Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 32, 1718. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1962.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. All rights reserved.
The previous year had seen friction with Sweden, the fall of Townshend and Walpole, the settlement of the National Debt on a 5l. per cent basis and the collapse of the Impeachment proceedings against the Earl of Oxford. The year 1718 on the other hand is comparatively devoid of incident at home except for a new quarrel between the King and the Prince of Wales over the baptism of the latter's son. The Prince had designed the Duke of York, Bishop of Osnabrück, to be a Godfather, but at the ceremony on 28 November 1717 the Duke of Newcastle stood Godfather with the King, not as a proxy for the Duke of York, but in his own name. The Prince later expressed to Newcastle his resentment, upon report of which the King ordered him first to keep his own apartments but shortly afterwards to quit St. James's, whereupon he withdrew to Albemarle Street; his children remained at St. James's; it was made known that all persons who should go to see the Prince and Princess should forbear coming into the King's presence (Parliamentary History or Cobbett's Parliamentary History, Vol. VII, p. 500, footnote).
After successive prorogations on 15 July, 12 August, 11 September and 9 October 1717 Parliament met again on November 21. The chief controversies were over Army Estimates and the Mutiny Bill. A vain attempt was made to reduce the Land Tax to 2s. The Royal Mint engaged the attention of both Houses; Sir Isaac Newton was faced with the problem of the proper value of the gold coinage against silver and with the need for a new copper coinage. The Session ended early as Parliament was prorogued on 21 March 1717–18.
Lord Stanhope had professed no desire to serve at the Treasury and on 18 March 1717–18 he was able to effect an exchange with the Earl of Sunderland, whereby he became Secretary of State for the Northern Department; Sunderland became First Lord of the Treasury with John Aislabie as Chancellor of the Exchequer; James Craggs the younger became Secretary of State for the Southern Department, replacing Joseph Addison; James, Earl of Berkeley, remained as First Lord of the Admiralty; Christopher Wansford (Lord Castlecomer) succeeded the younger Craggs as Secretary at War; Richard Hampden became Navy Treasurer; the elder Craggs remained as Postmaster General (Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy (Oxford University Press, 1939) ). Addison was a man of literary gifts but ‘singularly ill-qualified for the rough work of political warfare’ (W. M. Torrens, History of British Cabinets, (W. yH. Allen amp; Co., 1894), Vol. I, p. 160). His successor Craggs was equally unlikely to dispute the supremacy of Sunderland and Stanhope; the Government was in effect a duumvirate, Sunderland to direct Home Affairs and Stanhope for Foreign Policy; unfortunately, both being Peers, Finance was too largely left to others who were to prove unequal to the task. Of the Opposition the displaced Whigs under Walpole proved the more effective half; the Tories were still suspect as Jacobites and ‘honest’ William Shippen's outspoken comments on the King's Speech led to his committal to the Tower during the session.
In foreign affairs a Quadruple Alliance was effected; on 2 August 1718 the Emperor, Great Britain and France became parties to an agreement to which the United Provinces afterwards acceded. Thereunder the Emperor renounced all claims to Spain but was to be granted Sicily in lieu of Sardinia, allotted to Victor Amadeus of Savoy and Piedmont. In spite of an offer of the retrocession of Gibraltar, the King of Spain haughtily refused to surrender his claims to the Emperor's dominions in Italy and the Netherlands or to withdraw his troops from Sicily. Stanhope had negotiated in person at Madrid; his departure thence was the signal for war; the French advanced; on August 11 Admiral Byng destroyed the greater part of the Spanish Fleet at Passaro near Syracuse; in return the goods of English merchants in Spain were seized; but it was not until 17 December 1718 that war with Spain was formally declared.
On 12 August 1717, Sir Isaac Newton was instructed by the Treasury to report on the ratio of the values of gold and silver. There was at this time a great demand for silver and silver coin; quantities of silver were being wrought into plate and unworn coin was being melted down for this purpose; there was also a large export of silver chiefly to the East Indies. Newton's opinion was that ‘gold is now become our standard money and silver is a commodity which rises and falls here in price’. He wished the weights of silver coin to be reduced. His suggestions, however, were not acceptable. On 21 December 1717 the Government came to a decision that the value of the guinea was to be reduced by 6d. from 21s. 6d. to 21s. and Newton was told to draw up a table of proportionate reductions. (Sir John Craig, Newton at the Mint (Cambridge University Press, 1946), pp. 102–109; The Mint (same author and publisher, 1953), pp. 215–219). A fuller account of the proceedings in Parliament is given below on pp. xiii–xv.
In March or April 1716 two Scots brought up to London samples of ore from two veins of silver on Sir John Erskine's property at Alva near Stirling. A German physician, Justus Brandshagen, was sent North to have a look at these mines; after a dangerous voyage to Edinburgh the party spent four months in Scotland and another three in London before delivering a report (Craig, Newton at the Mint, pp. 103–104).
Dr. Brandshagen had first to clear the mine (which had been opened before the 1715 Rising) and to get the furnaces built for assaying. On 2 January 1716–17 in the presence of the Earl of Lauderdale, Haldane of Gleneagles and William Drummond of the Edinburgh Mint the Doctor with Thomas and James Hamilton went to the mine and broke off six several pieces. The ore was in a flat vein between two crusts of spar, part roughly horizontal, part leading steeply downwards; the samples taken varied in breadth from fifteen inches at the junction of the two parts to two inches at the beginning of the ‘sole’. The Doctor found traces of sulphur, arsenic, copper, tin, iron and lead but only the silver was to be regarded as workable (‘Newton Papers’ at the Royal Mint, Vol. III; Treasury Miscellanea Various (T.64), Vol. 235).
The licence to a company to get copper struck by the moneyers ran out in 1701 and for the next sixteen years no halfpence or farthings were issued. In 1713, however, the Government decided to start a new copper coinage. Newton summarised the principles; the total should be spread over a considerable time and limited to the needs of circulation; the coins should be of pure copper; six-sevenths of each issue should be in halfpence; the limit of legal tender should remain at 6d. The first coins made, however, possibly owing to an unauthorized admixture of tin, proved unsatisfactory; operations were suspended and any genuine Queen Anne farthings and doubleheaded halfpence are probably strays from Newton's experiments.
