to the Army and here humbly represent the States of such of them as they have been able to perfect.
The Principal Officers of his Majesty's Ordnance upon a precept to them to give in accounts of all moneys remaining due in their Office for any causes, matters or things relating to the Army under the care and direction of their Board returned [answer] on the 4th November 1715 that they had no account to give of any arrears or money due from their Office to the Train of Artillery, Officers upon half pay or other Officers or gunners, neither was there any demand upon their Office for any money or arrears of pay.
Your Commissioners in the beginning of their Commission at the same time that they sent to the other Paymasters issued their precept to Sir Roger Mostyn, late Paymaster of the Marines, to give in the accompts of the Regiments late under his care [of pay], but have not yet been able to obtain from him any perfect accounts by which they could proceed upon the examination of the debt owing to the said [Marine] Regiments.
Mr. How, late Paymaster General of Guards and Garrisons, upon a precept sent him to give in accompts of all moneys remaining due in his Office, returned for answer that he had cleared or was then ready to clear all the Branches of the Establishment of Guards, Garrisons &c. for the times they were under his care of payment except the Regiments, Troops and Companies whom he had cleared to 24 Dec. 1713 and [that he] had received their Muster Rolls from that time to 24 Oct. 1714, when all his accounts as late Paymaster General do end; and that he should very soon lay a state of that arrear before the Lords of the Treasury, who he doubted not would enable him to satisfy the same out of the Funds granted by Parliament for that service, for which no further provision was wanted.
Mr. Walpole, who was Paymaster General of his Majesty's Forces from the said 24th Oct. 1714 has certified that from that time all the Regiments have been cleared to Dec. 24 following: so that the accounts of such Regiments as were continued on foot after the war are stated only to the said 24 Oct. 1714, which we should otherwise have carried on to the said 24 December.
Your Commissioners have gone through the accounts of all the Regiments which served in Flanders (except four whose accounts the Earl of Carnarvon, late Paymaster to the Forces Abroad, has not given in by reason of some difficulties which hinder the adjusting of them in his Office); and the said accounts are here stated in such manner as your Commissioners think themselves impowered to state the same, together with such additional demands as some of the said Regiments think themselves equitably intituled to, though not provided for by any warrant, Establishment or other proper authority. Of this nature were the demands made by several Regiments for an allowance to make good the assignments of their off-reckonings which fell short by reason of the reductions or disbandments of the said Regiments respectively; and the said demands are hereinafter inserted. But we think it our duty to observe that upon examining into the value of the clothes for which the said assignments were made it has not appeared to us that the value of the clothes delivered to any of these Regiments did amount to the sums assigned for the same.
In the months of May and June 1713 the several Regiments of the Army in the Netherlands were reduced to a lower Establishment; and in the Regiments of Foot where we have been able to ascertain the days of Reduction we have stated their credit according to the reduced rates from the said days respectively. But in the Regiments of Horse and Dragoons after the strictest enquiry we have not been able to discover the precise days on which they were reduced and therefore have continued their credit as stated by the Paymaster for full numbers to the end of the Muster current at the time when the orders of Reduction were dated: wherein there may be a saving [? to be made] when it shall appear on what days they were reduced.
We must observe that by the contract with Sir Solomon de Medina for providing bread for the Army in the Netherlands in the year 1711 the said contractor was to receive of and from every Company of Foot in her late Majesty's pay that should not take their bread from him, during their being in garrison from and after the date of the contract, the sum of 50 guilders and of and from every such Troop of Dragoons the sum of 42 guilders, to be charged to the pay of the said Troops and Companies respectively. But it appears to us that no such payments have been made by the said Troops and Companies in the year 1711, though the same had been made in the like case in the year preceding. And as we do not find any order to the Paymaster to charge the said sums we have not made any charge thereof upon the Regiments in the following States; but submit the same to the direction of Parliament.
The accompts of several Regiments who served in Spain and Portugal have been some time under the examination of your Commissioners, who are preparing to state them with all the despatch which the many difficulties and intricacies of the said accompts will admit of. [Signed at the end of the account.] T. Pelham. G. Neville. T. Plumptre. L. Smelt. W. Gordon. T. Palmer. R. Bristow.
4 March 1716–17.
[Report of the Army Debts Commissioners to the House of Commons on the Account of Sir Solomon de Medina for bread and bread waggons.]
Your Commissioners having received from the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury two accompts of Demands upon the Government as stated by Mr. Auditor Harley (to whom they had formerly been referred), the one of Sir Solomon de Medina for bread and bread waggons provided by him for her late Majesty's Forces in the Netherlands in the year 1711: which [state by Auditor Harley] is as follows:
To the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury.
In pursuance of an order of the late Lord Treasurer dated in June 1712 Sir Solomon de Medina hath laid before me his original contracts and vouchers relating to his accompts of bread and bread waggons provided for the Forces in the Low Countries in the year 1711; which I have examined and considered with his said accompt and compared it with the allowances made him in the preceding year and do humbly lay before your Lordships the state of the said accompt for the year 1711, which I find to be as follows:
for the service of 250 waggons from the said 7 November to the 15th of the same month at the same rate of 5 fl. 10 stivers, which appear by the aforesaid certificate of Mr. Cadogan to have been employed in conducting the British, Prussian and Auxiliary Troops upon the Meuse. The reason alleged why the same was not included in the Duke of Marlborough's warrant abovementioned is that the service was performed after his Grace had left the field.