By 1717 the scarcity of copper coins was causing grave inconvenience; tenders were accordingly invited on 30 April 1717 for raw copper fillets, i.e. copper already rolled down to coin thickness. An offer was accepted on August 27 and on September 13 a Royal Warrant authorised the details of coinage. This Warrant authorised Newton as Master and Worker of the Mint to receive fine British copper in bars and fillets, which when heated red hot would spread thin under the hammer without cracking and which should be of a due size or thickness, and out of the same to coin halfpence and farthings at 46 halfpence or 92 farthings to the lb. avoirdupois, small accidental errors excepted; the importers were to receive not more than 18d. per lb. of copper supplied, half in money on receipt of the copper, half in money and ‘scissell’ (the copper left over after the round blanks had been cut); the coins were to bear on the obverse the King's effigy with Georgius Rex and on the reverse a Britannia sitting on a globe, a spear in her left hand and a myrtle in her right, with the inscription Britannia. Provisions were also included for the assay, for the employment and duties of ‘the King's Clerk’, for Audit etc.
In January 1717–18 coinage started and on 15 February 1717–18 new halfpence and farthings bearing the date 1717 began to issue. Difficulties again arose and processes had to be changed. In 1719, after some 6,000l. had been issued, the Treasury suspended operations for a time; presently, however, coinage was resumed and by January 1724–25, on completion of the period of seven years originally agreed, 30,288l. 17s. 2d. had been issued (Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1720–1728, p. 355; T. 1/253/28, pp. 143–146). (fn. 1)
A brief account of the Tin Affair will be found in Newton at the Mint, pp. 57–61. Up to the beginning of Queen Anne's reign the royal interests in the Cornish Tin Mines had been leased out but, by a contract between the Queen and the Convention of Tin Miners, it was then agreed that all tin was to be sold to the Queen; each year for seven years she would buy 1,600 tons stannary weight from Cornwall and 50 like tons from Devon: the tin was to be consigned to the care of the three Principal Officers of the Mint, the Master, the Warden, and the Comptroller. The miners were to get, in lieu of their previous rate of 45l. a ton stannary weight a new and greatly enhanced rate of 69l. 10s. per ton (or 70s. a cwt. less tare); a fixed price of 76l. a ton was charged to merchants in England; this was supposed to do no more than cover the first cost and that of transport, handling and clerical expenses; small quantities of tin were sold locally at 73s. or 74s. per cwt. Arrangements were also to be made for sales abroad through Sir Theodore Janssen and others in Holland, Germany and Genoa at 4l. per cwt. avoirdupois.
Unfortunately the amount of tin purchased by the Mint was far in excess of the merchants' demand. In fact little was sold during the first two or three years of the contract because merchants and pewterers had time to provide themselves beforehand at cheaper rates. Nevertheless in 1710 not only was the contract renewed but the Mint actually promised to take an extra 200 tons annually as soon as the War was ended; the rate to the tin-miners, however, was reduced to 65s. a cwt. (besides the Coinage Duties payable to the Receiver General of the Duchy). (fn. 2)
In the new reign the royal rights in tin reverted to the Prince of Wales as Duke of Cornwall; on 1 June 1717 the existing arrangements were terminated, and on July 18 a Treasury Minute ordered that a Warrant be prepared to the several Officers for Tin in Cornwall and Devon that their salaries be allowed them no longer than Midsummer then last past and directing them to bring in their Accounts to be passed (Calendar of Treasury Books, Vol. XXXI, Part II, pp. 30, 31).
The Agents, having received no reply to a previous Representation of August 8, forwarded a further Memorial on December 5. They had then almost completed the despatch of tin and had attended at Truro to settle their accounts but, although since the expiration of the Contract their fatigue had been more than before, they had been unable to secure payment of their salaries (ibidem part II, p. 714). That they eventually received them is evidenced by Anthony Nicoll's Account (A.O. 1/1668/483; ibidem part I, p. cd).
The task of disposing of the accumulated stocks of tin was entrusted to John Francis Fauquiere (or Fauquier) as Warehousekeeper of Tin. Fauquiere, a Director of the Bank of England, had been appointed Deputy Master by Thomas Neale at the close of the seventeenth century and remained under Newton. He died 22 September 1726 (Historical Register, Vol. XI, Chronological Diary, p. 37).
The tin had now to be sold at the best prices obtainable and as appears from Fauquiere's Account (see below, p. ccclxxxv) the rates realised, even allowing for the difference between stannary and merchants' weight, were at best little more than those paid the tinminers, allowing nothing for costs of handling nor for that very serious item, the locking up of capital.
Having always at heart the security and ease of his people he had never kept up Troops save for their protection and had taken every opportunity to disband as many as he thought consistent with safety; the Army had been reduced to very near one-half since the beginning of the last Session of Parliament; and lessened to such numbers as to be neither a Burthen to his subjects nor an Encouragement to his Enemies; in spite of all attempts ‘to disturb the Peace of Europe and of these Kingdoms’ he hoped that his good offices to preserve the public Tranquillity had not been altogether unsuccessful.
The Commons must be well pleased to find that their endeavours for lessening the National Debt had, at the same time raised the public Credit; this success must chiefly be attributed to the regard they had shewn to Parliamentary engagements. The extraordinary Supply granted last Session had been so far effectual that they now had a much better Prospect than before; an Account would be laid before them of the very small part thereof which, as yet, had been expended; any further Issues therefrom would also be laid before the House; every part would either be employed for their Service or be saved to the Public. A state of the Deficiencies of the present year, and the several Estimates for the Service of the next, would be laid; which they would find considerably diminished; the King relied on the House making the necessary Provision. Several Arrears of Pay and Subsidy, incurred before his Accession, were claimed by foreign Princes and States; these must be laid, examined and stated; which would much tend to the Nation's Honour and Credit.
The King heartily wished the strengthening of the Protestant Interest; the Church of England, as its main Support and Bulwark, would reap the Benefit of every Advantage accruing by the Union and mutual Charity of all Protestants. He was determined to encourage all those who, with sincere Zeal for the just Rights of the Crown and the Liberties of the People, acted agreeably to the Constitution of his Kingdoms.
The eyes of Europe were upon them at this critical Juncture; it was their Interest and therefore his, that his Endeavours for Peace should take effect, to which end nothing could so much contribute as the Unanimity, Despatch and Vigour of their Resolutions for the Support of his Government (Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. XVIII, hereinafter referred to as C.J., p. 627).
It was resolved to present the usual Address of Thanks; a Committee was appointed to draft the same, from which Lord Hinchinbroke reported on November 22; after an Amendment to safeguard the legal position of the Church of England (described as ‘the Bulwark of the Protestant Interest and the truest Support of the Throne’) had been negatived, the Address was agreed to (C.J., p. 630).
No time was lost in agreeing that a Supply be granted and in ordering an Account of Deficiencies on the Grants for 1717 and Estimates for the coming year to be laid before the House; the House was also anxious to consider the State of the Nation, in relation to the National Debt (C.J., p. 631).
On November 28 Admiral Aylmer presented the Ordinary Estimate of the Navy and an Estimate of the Navy Debt as on 30 September 1717; James Craggs, Secretary at War, likewise presented an Estimate of the Charge of the Guards, Garrisons and Land Forces; and William Lowndes a State of the Supplies for 1717 and Accounts of Deficiencies of Funds and Grants. The next day Lowndes presented a State of the Supplies for 1717; the Commissioners of Customs presented at the Bar of the House their statutory annual Return with the Accounts of prohibited East India Goods and Naval Stores imported from Russia; Edward Ashe presented an Estimate of the Charge of the Office of Ordnance. Further Army Accounts were ordered to be laid; this was done on December 2. Details will be found under Accounts and Estimates below (C.J., pp. 631–655).
On December 4 the House resolved itself into Committee of Supply. On the Motion for maintaining the Guards and Garrisons in Great Britain for the Year 1718 according to the Estimate, at a total strength of 16,347 men, a great debate arose. The motion was opposed by William Shippen, Sir William Wyndham and Robert Walpole. The last-named complained that the true number of men was still above 18,000, which was a third part more than the Land Forces in Britain formerly maintained in time of Peace; that there was no due proportion either between the number of Horse, Dragoons and Foot, or between the number of the Officers and soldiers; insomuch as out of 8,000l. for the pay of a reduced Regiment, nearly 7,000l. would go to the Officers and 1,000l. only to the private soldiers; that the keeping up so great a number of Officers, was, in effect, the maintaining of an Army almost double of what was intended; that the pay of the General Officers, which amounted to above 20,000l. was a needless and unprecedented expense. To this the Secretary at War answered that the Security of the State was the rule chiefly to be regarded; that the King had in fact consulted not only the safety but likewise the ease of his People; that the number of 18,000 included Chaplains, Surgeons, Officers' widows ‘and such harmless, inoffensive persons’; that there were not much above 4,000 men more now in Great Britain than were kept up after the Peace of Ryswick, a very moderate number ‘considering that the embers of an unnatural Rebellion lately extinguished, were still warm, and the discontents industriously fomented by the enemies of the Government; that Parliament had ever been content merely to fix the numbers of the Forces, leaving to the Crown the manner of reducing and modelling that number, and that it was no less a piece of justice than a matter of prudence to keep up as great a number of Officers as possible, gentlemen who had no other way to subsist and provide for themselves and families’.
Craggs was backed by Aislabie, Hampden, John Smith and others; Sir Joseph Jekyll insisted on keeping up 16,000 men at least one year longer; Sir David Dalrymple urged that in Scotland the discontents ran as high as before the late Rebellion. Walpole, Bromley, Freeman and General Erle on the other hand urged that 12,000 men were sufficient.
As the Question was about to be put, Shippen made a lengthy speech in which he said that the chief argument against a Standing Army was not its expense but that the civil and military power could not long subsist together; a Standing Army in time of Peace must impede the free execution of the Laws of the Land. The fallacy of the reductions had been sufficiently exposed by a gentleman (i.e. Walpole) who was better informed of the secret of this affair than himself and who was equally unafraid of being called a Jacobite. He considered that keeping up the number proposed, so far from being necessary for the protection of His Majesty's good subjects, would be inconsistent with their safety and an excessive burthen upon them; he knew that these assertions interfered with what was laid down in the second paragraph of the King's Speech but that Speech must be considered as the composition and advice of his Ministry; the House was therefore at liberty to debate every proposition therein; a ‘especially those which seemed rather calculated for the Meridian of Germany, than of Great Britain. It was the only infelicity of His Majesty's reign that he was a Stranger to our Language and Constitution’. So long as the Standing Army were continued, so long was the whole Constitution suspended, or at least in the mercy of those that Parliament had armed against it. Several members, and more particularly Nicholas Lechmere who had taken Shippen's words down in writing, took violent offence at the reference to the phrases italicized as ‘a scandalous Invective against the King's person and Government’; after some argument it was decided ‘Tha t the words taken down in writing were spoken by Mr. Shippen’ and Mr. Chairman Farrer was voted out of the Chair. The Speaker having resumed the Chair, Farrer reported from the Committee ‘That Exceptions having been taken to some Words spoken in the Committee by William Shippen, Esquire, a Member of the House, the Committee had directed him to report to the House.
That William Shippen, Esquire, speaking of the King's Speech, said these words ‘That the second Paragraph of the King's Speech seemed rather to be calculated to the Meridian of Germany than Great Britain’ and also ‘That the King is a Stranger to our Language and Constitution’. Thereupon Shippen was heard in his place and withdrew; by 175 voices to 81 it was resolved ‘That the Words spoken by William Shippen, Esq., were highly dishonourable to, and unjustly reflecting on, his Majesty's Person and Government; and it was ordered accordingly that for his said Offence he be committed Prisoner to His Majesty's Tower of London’ (Parliamentary History, pp 506–511 and for a short account of William Shippen, p. 312; C.J., p. 653). He remained in the Tower until the prorogation in March 1717–18. On December 5 a further Debate in Supply arose in the course of which the member for Droitwich, Jeffries, delivered an historical disquisition going back to Richard II. On December 7 the Committee of Supply reported to the House twelve Resolutions to which they had come on the previous day; the First of these, fixing the number of the Guards and Garrisons in Great Britain and the Channel Islands at 16,347 men (including Officers, etc.) only escaped recommittal by 170 voices to 125; the Second and Ninth, dealing respectively with the cost of the said Guards and Garrisons (estimated at 681,618l.) and with the Charge of Half-Pay to reduced Officers of the Land Forces and Marines (130,361l. 5s. 5d.) were recommitted; the remaining Resolutions were agreed to (C.J., p. 655).
On the First Resolution, among others who spoke against it, Sir Thomas Hanmer contrasted the boastings of the Government over the success of their foreign policy, whereby the Empire, France and Holland were all become fast friends and allies of Great Britain, with the language used over any proposed reduction of the Forces, as though the country were in the weakest and most insecure position imaginable. Their situation was their natural protection; the Fleet was their protection; and a good agreement between King and People would be such a protection as none of their enemies could break through. The numbers contained in the Estimates made an Army formidable enough to enslave the nation; out of 32,000 men, 13 Regiments only had been disbanded; so that these were the Corps, now subsisting of more than 25,000 men, which might be filled up to their entire complement at the pleasure of the Government without notice taken. He entertained no doubt of the King's just and gracious intentions but there was a general suspicion interwoven in the Constitution that too much power lodged in the Crown would at sometime or other be abused. Hitherto Englishmen had enjoyed their estates, their lives and their liberties as their rights; it would be a sad change to make them only tenants at will.