Bread is furnished to the Troops pursuant to a Treaty with her late Majesty and the States General and these [or similar] allowances were made in the year 1710, viz. that of the old Prussian Corps by her Majesty's warrant, and that to the new [Corps] by the Duke of Marlborough's [warrant], which could not now be obtained (as the contractor alleges), the Duke having left the field.
The sum of 15,000 guilders was demanded for a loss of this nature at Maestrecht in the year 1710 and was directed to be allowed him upon his producing a certificate that allowances were made by theStates General in the like cases: which certificate the contractor is to procure in order to have the [above]said loss allowed him pursuant to the abovesaid article in his contract.
Observation: It appears by the affidavits of the officers and workmen that performed this service that the accomptant was actually at the expense which is here demanded, and that the loss or diminution upon every 100 sacks of meal by loading it in boats and unloading and carrying the same back amounts at least to nine sacks in the hundred, which they aver they perfectly know, having experienced it manv times.
Observation: By the 6th article of the contract the contractor is to be indemnified if a convoy be taken and the bread lost or destroyed by the enemy, he giving notice in six weeks after, that the same may be examined and the case understood.
It appears by Mr. Cardonnel's certificate of the 17th Oct. 1712 that they [the contractor] had a considerable loss by the sinking of a boat laden with malt at Thuin on the river Scarp in the way to Douay in the year 1711, at the same time that the enemy set fire to several boats laden with hay and oats for the use of the Army. And they have also produced a large affirmation before a notary public made by the waterman on whose boat the same was laden, as also by persons concerned in unloading the magazines, recitingthe circumstances and manner of the said loss and that thereby the quantity of 701 sacks of meal loaden in the said boat were totally lost and that the damage sustained by the sinking of the boat under water amounted to 300 florins at least.
Observation: To prove the loss the contractor produces the attestation of two persons before John Lodwick Cramer, the military auditor of Bethune, dated 8 July 1711, who affirm and make out that they saw at the time abovementioned a party of the enemy come into the said town of Locon, where they burnt and destroyed 575 empty meal sacks belonging to the Providor General, Sir Solomon de Medina: that they were then by and present and that they themselves had loaden the said number of sacks and had undertaken to bring them over from La Gorgue to Bethune: and this attestation being made ten days after the loss happened, the contractor hopes the same is to be esteemed due notice, he being allowed by the contract six weeks within which time to give notice of his loss.
Your Commissioners having considered the aforegoing Report and carefully examined the accompt and all the vouchers relating thereto are of opinion that amongst the several demands of the contractor, Sir Solomon de Medina, therein stated, five of them are not supported by sufficient vouchers, which are humbly represented as follows:
Article of 11,000 guilders claimed for the service of 250 waggons employed in conducting the Prussian and other Troops on the Meuse from 7 to 15 Nov. 1711: 11,000 guilders Holland's money or 1,037l. 14s. 8½d. sterling at 12 guilders 10 stivers to the £ sterling.
This your Commissioners conceive is no way provided for in the contract, which extends only to pay of the waggons employed for carriage of bread to the Army.
And as it was a service not provided for by the contract so neither does he produce any order from the General for employing his waggons in this service; and we find that after the campaign was ended the General (who by the contract was to settle with the contractor what days the pay of the waggons was to begin and determine) granted his warrant dated 22 Dec. 1711 for the pay of the waggons employed during the campaign exclusive of this demand, though the service of these waggons as well as of the others was expressed in the same certificate on which he grounded his said warrant.
Article of 12,851 guilders for a loss alleged to be sustained by the contractor by an unconsumed magazine of corn at Mons, 12,851 guilders or 1,212l. 7s. 2d. sterling.
The contract provides that the deliveries of bread ending before the middle of September the contractor shall be indemnified for the loss he shall sustain by such corn or grain as he shall prove on due order to have laid by for the Troops, but the deliveries of bread not ending till November your Commissioners think he is not entitled by the contract to this demand.
Article of 9,408 guilders for transporting, by water, meal from Air to Lisle and from Lisle to Douay to supply the Army when they forced the enemy's lines on the side of Douay.
In this demand the contractor includes not only the freight of vessels employed in transporting the said meal, but also the waste, porterage, cartage, loading and unloading it, whereas the contract provides only for furnishing him with vessels for such transportation. Wherefore your Commissioners are of opinion that no more ought to be allowed him than the freight of the said vessels, being 3,290 guilders, which being deducted from the abovesaid demand, the remainder not warranted by contract amounts to 6,118 guilders or 577l. 3s. 4¾d. sterling.
Article of 4,681 guilders 5 stivers for the loss of a barque's loading of meal destroyed by the enemy between Tournay and Douay and for the damage of the vessel: viz. 4,681 guilders 5 stivers or 441l. 12s. 6½d. sterling.
He was by contract to be indemnified if by misfortune a convoy happened to be taken and beaten and the bread to be lost or otherwise destroyed by the enemy, he giving notice of such a loss in six weeks after it happened, that the same might be examined and the case understood. But we do not find that the contractor gave any notice or that the said loss has ever been examined as the contract directs.
Article of 575 guilders for 575 empty sacks burnt at Locon by the enemy, 575 guilders or 54l. 4s. 10¾d.
The contractor grounds this demand on the same article in the contract as the preceding demand, which we cannot think makes any provision for losses of this nature; or if it could be construed to extend to such losses, yet it does not appear that notice was given of this loss within the time limited by contract.
Total of the above articles, 35,225 guilders 5 stivers or 3,323l. 2s. 8½d. sterling, which, if disallowed, there will then remain due to the contractor no more than 261,522 guilders 1 stiver 3 den., making in sterling money at 10 fl. 12 stivers to the pound [sterling] (which is the rate at which the other monies have been paid him on this account) 24,671l. 17s. 10d.