On the Second Resolution Walpole again urged that by the method followed the Nation was being put to an extraordinary and needless charge; by reducing the Army in another manner, the full number of Land Forces might be kept up, and yet near 100,000l. saved to the Nation, besides the pay of the General Officers; Sir Joseph Jekyll then declared his opinion for the recommittal, which was carried without dividing.
On December 9 the Second Resolution was reconsidered in Committee; Craggs, Aislabie and others contended that, having agreed to the number of Troops, it was but reasonable for the House to grant the Sum necessary for their maintenance without entering into particulars of the Regiments; to which Walpole replied that the best way for the Commons to acknowledge the King's most gracious intentions was to point out the means of rendering them effectual; he suggested the disbanding or dismounting of eight or nine Regiments of Dragoons; by this and some other reductions a considerable Sum might be saved; as well as by taking off the pay of the General Officers.
Some General Officers, having said That for their own parts, if having no pay could contribute to make the nation easy, they readily acquiesced, were taken at their word. On Question put, That a Sum not exceeding 650,000l. be granted for 16,347 effective men, the same was carried by 172 against 158 (Parliamentary History, pp. 505–523). On December 10 the revised Resolution was reported to the House, read a second time and agreed to (C.J., p. 656).
The Resolution on Half-Pay was reconsidered on 24 January 1717–18; Hutcheson and Walpole insisted that the Officers of the 13 Regiments reduced in Ireland should have been placed on the Irish Establishment; it was agreed to strike off minors under 16, several Warrant Officers, the Officers of the Regiments reduced in Ireland and the Chaplains not provided for. In this way the Government's Estimate was reduced from 130,361l. 5s. 5d. to 115,000l. but the opposite party pressed for 80,000l. only; a compromise suggested by Walpole of 94,000l. was readily accepted; a proposal to supply vacancies in the Guards from Half-Pay Officers was negatived by 164 to 156 (Parliamentary History, p. 535).
The Chairman then reported to the House That the Committee had directed him to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, That all Vacancies which shall happen in the Troops upon the British Establishment, be supplied by Half-Pay Officers, or Officers reduced, in Great Britain of the same Rank, except in the Horse and Foot Guards, and Horse Grenadiers.
The House on that day resolved itself into Grand Committee under Gyles Erie ‘a Gentleman of bright parts, and equally well versed in civil and military affairs’; it was contended by Walpole and others that a Court-Martial in time of Peace was unknown in England; Lechmere, however, pointed out that the Court of Admiralty was allowed in times of Peace as well as of War: the Clause relating to Mutiny and Desertion was at length agreed to by 247 to 229: on February 12 the engrossed Bill was read a third time and passed by 186 to 105, Walpole voting with the Government. The Mutiny Bill then went to the Lords where on February 12 a further debate ensued. The Bill was then debated in Grand Committee on February 21; it was read a Third Time in the Lords on February 24 and passed by 88 to 61.
On 21 December 1717 Lowndes presented to the House several Papers relating to the Gold and Silver Coins (C.J., pp. 664–666); these were considered and committed to a Committee of the Whole House (21 December 1717, 13 and 16 January 1717–18); further Accounts were ordered and laid on January 18 (C.J., pp. 666, 668, 669, 671, 674, 681, 682, 690, 695).
The first Paper then presented was a Report by Sir Isaac Newton of 21 September 1711; a lb. Troy of gold, 11 oz. fine, 1 oz. alloy, was cut into 44½ guineas while a lb. Troy of silver, 11 oz. 2 dwt. fine, 18 dwt. alloy, was cut into 62 shillings; according to this, with a guinea at 1l. 1s. 6d., a lb. of fine gold was worth 15 lb. 6 oz. 7 dwt. 5 grains of silver money; but at the normal rate for export of Silver in bullion a guinea would be worth but 1l. 0s. 8d. In Spain on the official coinage basis gold was worth 16 times the value of silver of equal weight and alloy, at which rate the guinea would be worth 22s. 1d.; but in fact this rate kept gold in Spain and Portugal and carried away Spanish silver into all Europe; when a Plate Fleet arrived, the premium was small, but, as silver became scarce, so the premium rose and was most commonly about 6per cent, making the guinea worth 1l. 0s. 9d. In France fine gold was put at 15 times its weight of fine silver, which would value the guinea at 20s. 8½ d. On the basis of the ducats which commonly passed in Holland, the guinea was worth 20s. 7½ d. In Italy, Germany, Poland and Sweden, a guinea was worth from 20s. 7d. down to 20s. 4d.; in Sweden gold was lowest in proportion to silver, hence silver was abundant there. In China and Japan 1 lb. gold was worth but 9 or 10 lb. in silver; in East India perhaps 12; hence an export of silver from all Europe.
So, by the course of trade, the ratio of fine gold to fine silver was 144/5 or 15 to 1; and silver flowed to those places where its value was lowest in proportion to gold. The demand for exportation had raised the price of exportable silver about 2d. or 3d. an oz. above that of silver in coin and had thereby created a temptation to export: to discourage this, 10d. or 12d. should be taken off the guinea; but, if only 6d. were taken off at present, it would diminish the temptation to export, or melt down, silver coin … If things were let alone till silver money were a little scarcer, the gold would fall of itself; people were already backward to give silver for gold, and would, in a little time refuse to make payments in silver without a premium as now in Spain; this premium would be an abatement in the value of gold; the question was whether gold should be lowered by the Government or left to fall by the want of silver money. Silver in the form of plate was safer from exportation than silver money; therefore Newton was not for coining plate till the temptations to export silver money were diminished. (The original letter and a copy thereof will be found under the Public Record Office reference T.1/208, p. 204 and p. 207 [Nos. 43 and 43a].)
In a second Report of 23 November, Newton gave an Account of all Gold and Silver coined in the last fifteen years. The Graver of the Mint had been hard at work in making embossments and puncheons for the Half-Pence and Farthings. From 1 January 1701–02 to 20 November 1717 there had been coined:
|in gold moneys||145,00l lb. 2 oz. (7,127,835l.)|
|in silver moneys||25,901 lb. 10 oz. 12 dwt. (66,952l.)|
|in silver moneys from plate||46,156 lb. 11 oz. 2 dwt. (143,086l.)|
The plate was brought in for coining in 1709 and 1711; also in 1704, of 4,007 lb. of silver coined, 3,602 lb. 5 oz. 7 dwt. (13,342l.) was from wrought plate, being Prize from the Vigo Expedition; of the 66,952l., 45,732l. was coined from silver extracted from the Country's own lead ore and 21,220l. chiefly out of old plate melted down by Goldsmiths; and some of it from pieces of eight. Gold coinage had been heaviest in 1715 (39,090 lb.); none had been coined in 1704.