The other accompt received from the said Lords of the Treasury is of Brigadier Lewis Petit for disbursements by him made in the fortification of Port Mahon and several other particulars: concerning which Mr. Auditor [Harley] made the following Report:
To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury.
A state of the accompt of Brigadier Lewis Petit, late Lieut. Governor of Port Mahon in the island of Minorca, of the money received and paid by him for building of fortifications at the said port and for the pay and contingent charges of the Garrison at St. Philip's Castle from 23 Sept. 1708 (the day the accomptant took possession of the said Castle) until the 26 January 1711–12, old style (the time he was superseded).
By the Instructions given to the accountant for building the said fortifications and defraying the expense thereof under the hand of the Rt. Honble. James Stanhope, Esq., Commander in Chief of her late Majesty's Forces in Spain, the accomptant was directed to settle the projects of the fortifications and to make the contracts for the prices with the undertakers thereof in concert with and in the presence of Brigadier Peter Durand, to whose care the direction of the details of all the works was committed, and the accomptant is thereby ordered to contract in his own name on the part of the Queen, to take on himself the inspection and superintendency of the whole and see everything executed according to a plan of the fortifications which had been approved by the said Mr. Stanhope and to pay not only the contracts but all workmen and charges attending the fortifications and to keep the accompts thereof.
The accomptant is herein also surcharged with the money he owns to have borrowed of sundry private persons for carrying on the said fortifications pursuant to directions in that behalf from General Stanhope: as also with the cost of provisions bought up by him for a supply of the Garrison: for both which the accomptant informs me that he gave his bills upon the Deputy Paymasters of the Forces in Spain: which bills remain still unsatisfied; but the value having been received by the accomptant he is charged therewith in this accompt, the parties demanding the payment of the said bills from the public, viz. for money received of
The accounts of the abovementioned works have been made up and here stated according to a measurement made thereof by the accomptant and Brigadier Durand, under whose direction the same were wrought; and it appears by the vouchers that the undertakers were paid and accounted with according to the said measurement, at the aforesaid rates specified in their contracts, which appear to have been made in presence of and in concert with the said Brigadier Durand as is directed in the Instructions to the accomptant: and the said works agree with the Plan that Mr. Stanhope ordered them to pursue.
The vouchers produced by the accomptant for proof of the payments are of the following kinds: for part thereof the receipts of the parties themselves, but for other part only testifications of payment given under the hands of other persons expressing that they subscribed the same, the parties themselves not knowing how to write; which persons the accomptant represents to be witnesses of his payments and informs me [that] it is the custom in the island of Minorca to take such testifications as receipts when the parties themselves cannot write, and not to take their marks as is practised elsewhere. He has produced, besides these testifications, the affidavits of most of the persons who subscribed the same that they saw the sums expressed therein paid to the parties without any deduction.
For 380 dollars 6 ryals of this Article no receipts have been delivered, the accomptant alleging the same are either lost or mislaid. He has produced affidavits of the payments of the said sum made either by his cashier, clerk or by surveyors of the works or other personsprivy to the payment of the same. As these affidavits and the testifications of payment beforementioned are not the vouchers required by the Course of the Exchequer the payments made thereupon cannot be allowed by me without the authority of a privy seal in that behalf.
The total charged as paid for the fortifications is 115,066 dollars 7 ryals 16 dobleros.
The accomptant hath produced the like vouchers for the further sum of 10,023 dollars 5 ryals 1 doblero due to several undertakers for work done by them and included in the measurement abovementioned: for payment whereof he gave the parties his notes [bills] upon the Deputy Paymasters of the Forces in Spain. But the said sum is not herein allowed [to] the accomptant in regard the said bills have not been satisfied.
And there likewise appears to be due to clear several of the undertakers of these fortifications for work done by them according to the said measurement the further sum of 7,749 dollars 3 ryals 14 dobl., which therefore is left out of the credit before given to the accomptant.
The charge of the said fortifications is here stated according to the accounts and vouchers exhibited to me by the accomptants, to which the Commissioners for Inspecting the Affair of the War in Spain having in their report to her late Majesty made many Objections and proposed to deduct from the accomptant's payments for the fortifications the sum of 59,594 dollars 4 ryals on account either of the overmeasurement of the works or the unreasonableness of the prices allowed by the accomptant for the same in his contracts with the undertakers, I [Auditor Harley] have compared the said Objections with the Answers made thereto by the accomptant and the proofs which he produces to justify the same, wherein he represents that the overmeasurements objected to consist either of quantites which he has not inserted in his accounts or of quantities which he hath given proof were actually wrought and paid for, though not included in the measurement of the said Commissioners.
As to the deductions proposed to be made from the prices allowed for the works which the [said] Commissioners report to be extravagant and more than was paid to the workmen, the accomptant observes that in the rates calculated by the said Commissioners as the whole expense or price of the works they have either omitted some branches of the charge necessary in the building of fortifications or that their objections arise from their accepting the rates which the undertakers usually paid to their underworkmen to be the whole charge of the works and [to be] all that the accomptant paid for the same without regard to the other expenses which the said undertakers were obliged by their contracts to defray; whereas the accomptant represents that he allowed the said rates to the undertakers in consideration not only of the wages of their underworkmen but also of their paying at their own charge the expense of providing and keeping in repair all the tools necessary for performing the works, of removing the rubbish from place to place as the engineers should direct, of the great expense they were at in making the escarpe on both sides of the ditches to the slope of the wall and in making all the Angles, the Cordon, the Embrazures, Casements and Galleries with hewn stone; of their making all the mortar and flinging every morning and evening a great quantity of water on the works; as also for the pains, time and skill of the undertakers themselves: which several charges beingincluded he insists that the prices allowed by him are reasonable; and for proof thereof hath produced the certificates of several master workmen abroad as well as here that the said rates are moderate and cheaper than the same work could be done here: and has also delivered as an additional testimony of the truth of his account and vouchers the attestations of most of the undertakers that he actually accounted with and paid them the full prices specified in their contracts without any abatement.
which Objections [as above] of the Commissioners and the accomptant's Answers thereto [as above] are humbly submitted to vour Lordships' determination.