Mr. Farrer, the Chairman, reported from the Committee and the House agreed ‘That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, That he will be graciously pleased to issue his Royal Proclamation, to forbid all Persons to utter, or receive, any of the pieces of Gold called Guineas, at any greater or higher Rate than One-and-Twenty Shillings for each Guinea; and so proportionably for any greater or lesser Pieces of Coined Gold’ It was further ordered that leave be given to bring in a Bill to take off the Obligation, and Encouragement for coining Guineas for a certain Time (C.J., pp. 665, 666; Parliamentary History, pp. 525–530).
As a result of these measures the Mint dropped 11l. on its small holding of guineas; other Government Departments lost more; owners of gold coins were resentful; there followed a large, though short-lived, export of gold to Holland; the home price of gold rose to 4l. 0s. 6d. and there was some disturbance of the exchanges; the reduction did not apparently lower the price of silver nor bring an ounce of silver to the Mint; in fact silver was hoarded in hopes of a further change in the relative values. The House adjourned from 23 December 1717 to 13 January 1717–18; the Commons on meeting again at once passed a Motion ‘That this House will not alter the Standard of the Gold and Silver Coins of this Kingdom in Fineness, Weight and Denomination’; and it was resolved that the Committee of the Whole House should ‘meet again to consider the State of the Nation, in relation to the Gold and Silver Coinage’ (C.J., p. 668; Parliamentary History, p. 530 footnote). On January 16 the Committee asked for further Accounts to be laid by the Goldsmiths' Company and by the Master of the Mint and that Officers of the Company and of the Mint should attend the House. Accounts of the Charge for Coinage of Gold and Silver from Christmas 1710 to Christmas 1717 were laid accordingly on January 18; on 20 January Chetwynd, from the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, presented an Account of the value of Foreign Coin and Bullion exported from Christmas 1698 to Christmas 1715; this showed East India to be far and away the biggest purchaser. On January 21 the Goldsmiths produced an Account of silver plate of the old and new standards marked at Guildhall 1693 to 1697 and 1714 to 1717–18 respectively; Mr. Carkesse, Secretary to the Commissioners of Customs, presented an Account of the weights of foreign Coin and bullion entered for exportation from Ladyday 1710 to 16 January 1717–18, distinguishing gold from silver; Holland and Ireland were the chief recipients of gold (C.J., pp. 669, 671, 674, 681, and 682).
On January 16 the Bill for taking off the Obligation to coin Guineas was presented and read: it was read a second time the next day; thereafter, though repeatedly considered in Committee, it appears to have made no further progress in the House (C.J., pp. 669, 671, 675, 690, 701, 708, 720, 728, 737). The Committee ‘to consider of Methods for preventing the Waste of the Gold and Silver Coins of the Kingdom’ likewise sat but without apparent effect.
The matter was also debated in the Lords in Grand Committee; Lord Bingley called attention to the prejudice to Trade occasioned by the scarcity of Silver; Lord Stanhope ascribed this to several causes:
In 1717 the East India Company had exported near 3,000,000 oz. of silver, far exceeding the imports of bullion in that year. The Administration could not remedy this evil without the interposition of Parliament; the most effectual method had been already used, viz. the lowering the price of gold, which would in great measure have been successful but for the covetousness and malice of those who, by hoarding silver, thought either to make considerable gains, or to distress the Government; so that no fault on this score could be found with the Treasury; on the contrary the public credit never ran so high, since the Government could borrow great sums at 3½ per cent. The Earl of Oxford and others spoke on the occasion but further consideration was postponed to Saturday January 25 when it was resolved ‘That no alteration should be made in the standard of the Gold and Silver Coins of this Kingdom in fineness, weight and denomination’; the Resolution was reported and agreed to by the House and, after the Officers of the Mint and of the Goldsmiths' Company had been examined, it was ordered that a Bill be brought in to prevent the melting down of the Coins of the Kingdom (‘Parliamentary History’, pp. 532–534).
Among other matters discussed in this Session was the re-opening of the Trade with Sweden. On 13 February 1717–18 a Petition of several merchants and shipowners was offered; the House declined to have it brought up on that day but on February 19 it was read; it was resolved to consider the Petition and to hear the Petitioners, if they chose; papers relating to negotiations with the States General were asked for and a Return of Ships taken by the Swedes; further Petitions were received the next day from the Cutlers' Company of Hallamshire, from merchants etc. of Stockton-on-Tees, from the Corporation and traders of Leeds and from ironmongers etc. of Birmingham and of Ipswich, all complaining of the scarcity of iron. The Petitions were heard on February 22 and Mr. Jackson, the Resident at Stockholm, was called in and presented a translation of his Memorial to the Swedish Chancery of 16 July 1714 relative to the detention of British Ships. Kingston-upon-Hull also petitioned (February 24). The House considered the Matter again on February 27 when a debate arose. Resident Jackson attended; he considered that the re-opening of trade might be detrimental as the Swedes, being short of corn and salt, were inclined to facilitate to Great Britain, underhand, the purchase of their iron; one of his expressions aroused resentment but Walpole made excuses for him and he withdrew. The merchants on the other hand contended that they now had to buy iron through the Dutch at 4l. per ton dearer than before; a gain of 50,000l. per annum from the trade with Sweden had been turned into a loss of about 90,000l. James Craggs, however, refused to accept these figures. It was moved that an Address be presented to his Majesty to take into his consideration the State of Trade with Sweden; ‘and that such Measures may be taken, that his Majesty's Subjects, and those of his Allies, may carry on the said Trade in the same Manner’. Craggs represented that this Address would be a reflection on the King and his Government and, on the other hand, would be needless as his Majesty's wisdom would apply all proper remedies to the evil complained of. Sir William Wyndham observed that, the fear of an invasion being removed, it would be no reflection to take off the prohibition; the Swedes had ever been the support of the Protestant interest and a nation which by Treaties Great Britain stood obliged to defend; but, by 201 Votes to 111, it was resolved to adjourn the debate for a month (C.J., pp. 729, 745, 749, 750, 756; Parliamentary History, pp. 548–550).
On 28 January 1717–18 the shoemakers of Hereford petitioned about the scarcity of leather due to exportation and prayed that the drawback on leather exported be taken off and Irish hides and calfskins be allowed to be brought in. On February 1 a new series of Petitions against the exportation of bark was presented from the tanners of Boston, Cardiff, Southwark, Denbigh, York (city), Lincoln (city), Monmouth (town), Plymouth and ‘Plymton’, Launceston and Newport, Berkley and Wotton-under-Edge, Pembroke, Drayton (co. Salop), Montgomery, Shrewsbury, Grimsby, Reading, ‘Tottness’ and Ashburton, Kendal, Chester, ‘Huntington’ (county), Pembroke (borough), Brecon (county), Leominster, Okehampton, Bristol, Denbigh and Ruthin, Helstone, Carmarthen (county and borough), Ross, Canterbury, Haverfordwest and Lincoln (county); most of these asked that the exportation of bark be prohibited, others prayed for a Duty or for such Relief as the House should deem meet. On February 3 like Petitions were received from Carmarthen, ‘Knutsford Middlewich, and Frodsham’, ‘Stockport, Altringham and Sandbatch’, ‘Namptwich’; and the upper parts of the County of Buckingham; on February 6 from Gloucester (city), ‘Newcastle under Line’ and ‘Yeovill’; on February 8 from Leeds and Wakefield, Newbury, Malmsbury, Tavistock, ‘Winton and Alesford’ [Winchester and Alresford], and Wantage; the Shoemakers of Bridgnorth desired the drawback on leather exported to be taken off and Irish hides and skins to be imported; on February 10 Petitions were received from Leicester (town and county), Monmouth (county), Bedford (corporation), Maidstone, Essex, Bradford, Halifax and Otley, Beverley, ‘Leverpool’ and Preston, Richmond, Middleham and ‘Beadhall’ [Bedale], the West Part of the County of York and Cambridge (town); on February 17 from Cumberland, Andover, Warrington, ‘Presteet and Ormskirke’, Pontefract and Durham (city); on the other side on February 20 the Proprietors and owners of wood in ‘Brathey, Skelwith and Monk Conistone’, in ‘Grisdale, Satterthwaite, Dale Park, Graithwaite, Whaithead, Rusland, Slot Parke, Plumb Green, Finstead and Haverthwaite, in Cartmel Fell in Cartmel and in Great Langdale and Loughrigg, all in North Lancashire or Westmorland, protested that the County produced far more bark than the English tanners could ever use and that most of the Proprietors lands were ‘so mountainous, rocky and barren’ as to produce ‘little besides Wood’; prohibition of importation into Ireland would be their ruin and that of many families of labouring people. On February 27 a further Petition from Suffolk was presented but on March 1 the Corporation of Appleby protested that a law to prevent exportation would result in the Tanners having bark at their own price to the great discouragement of the planting of oak; the inhabitants of Windermere and ‘Undermilbeck’ likewise claimed that the North End of Lancashire and the neighbouring parts of Westmorland produced more oakbark than all the tanners of the country had occasion for. The shoemakers of Ipswich asked for the removal of the drawback on leather exported and that no bark be transported to Ireland. The tanners of Brecon (county borough) presented their Petition on March 7 saying that unless a speedy course were taken their hides and skins would not be worth the tanning in England. The Petitions were allowed to lie on the Table and no action was taken (C.J., pp. 692, 701–704, 706, 717, 720, 721, 722, 723, 735, 745, 755, 758, 762).
The proposal to make Exeter into a port for the importation of Irish yarn caused some protest (C.J., p. 707 et seq.). The rights of the button-makers against the tailors were also considered and became a matter for legislation; smuggling and frauds on the Customs aroused attention.
On 10 March 1717–18 it was resolved that Notice be given to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England That this House will, at Ladyday 1719 redeem the Annuity of 76,830l. 15s. payable to them for circulating Exchequer Bills. Notice was given accordingly on March 17 (C.J., pp. 763, 764).
On the same day a Message from the King was received that, having received information from abroad which made him judge that it would give Weight to his Endeavours to secure the Welfare of his Kingdoms and the Tranquillity of Europe, if a Naval Force were employed, he trusted that, in case he should be obliged to exceed the number of men granted for Sea Service, the House at their next Meeting would provide for such Exceeding. The House resolved that an Humble Order be presented, thanking the King for his unwearied Endeavours … to preserve the Tranquillity of Europe and to assure him that the House would make good such Exceedings as, in his Royal Wisdom, he might find necessary (C.J., p. 767).
|Wear and Tear||562,039||2||11|
|Sick and Wounded||6,617||4||5|
|total (before this Reign 187,774l. 9s. 7d.; since this Reign 964,654l. 3s. 9d.)||£1,152,428||13||4|
In the hands of the Executors of Sir Thomas Littleton
|In ditto of Charles Caesar||9,067||1||1½|
|In ditto of John Aislabie to 31 December 1717||65,996||17||11|
|Received to complete the Proportions for the Year 1717||311,517||8||11½|
The net Debt was therefore 764,088l. 3s. 11d. The Treasury had directed:
Out of the 400,000l. Annuity Stock:
To be paid the Treasurer of the Ordnance
|To be paid the Cashier of the South Sea Company||51,081||8||3½|
|On Wear and Tear: the Course||83,400||0||0|
|Victualling: the Course||65,518||11||84|
And out of Money and Tallies:
|For Sick and Hurt||1,174||18||11|
|For the Ordinary and Wear and Tear||42,488||0||1½|
|For the Victualling||6,731||9||11|
|To redeem the like sum in Tallies on the Land Tax 1716||2,000||0||0|
|£120,394||8||11½ (fn. 3) [sic]|
There was also presented on January 21 an Account of what the Navy Treasurer had received out of Moneys voted for the year 1716 and 1717; amounting to 624,045l. 0s. 0½d. for 1716 and to 1,220,946l. 17s. 6¾d. for 1717 together with 188l. 10s. 3¾d. and 223,923l. received but unapplied to any particular Head.
Also ‘bound up’ were Accounts of Naval Stores from Russia (C.J., p. 641); and of the Production of ditto in America with the Premiums paid for such Stores and the quantities of Pitch and Tar imported thence and bought for the Navy (C.J., p. 698).
On the General and Staff Officers 2931. 14s. 4½d. had been saved; against 23,635l. 14s. 2d. spent in 1717 the Estimate for 1718 amounted to 22,496l. 7s. 6d.; nothing in either year was allowed for the Captain General; the Generals were reduced from three to two; the 5 Lieut. Generals, 6 Major Generals and 11 Brigadiers remained. Of the 28,245l. 9s. 2d. for Garrisons etc. in Great Britain the Abstract showed:
The Estimates having been duly presented the Committee of Supply sat on December 2 to consider the Ordinary Estimate of the Navy (C.J., p. 651) and reported next day when the House agreed to the Committee's Resolutions:
Provision had also to be made out of the Income by Forfeitures for allowances to the Families of persons whose Estates had been forfeited, for the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners, for charges of Prosecutions and for Schools to be erected and maintained in the Highlands.