The Commissioners for Inspecting the Affairs of the War in Spain have proposed in their report to disallow 35,277 dollars of the accomptant's payments contained in the five foregoing Articles, as overcharge therein, either in the quantities placed to account or in the expense at which the same comes out to the public. Theirobjection appears to be grounded on an information they received from masons at [Port] Mahone that four measures of lime is sufficient for building a cane of wall, and that the same might have been carried to the Castle, made into mortar and [could have been sold or] offered at 3 dollars a measure; whereas the cost thereof computed by the amount of the aforegoing Articles (they observe) comes out to the publick at 7 dollars 6/14 a measure.
The accomptant in his Reply sets forth that besides the prime cost of the lime the greatest part of the foregoing charges arise by the carriage thereof to the works, particularly in the land carriage wherein the mules and asses were employed, all the sattees that could be hired by him not being sufficient to carry enough to the masons in work. He likewise represents that what he sent by water was brought by land carriage first from the kilns to the slacking place, to be landed again and carried from the landing place to the works, as appears by the particulars of the said Articles: which the accomptant notes to be the occasion [why] the expense was so large.
As to the quantity paid for, he asserts that a cane of wall of fortifications cannot be built with less than nine measures of lime of Port Mahon, though the lime there be considerably stronger than in England: and has produced some certificates under the hand of workmen experienced therein to that effect.
For the pay and contingent charges of the Garrison of St. Philip at Port Mahon:
Memorandum [by Auditor Harley]. The accomptant has placed to account several charges and claims amounting to 2,038l. 13s. 1½d. But having not produced to me [Auditor Harley] authorities for allowing thereof, the same have not been inserted in this state [of his account].
Besides the balance to the accomptant it appears by the accounts exhibited by him of the charge of the said fortifications that there is remaining due to several other persons on account of this service the following sums:
As it does not appear to me that any Instructions or other orders have been obtained from the late Queen for building the fortifications erected by the accomptant for defence of Port Mahon or for the pay and contingent charges of the Garrison there nor that any warrant hath since been granted for allowing to the accomptant the payments made by him for the said services; and as the proofs produced bythe accomptant for part of his payments hereinbefore described are not the regular vouchers required by the course of the Exchequer, I am humbly of opinion that a privy seal is necessary to authorise the passing of this account and for making such allowances therein to the accountant as your [the Treasury] Lordships shall approve.
E. Harley.
A List of the several sums of money due for work done or materials furnished for the fortifications at Port Mahon for which Brigadier Petit has given his notes for payment thereof to the parties undernamed:
A state of the accompt of all provisions found in St. Philip's Castle or bought by the accomptant or received by him into the magazines thereof:
E. Harley.
[End of Auditor Harley's Report.]
Your Commissioners [we, the Commissioners of Army Debts] have examined the foregoing State [of accompt] and compared it with the vouchers produced by the accomptant and find that the said Brigadier's accompt has received some considerable alterations since it was before the Auditor, both by money which the Brigadier has received from the Government and by payment which he has made on several promissory notes he had given out: the which alterations together with such other particulars wherein your Commissioners differ from the Auditor are set forth in the following account: viz.:
That nothing may be wanting to explain this long and intricate account as fully as may be your Commissioners here subjoin an account of the several sorts of vouchers which support Brigadier Petit's credit as now stated, together with the total of the sums vouched by each sort respectively:
These cravings have not been inserted in the body of the Brigadier's accompt, there being no warrant or other authority for making him any allowances of this nature.
Whilst this accompt was under examination of [us] your Commissioners they [we] considered the Report of the Commissioners for Inspecting the Affairs of the War in Spain so far as it concerns Brigadier Petit, together with the said Brigadier's Answer and the [said] Commissioners' Reply: but find nothing therein to add to what has been fully represented by Mr. Auditor Harley in the Report above.
A state of the accompt of Doctor John Le Caan as Physician to the Hospitals in Spain from the 25 December 1705 to the 22 December 1710, and as Director of the said Hospitals from 1 July 1709 to 1 July 1710.
Having received his Majesty's commands to take into consideration the claims of several Officers of the Spanish Regiment of Foot commanded by the Earl of Galway in the late war, your Commissioners entered upon the examination of the accounts of the said Regiment, but found them so very defective that it was not possible to state them in the same manner with the others in this Report. From the raising of this Regiment by the Earl of Galway's order towards the end of the year 1708 till the 23 Dec. 1709 it was upon no Establishment nor has there been any provision made for it in Parliament for that time; not one Muster Roll has been returned for any part of the time during which it continued on foot and the time of its disbandment has never been ascertained.
This makes your Commissioners unable to state the regimental credit. But as the Earl of Galway by an account signed by himself and transmitted to us seems not to demand anything but only for the Officers' personal pay, and the Select Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1714 to whom the several Estimates and Accounts relating to the Supply then granted to her late Majesty were referred did include the sum of 4,206l. 1s. 5d. as an estimate of what was due to these Officers among several other sums reported by them as debts on account of the Land Forces, towards satisfying of which [and other items] the said House afterwards voted the sum of 300,000l. upon account, your Commissioners have considered such claims as have been exhibited by the said Officers or other persons claiming under any of them, and [do] here humbly represent what has appeared to them in the examination thereof.
The Earl of Galway (though the Regiment has commonly gone under his name) demands no arrear as due to himself, he having given a commission to Don Diego de Leys to be Colonel thereof and Captain of one of the Companies. This commission and those of the other claimants, or authentic certificates [or copies] thereof have [? not] been produced, and the said Earl in the abovementioned account signed by him commences their several credits from the respective dates of their commissions; and proof has been made upon oath (except in the case of Lieut. Col. St. Leger de Bacalan) of their having been constantly at their proper posts from the times they received their commissions.
The greatest part of the Regiment was made prisoners on the 7th May 1709 and most of the Officers continued prisoners till the 8th or 9th Sept. 1712, not long after which they came into Great Britain; but the particular days on which they arrived they cannot recollect.
They demand that their credit be continued to the 24th Dec. 1712, alleging that such of them as were naturalized were not put upon half pay till that time and that the Officers of Brigadier Stanwix's Regiment, who were taken prisoners and released at the same time with them, have credit to the times of their respective arrivals in Great Britain, which for the most part happened on or near the 24 Dec. 1712.
The Earl of Galway's account also brings down their credit to that day and [we] your Commissioners not having seen any authority to guide them have not taken upon them to alter it.
The claimants who were not then prisoners (excepting Capt. Moya) were ordered to attend upon Col. Vesey's Regiment to be at hand to go on any service for which there should be occasion, and they did continue with the said Regiment whilst there was any moneyremitted to subsist them. They have received half pay from the 23 December 1711 and demand their credit for the whole pay to be continued till that time.
As for the charge to be made on each of these Officers it is impossible to fix it in a satisfactory manner. The accounts of Lieut. Colonel St. Leger [de Bacalan] and Lieut. Colonel Nevil to whom money was issued for the subsistence of them whilst prisoners show so far what they have received: but as some of them own that before that time they had received money on account of subsistence from Mr. Whitton, then Agent to the Regiment (who is now a bankrupt and fled out of his Majesty's Dominions with all his papers) it appears that a further charge should be made on them, which [charge] cannot be ascertained for want of the proper vouchers.
The utmost light your Commissioners have been able to obtain in this matter has been from the oaths of the parties themselves as to the total of their receipts and from thence the charges are made in the following states [of accompt]: but where by reason of the absence of the parties such oaths could not be had the charges are still more uncertain and are particularly represented.
There is from the Ordnance Office a charge upon this Regiment for arms &c. amounting to 563l. 4s. 0d. and some of the Captains have acknowledged the receipt of arms as follows, viz. Major Gordon, 33; Capt. Martin Ribera, 28; Capt. Moya and Capt. Alcantara, each 30, for the use of their Companies respectively; but of the other Captains some are dead, others have not appeared and the rest declare that they cannot remember how many arms they had: and they all insist that they ought not to be charged with these arms, they [the arms] being taken by the enemy at the same time that the men were made prisoners.
The widow of Lieut. Col. St. Leger [de Bacalan], who was appointed by the Earl of Galway to pay the [British] prisoners in Spain their subsistence, demands an allowance for her late husband's care and expenses in the execution of that trust, after the same rate that has been allowed to others. But [she] has not produced any warrant or other authority for such an allowance.
Lieut. David de la Cour has also made a claim for an allowance on the same account, producing certificates that the abovementioned Lieut. Col. St. Leger entrusted him from 13 July 1709 to 23 July 1711 with the whole management of the payments to the prisoners, as well in receiving the money as in distributing of it to the several Regiments which were dispersed in several distant places in Spain [to wit] for his fatigue, for which he never received any allowance from any English prisoner.
And he further avers that he has had no salary or other consideration for his trouble and charges from Lieut. Col. St. Leger. He formerly presented a petition for relief, with an account of his expenses, to the Earl of Oxford, then Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain, who referred “them” to the Paymaster General and the Comptrollers of the Accounts of the Army, and they severally reported thereupon that it was their opinion that the claimant might be allowed his expenses, amounting to 200l. 3s. 1d., and also a salary at the rate of 70l. per an. from 13 July 1709 to 1 May 1711, amounting to 122l. 10s. 0d.: both [sums] together making 322l. 13s. 1d.
which said sum was reported as due to him by the Select Committee of the House of Commons [1 June 1714,Commons Journals, Vol. XVII, p. 659], to whom the Estimates of the Public Debts were referred in the year 1714.
Mrs. Elizabeth Freame, relict and executrix of Capt. Geo. Fisher, deceased, hath laid upon your Commissioners a bill of exchange drawn on Mr. Methuen, the late Ambassador at the Court of Portugal, by the late Prince of Hesse for the use of the Garrison of Gibraltar in June 1705 in these words: viz.:
Gibraltar, June 6 of 1705, N.S.
My Lord:
Pray pay this my second bill (the first not being paid) to Capt. George Fisher, Commander of her Majesty's ship theTartar, or order, out of the money her Majesty has assigned for the use of this Garrison, the full sum of 1,600pieces of Eight, like value received of him here for the use of the said Garrison.
My Lord,
Your most humble servant,
George, P[rince] of Hesse.