A Land Tax Bill was ordered on 12 December 1717, read December 13 and read a Second time and committed December 14; it was ordered to be Reported on December 16, Reported and ordered to be engrossed on December 17; read a Third time and passed on December 19; it was agreed to by the Lords and received the Royal Assent on December 23 (C.J., pp. 657, 658, 659, 661, 667). In spite of an attempt to secure a reduction to 2s. in the 1l., the rate remained at 3s. [4 Geo. I, c. 1],
The Malt Duties Bill was ordered 16 January, 1717–18, read January 17, read a Second time and committed January 18, 22, 27, 31, February 5, ordered to be reported February 10; reported, read a Second time and ordered to be ingrossed February 11; read a Third time and passed and agreed to by the Lords, February 19 [4 Geo. I, c. 3]. (C.J., pp. 669, 671, 672, 684, 692, 701, 716, 724, 725, 743.)
On January 18 there were referred to the Committee a Petition from the Merchants and Traders of Bristol, complaining that Exporters of Cyder had been compelled to pay Duty on their Exports, likewise a Petition from Dealers in English Bone-lace who protested against being classed as Hawkers and Pedlars (C.J., p. 670); the Committee was empowered to receive a Clause for the Petitioners' relief, also a Clause of Credit and a Clause for renewing Exchequer Bills etc. lost, burnt or destroyed; on January 21, however the Committee was discharged from consideration of the Petition from the Dealers in Bone-lace which was referred to a specially constituted Committee who reported in the Petitioners' favour on January 23 (C.J., pp. 675, 685).
On January 31 the Committee on the Malt Duties Bill was instructed to consider a Petition of the Maltsters of Bridport, who complained that they were being undersold by their neighbours; on February 3 a similar Petition was referred to the Committee from Basingstoke (C.J., pp. 701, 707).
According to the Treasury Yearly Account (p. xciv below) the Land Tax was estimated to yield 1,410,000l., the Malt Duties to raise 700,000l.; thus against grants in Supply etc. of 2,614,709l. 10s. 10¾d., the Revenue granted in Ways and Means amounted only to 2,110,000l., leaving an Estimated deficit of 504,709l. 10s. 10¾d.
To vote by the Sub-Governor or Deputy Governor acting under Royal Warrant. On receipt of a Message from the King on February 1 the Bill was passed through all its stages in the Commons on the same day and received the Royal Assent on February 3 (C.J., pp. 706, 708).
This Act continued the Malt Acts to 24 June 1719. Clause of Loan at 5l. per cent. The Principal Sums lent on the Malt Act 1716 were directed to be paid out of the first moneys advanced under this Act.
|To the Navy Treasurer, to make up the South Sea Company's Fund||29,645||8||9¼|
The Act arose from a Petition presented on 25 January 1717–18 (C.J., p. 688) on which a Committee reported on February 1 (C.J., p. 704). The Bill was presented and read a first time on February 3, read a second time and committed on February 8, ordered to be reported on February 10, reported and ordered to be engrossed on February 11, passed by the Commons on February 14 and agreed to by the Lords on February 25 (C.J., pp. 708, 721, 724, 725, 731, 753).
Bone-lace. 4 Geo. I, c. 6. An Act for the Relief of the Wholesale Traders … in English Bone-lace, by obviating several Doubts in the several Acts for licensing Hawkers and Pedlars. Such Traders need not be licensed.
The Petition presented on 17 January 1717–18 was referred first to the Committee of Ways and Means considering the Malt Duties but later to a special Committee; the Bill was presented on January 24, read a second time and committed on January 27, reported and ordered to be engrossed on February 1, read a third time and passed on February 3; it was returned from the Lords on February 27 with a slight amendment, to which the Commons agreed the next day (C.J., pp. 670, 672, 675, 687, 691, 706, 708, 756, 757).
The object of these Acts was to encourage the use of Mohair and Raw Silk by the prohibition of buttons or button-holes made of, or used, or bound with cloth etc. There were Petitions from various button and button-hole makers that the provisions of the earlier Act were being evaded. (C.J., pp. 675, 676, et seq.).
Estates vested in the King for the use of the Public under 1 Geo. I, st. 2, c. 50 and 3 Geo. I, c. 20 were to be vested in Commissioners and after 25 March 1718 were to be sold to Protestants; a sum of 20,000l, was appropriated for erecting Schools in the Highlands and the remainder, after payment of allowances to the families of forfeiting Persons etc. and of the salaries etc. of the Commissioners, was to be applied for discharging the Public Debts. In the course of Debates in the Lords on the Bill on 4, 5, and 11 March 1717–18 (see Parliamentary History, pp. 550–554) it was objected that by making the determination of the Trustees final the Bill set aside the Courts of Judicature in North Britain and even the authority of the House of Peers as Supreme Judges in all Civil Causes; also that the Public would get little or nothing by the Forfeitures. The Commons were in some fear that the Lords might seek to amend a Money Bill, but eventually the Bill was passed by 82 to 76.
This Act continues 1 Geo. I, st 2, c. 24 and 3 Geo. I, c. 17. The demands related to Troops which after 6 July 1712 had refused to separate themselves with the Duke of Ormonde but had continued with the Allies.
This substituted half yearly for the quarterly payments under 3 Geo. I, c. 7. The closing of the transfer-books for some two-thirds of the year to adjust the shares and to make out the dividend warrants was causing grave inconvenience (C.J., p. 683, 695)
New Churches. 4 Geo. I, c. 14. An Act to impower the Commissioners … for building Fifty New Churches to direct the Parish Church of St. Giles in the Fields to be rebuilt instead of one of the said … Churches….
This volume is the last of this Series for which the text was prepared by the late Dr. Shaw. A brief account of his official work by the then Deputy Keeper of the Records was inserted in Volume XX, part I; the following is an attempt to survey more particularly the scope of his Introductions.