To his Excellency Mr. Methuen,
her Majesty of Great Britain's
Ambassador at the Court of Portugal.
This bill we find was reported as a debt by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1714 [item 32 on p. 659 ofCommons Journals, Vol. XVII], to whom the Estimate of the Public Debts was referred, and Mrs. Freame and her husband have deposed upon oath that it is still unpaid; and the Auditor who passed Mr. Methuen's accompts has certified that it has not been allowed in the said Mr. Methuen's accompts.
The said 1,600 dollars amount to 380l. in sterling money at 4s. 9d. [sterling to] a dollar.
Your Commissioners have received from Mr. Secretary Stanhope by his Majesty's commands a demand of Col. Don Joseph Marti of 13,046l. 6s. 5d. as due for the pay of a Spanish Regiment of Foot under his command from 4, Feb. 1706 to 11 Jan. 1708, new style: as also a demand of Lieut. Col. Jos. Mira of 1,170l. 15s. 0d. as due to him for his pay as Captain of Dragoons from 16 May 1707 to 21 Dec. 1710 and [we the said Commissioners] have considered the nature of the said demands, but have not proceeded to state the same, apprehending they are to be made good by the Emperor and not by Great Britain.
Col. Marti alleges that in the year 1706 he did by order from the Earl of Peterborough raise 200 men, out of which he formed eight Companies of Foot; that then the said Earl granted him a commission to be Colonel of the said Regiment and Captain of one of the Companies therein; in which commission there was a clause that the said Regiment should be allowed English pay with all privileges of an English Regiment. This commission Col. Marti says he was robbed of, amongst other things, by a servant who deserted to the enemy; but to supply the want thereof he has produced a certificate from the Earl of Peterborough that he did raise a Regiment by his Lordship's order and that his commission was dated 4 Feb. 1706, when he had completely formed eight Companies in English pay.
This certificate we cannot understand to relate to anything more than ascertaining the rates at which the Regiment was to be paid, both because his Lordship does not declare that the late Queen was to bear that expense and because such a supposition would be contrary to other informations we have received. For upon our precept to the Earl of Carnarvon, late Paymaster General of the Forces Abroad, to send us an exact account of all moneys paid by him or his deputies to Col. Marti's Regiment we received a letter signed by Mr. Leaves, clerk to his Lordship for the accounts of the Army, certifying that in the Books of that [the Paymaster's] Office he does not find mention of any such Regiment or of any money paid [to] the said Colonel, and that if any had been paid him it is not to be distinguished how much, since it must have been paid abroad and is included in the general sum charged to the account of the Emperor for the pay of his Spanish Troops, of which Body this Regiment was undoubtedly a part.
Mr. Salter, who was Secretary to the Earl of Peterborough for all Spanish affairs, being examined by us whether in his books he had made any entry of Col. Marti's commission, declared that during all the time he was in Spain he never heard of Col. Marti.
It is to be observed too that the Earl of Peterborough was General to the King of Spain as well as to the Queen of Great Britain; so that from the Colonel's having had his commission from the said Earl it cannot be inferred that Great Britain was to bear the expense thereof.
But the affair of granting commissions to Spaniards by the British Generals has been fuller explained to us in the case of Lieut. Col. Mira. He has produced a commission dated 16 May 1707 from the Earl of Galway, Commander General of the Troops of her Britannic Majesty and also Field Marshall of the King of Spain, constituting him Captain of one of the two Troops of Horse then to be raised in Alicante for the security of the King of Spain, which post he was to hold for the Queen (the said Earl's mistress) with all the honours, immunities and pay that is allowed a month for such a post.
But upon examining Mr. Leffever, who was Secretary to the Earl of Galway at the time when the commission was granted, he informed us that, when Spanish Officers went on service on the frontiers, commissions were sent them from Lord Galway for their protection, but not to entitle them thereby to any pay from the Queen. And the said Leffever has further certified to us in writing as follows:
I remember that Major General Richards, Governor of Alicante for the then King of Spain, sent my Lord Galway a Scheme for raising a Troop of Spanish Dragoons to facilitate the entering of land provisions into that Garrison; which his Excellency returned [to] him in the form of an Establishment, with Spanish commissions for the Officers. Neither Establishment or commissions were entered in my Books, [I] not looking on them to belong to the Establishment of the Queen's service.
With this account agrees whatever other information we have had concerning this matter. Capt. David Symond, who was Deputy Paymaster at Alicante, says that he paid the subsistence of Col. Mira's Troop and another which was under his command from the date of the said Lieut. Colonel's commission to 4 Jan. 1709, new style, making his payments according to an Establishment made by the Earl of Galway and that he delivered up his accounts and vouchers to Mr. Mead, Deputy Paymaster in Spain.
Mr. Mead acquainted us that he has not now by him these accounts of Mr. Symond, but believes that they were lodged by him with the Emperor among other partial vouchers [which] he [Mead] gave up when the Emperor signed one general discharge, in which amongst other monies was included what had been paid to the two Troops under Lieut. Col. Mira.
Mr. Mead has also attested an account of payments made to the two Troops of Horse at Alicante commanded by Don Joseph Mira and Don Antonio Rodriguez and charged to the King of Spain, amounting to 5,052l. 6s. 8½d.
And Mr. Leaves, before-mentioned, informed us that an account made up between Great Britain and the Emperor had been sent by the Imperial Minister here [in London] to the Earl of Carnarvon to be examined with the payments made in his Lordship's Office to the Emperor; that the said account was examined and returnedto the said Minister and that the monies paid [to] Lieut. Col. Mira and Capt. Rodriguez as Captains of two Troops of Horse in Spain amounting to 1,500l. and upwards were charged in the said account as money paid on account of the Emperor.
Brigadier Petit has made a demand of 536l. 10s. 0d. for an arrear of pay due to him as Chief Engineer to the King of Spain. But this being also a debt to be satisfied by the Emperor we have not included it in the state of the said Brigadier's accompts.
Since this Report was drawn up the Commissioners for Victualling his Majesty's Navy have brought to us an accompt of the value of sea-provisions supplied [to] the Land Forces or other Forces in their passage by sea to and from the several parts where the war has been carried on. And in this [said] accompt are some charges made on some of the Regiments whose accompts are hereinbefore stated. But the same being imperfect and we not having received any accompt of like provisions from the Navy Office (as required [of them] by our precepts) we are not yet able to state the charges to be made on the Regiment for such provisions.
Since the writing this Report we have received from the Earl of Carnarvon the accompts of three of the four Flanders Regiments before-mentioned to be wanting.
An Abstract of the Arrears due on stating the accompts of Flanders Regiments, distinguished under the several heads following, viz.:
A. Poundage.
B. Hospital.
C. Transport Office.
D. Ordnance [Office] for Arms.
E. Widows' Fund.
F. Regimental Balance for Nett Offreckonings.
G. Ditto for clearings.
H. Totals of balances of nett Offreckonings and Clearings.
K. Total of Arrears.
L. Extraordinary Cravings to make good Deficiencies in Offreckonings by reason of Reductions and Disbandments.
M. Extraordinary Cravings for Forage Money.
General Lumley (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 4,082l. 18s. 0¾d.; B, 226l. 9s. 1d.; C, 165l. 4s. 5d.; E, 505l. 10s. 5½d.; G, 3,991l. 4s. 5½d.; K, 8,971l. 6s. 5¾d.
Major General Kellum (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713) A, 2,758l. 4s. 7½d.; B, 152l. 17s. 11¼d.; C, 107l. 8s. 11d. E, 337l. 0s. 3¾d.; G, 2,685l. 14s. 2¼d.; K, 8,971l. 5s. 11¾d. L, 283l. 7s. 7¼d.
Lord Windsor (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A 2,760l. 12s. 6¾d.; B, 152l. 17s. 11¼d.; C, 103l. 11s. 4d. E, 337l. 0s. 3¾d.; G, 2,776l. 14s. 6d.; K, 6,130l. 16s. 7¾d.
Col. Backwell (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,766l. 5s. 11d.; B, 152l. 17s. 11¼d.; C, 132l. 15s. 6d.; E, 337l. 0s. 3¾d.; G, 2,793l. 17s. 5d.; K, 6,182l. 17s. 1d.
Marquess of Harwich (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,760l. 12s. 6¾d.; B, 152l. 17s. 11¼d.; C, 92l. 9s. 2d.; G, 2,866l. 2s. 10d.; K, 6,209l. 2s. 9¾d.
Earl of Stair (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,865l. 16s. 3d.; B, 158l. 11s. 10½d.; C, 91l. 3s. 3d.; E, 303l. 6s. 3¾d.; G, 2,458l. 18s. 10¾d.; K, 5,877l. 16s. 7d.; L, 858l. 2s. 2d.; M, 401l. 17s. 2½d.
Major General Ross (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,866l. 9s. 2¼d.; B, 158l. 11s. 10¾d.; C, 100l. 11s. 4d.; E, 303l. 6s. 3¾d.; G, 3,725l. 11s. 0¾d.; K, 7,154l. 9s. 9¼d.; L, 924l. 6s. 3¾d.; M, 401l. 17s. 2½d.
Earl of Orkney (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A, 5,533l. 9s. 5½d.; B, 308l. 2s. 0d.; C, 0l. 7s. 6d.; E, 590l. 2s. 0¼d.; F, 1,001l. 4s. 5¼d.; G, 4,367l. 4s. 4½d.; H, 5,368l. 8s. 9¾d.; K, 11,800l. 9s. 9½d.
Earl of Forfar (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A, 2,767l. 12s. 5d.; B, 153l. 18s. 1d.; C, 18l. 17s. 3d.; D, 154l.; E, 290l. 12s. 11¾d.; G, 2,211l. 6s. 10¾d.; K, 5,596l. 7s. 7½d.
Lieut. Gen. Webb (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A, 2,767l. 7s. 5½d.; B, 153l. 18s. 1d.; C, 16l. 9s. 8d.; E, 290l. 12s. 11¾d.; F, 456l. 0s. 11½d.; G, 2,521l. 19s. 2¼d.; H, 2,978l. 0s. 1¾d.; K, 6,206l. 8s. 4d.
Lord North and Grey (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A, 2,771l. 15s. 4¼d.; B, 153l. 18s. 10½d.; C, 15l. 4s. 7d. E, 290l. 12s. 11¾d.; F, 456l. 0s. 11½d.; G, 1,334l. 7s. 2¼d.; H, 1,790l. 8s. 1¾d.; K, 5,021l. 19s. 11¼d.
Earl of Orrery (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A, 2,771l. 3s. 2¾d.; B, 153l. 19s. 1d.; C. 2l. 10s. 0d.; E, 290l. 12s. 11¾d.; F, 456l. 0s. 11½d.; G, 2,636l. 2s. 10d.; H, 3,092l. 3s. 9½d.; K, 6,310l. 8s. 1d.