When in 1895 Dr. Shaw came as an Editor to the Public Record Office, Joseph Redington, a former Assistant Keeper, who retired on 31 December 1891, had already prepared a Calendar of Treasury Papers from 1556–7 to 1728; these were published in six volumes between 1868 and 1889 but covered only the Treasury Board Papers (T.1) of which a general description appears in the Introduction to the first volume. Dr. Shaw obtained the then Deputy Keeper's approval for a more extended Calendar to cover other Treasury Records. An explanation of the nature of, and reasons for, this change appeared in the Introduction to Dr. Shaw's first volume of the Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers, which was published in 1897 and covered the period 1729–30. He concluded that a correct impression of the functioning of the Treasury required knowledge of the decisions of the Board to be found in the Treasury Minute Books (T.29); again much of the work of the Department never appeared in the Board papers, but must be gathered from other Classes, such as the Money Books (Warrants relating to Money, T.53), Order Books (T.60), and Disposition Books (T.61). The chief Classes judged unsuitable for the new Calendar were the records, preserved among those of the Treasury, of such extraneous bodies as the Royal African Company (fn. 4) or of temporary and expired Commissions and also the various series of Revenue and Establishment Books, which were mere books of account.
Between 1895 and 1903 five volumes of these Calendars of Treasury Books and Papers were published; Dr. Shaw's Introductions to Volumes I, III and IV were directed to the examination of Treasury method in the discharge of the Department's main executive function, the issue of money out of the National Exchequer; in his last volume, however, he dealt with the question of Treasury control over the preparation of the National Estimates.
It was originally intended to continue the Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers to the death of George II, but after the series had been carried to 1745 it was decided to go back to the Restoration and to complete Redington's Calendar for the years 1660 to 1728 by a Calendar of Treasury Books. The first volume of this new series appeared in 1904; it covered the years 1660–1667 prior to the keeping of a regular Minute Book. The Introduction dealt with the financial situation on the King's return and drew upon the Statutes and the Journals of the House of Commons; no attempt was made systematically to abstract the Declared Accounts but the second and last Account of James Nelthorpe and John Lawson, Commissioners for disbanding the Army (A.O.1/47/8), (fn. 5) will be found on pp. x, xi. Tables of (A) Annual Receipts from the Fixed and Hereditary Revenues of the Crown, of (B) Annual Revenue derived from Extraordinary Parliamentary Grants, of (C) the National Expenditure, and of (D) Yearly Payments into the Exchequer and Yearly Expenditure, together with (E) An abstract of the actual as compared with the estimated yield of the King's hereditary revenue, are given on pp. xxx–xxxiv. As explained in Volume II, p. xiii, these tables were calculated largely from the half-yearly Declarations of Accounts, drawn up by the Auditor of the Receipt and the Clerk of the Pells (both forming part of E.405); fair copies of these Declarations were submitted to the Treasury (T.33 and T.34); there are thus four possible sources of information but for some years about this time no Declarations at all exist. (fn. 6) The next volume for 1667–1668 appeared in 1905 and again gave on pp. xii and xv Statements of Income and Expenditure; in the absence of half-yearly Declarations Dr. Shaw had recourse to the Pells Issue Book (part of E.403); several Declared Accounts were given in a highly summarised form on pp. xvi–xxxiii. In this volume Dr. Shaw also devoted several pages (xxxiv–lxxxvi) to the Parliamentary Commission of Accounts.
In Volume III, part I (1908) Dr. Shaw carried the story up to the ‘Stop of the Exchequer’ in 1672; again he found the Declarations very defective, which led him to give further details from the Declared Accounts on pp. xv–xv; similar statements were included in Volume IV (1909) on pp. xx–xxxv, together with details of pensions etc. on pp. xlvii–lii and in Volume V, part I (1911) on pp. xi–xxxiv (this Volume also contains on pp. liv–lx details of the Forces and the Garrisons in 1678); again in Volume VII, part 1 (1916) on pp. xli–lxxxviii, covering the period from 1679 to the death of Charles I; and in Volume VIII, part 1 (1923) on pp. xxvi–xciii, for the reign of James II.
With the accession of William III the Treasury Yearly Accounts (Treasury Accounts, General, Yearly, T.30) began and Dr. Shaw's Introductions took on a new form; the Accounts formed a separate part of the Introduction and were no longer embodied in his general survey. Thenceforward this became the invariable plan. The Introduction to Volume IX, part I (1931), which covered also the period of Volume X, devoted pp. xvi–cx to Parliamentary Proceedings for fixing the King's Ordinary Revenue, pp. cx–cli to the Provision of Supply for War purposes, pp. cli–clxxiv to the Commission on the Public Accounts, pp. clxxiv–cxcvi to Appropriations of Supply and pp. cxcvi–cci to a financial summary of the first seven years of William's reign. The Accounts of Revenue and Expenditure and the Declared Accounts followed (pp. ccii–cccxiv); and a short conclusion ended this Introduction. There is one Introduction only in a separate volume to Volumes XI–XVII (1934), embracing the second half of the reign of William III; a Table of Contents is given; the subjects dealt with on pp. v–ccxxiv include the Civil List, the Land Bank Project Deficiencies, the Great Recoinage of 1696, Exchequer Bills, the Public Accounts Commission, Annuities and Lotteries and the National Debt. The Revenue and Expenditure Accounts are given on pp. ccxxvi–cccxxv and the Declared Accounts on pp. ccccxxvi–dciv.
Each volume, however, for Queen Anne's reign has a separate Introduction; in Volume XIX (1936) will be found details of the provision for the Queen's Civil List, of funds for meeting deficiencies and of provision for the War; the Accounts, covering one year only, take up pp. xlviii–cxcii. In Volume XX (which, owing to Dr. Shaw's death, to the War of 1939–44, and to subsequent printing difficulties, was not published until 1952), details were given of the Agreements with Foreign Princes, without which the Declared Accounts of the Army would be unintelligible; the Accounts cover pp. lxvi–cccxxxviii; in this and subsequent volumes the Introductory matter, including the Accounts, has been published in separate Parts, which can be studied independently of the Calendar proper. Volume XXI (1952) gave details of Supply and Ways and Means etc. in 1705. As by this time the Introductions were lagging behind the Text of the Calendar Dr. Shaw decided to include two year's Accounts in Volume XXII (1952) but his Introduction dealt with, the year 1707 only and his account of the financial basis of the Union of the Kingdoms was deferred to Volume XXV; Volume XXIII (1949) gave further agreements with Foreign Princes; Volume XXIV (1952) described Godolphin's dismissal and Volume XXV, the last volume for which Dr. Shaw had prepared an Introduction, not only dealt, as stated above, with the financial basis of the Union, but brought the history of Queen Anne's finances down to the South Sea Company Act of Robert Harley.
The necessity for the continuance in some form of the Introductions has been explained in Vol. XXVI, part I. The present Editor's object has been not to summarize nor to give any account of the records abstracted in the body of the Calendar but rather to supplement them by adding some account of the Department's relations with the Administration and with the House of Commons, particularly in the matters of Estimates, of Supply, and of Ways and Means and of Legislation.