Earl of Hertford (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A, 2,812l. 1s. 7½d.; B, 156l. 3s. 2¾d.; C, 34l. 12s. 9d.; E, 295l. 0s. 11¾d.; F, 499l. 1s. 6d.; G, 1,462l. 17s. 3½d.; H, 1,961l. 18s. 9½d.; K, 5,259l. 17s. 4½d.
Col. Newton (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 28 August 1713):
A, 2,119l. 11s. 11d.; B, 117l. 7s. 5¼d.; C, 11l. 7s. 0d.; E, 197l. 18s. 10½d.; G, 1,345l. 17s. 0¼d.; K, 3,792l. 2s. 3d.; L. 554l. 8s. 2d.
Hamilton, late Darell (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 April 1714):
A, 2,507l. 7s. 1½d.; B, 139l. 1s. 10½d.; C, 84l. 12s. 2d.; E, 258l. 8s. 11¾d.; F, 494l. 19s. 8d.; G, 1,930l. 0s. 2d.; H, 2,424l. 19s. 10d.; K, 5,414l. 9s. 11¾d.
Brigadier Sutton (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A. 2,767l. 15s. 8d.; B, 153l. 18s. 1d.; C. 9l. 13s. 3d.; E, 290l. 12s. 11¾d.: F, 456l. 0s. 11½d.; G. 1,723l. 10s. 1¾d.; H, 2,179l. 11s. 1¼d.; K, 5,401l. 11s. 1d.; L, 199l. 16s. 8¾l.
Brigadier Stearn (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Oct. 1714):
A. 2,769l. 12s. 8¼d.; B, 153l. 18s. 1d.; C, 6l. 6s. 0d.; E, 290l. 12s. 11¾d.; F, 456l. 0s. 11½d.; G, 2,800l. 3s. 8¼d.; H. 3,256l. 4s. 7¾d.; K, 6,476l. 14s. 4¾d.
Chudleigh, late Hamilton (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 1,909l. 12s. 1¼d.; B, 105l. 16s. 7¼d.; C, 4l. 19s. 8d.; E, 48l. 13s. 3d.; G, 2,195l. 6s. 10¾d.; K, 4,264l. 8s. 6¼d.; M, 334l. 17s. 8d.
Major General Sabine (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,004l. 11s. 6½d.; B, 110l. 17s. 8¾d.; C, 27l. 2s. 10d.; E, 202l. 8s. 4¾l.; G, 1,653l. 6s. 7¾d.; K, 3,998l. 7s. 1¾d.
Col. Kane (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Aug. 1712):
A, 1,267l. 6s. 3½d.; B, 71l. 2s. 10½d.; E, 32l. 18s. 9¾d.; G, 532l. 3s. 9¼d.; K, 1,903l. 11s. 9d.
Major General Primrose (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,004l. 15s. 4d.; B, 110l. 17s. 8¾d.; C, 41l. 3s. 3d.; G, 1,824l. 1s. 6¾d.; K, 4,183l. 6s. 3¼d.
Col. Alexander Grant (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 Aug. 1712):
A, 1,161l. 17s. 4¼d.; B, 64l. 7s. 9¾d.; G, 1,298l. 19s. 9d.: K, 2,525l. 4s. 11d.
Brigadier Preston (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 2,008l. 10s. 4¼d.; B, 111l. 0s. 5½d.; C, 2l. 16s. 0d.; E, 200l. 19s. 0¾d.; G, 1,449l. 9s. 0¼d.; K, 3,772l. 14s. 10¾d.
Major General Sibourg (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 23 June 1713):
A, 1,909l. 2s. 10½d.; B, 105l. 16s. 7¼d.; C, 9l. 1s. 8d.; E, 202l. 8s. 4¾d.; G, 1,945l. 10s. 1½d.; K, 4,171l. 19s. 8d.; M, 167l. 8s. 10d.
Major General Evans (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 27 Aug. 1713):
A, 2,113l. 2s. 6½d.; B, 116l. 19s. 9½d.; C, 21l. 3s. 7d.; E, 201l. 11s. 3d.; G, 2,253l. 7s. 3d.; K, 4,706l. 4s. 5¼d.
Major General Wynn (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 20 June 1713):
A, 1,953l. 10s. 4½d.; B, 108l. 3s. 11¾d.; C, 14l. 12s. 8d.; E, 40l. 17s. 7¾d.; G, 1,200 17s. 6d.; K, 3,318l. 2s. 2d.
Brigadier Pocock (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 28 Aug. 1713):
A, 1,890l. 9s. 7d.; B, 104l. 18s. 6d.; C, 18l. 10s. 5d.; E, 49l. 8s. 8½d.; G, 985l. 2s. 1¼d.; K, 3,048l. 9s. 3¾d.
Col. Windress (account from 23 Dec. 1710 to 24 Aug. 1712):
A, 1,320l. 8s. 11d.; B, 74l. 12s. 0¾d.; E, 53l. 1s. 8d.; G, 601l. 9s. 0¾d.; K, 2,049l. 11s. 8½d.
Col. Clayton (account from 23 Dec, 1710, to 10 Sept. 1712):
A, 1,281l. 19s. 5d.; B, 72l. 0s. 5d.; D, 519l. 2s. 0l.; H, overpaid; K, 1,873l. 1s. 10½d.
Abstract of the Balances of the several accounts contained in the Report of the Honourable Commissioners for Stating the Debts due to the Army:
4 March 1716–17.
T. Pelham.
G[rey] Neville.
J[ohn] Plumptre.
L[eonard] Smelt.
W. [Sir William] Gordon.
T. [Sir Thomas] Palmer.
R[obert] Bristow.