The present volume contains the Calendar of Treasury Papers extending from the accession of Queen Anne (8 March 1702) to the end of the year 1707. The documents to which this and the two previous volumes refer are bound in 104 volumes.
The department of the Treasury remained but for a short time in commission after the accession of Her Majesty, for on May the 6th, 1702, Sidney, Lord Godolphin was made Lord High Treasurer, and did not resign that office until August 1710. He played no unimportant part in the history of this country for a long series of years in the reigns of four successive sovereigns, and occupies a most prominent position in this volume. The large number of the papers minuted under his directions are undeniable evidence of his attention to his duties, as well as of his administrative capacity. (fn. 1) He certainly does not appear to have dealt out the public money with a lavish hand, or without ample inquiry. When vague proposals were made to him, as they often were, he generally required the applicants to state their case more specifically. His frequent personal communication with the Queen is very observable, as well as the number of papers read to her, and her orders thereon. An instance or two of his shrewdness may be given. A petitioner complains that his employment is “much diminished this war,” and his Lordship reminds him “that the war will not continue always,” which if not satisfactory to the applicant was unanswerable. (See Vol. XCV., No. 18.) To another petitioner he remarks that he did not “think it reasonable to encourage officers to keep public money in their hands in order to ask it as a reward for that which was the duty of their offices” (Vol. XCIX., No. 9). When a warrant was issued for a new silver trumpet for the Duke of Marlborough's trumpeter, a query is put on the back (no doubt by his Lordship's direction), as to what was become of the old one (Vol. XCVII., No. 95).
A very large proportion of the papers are minuted, and the Minute Books are on the contrary very scanty in their entries. Whilst on the subject of the papers of this period, attention should be drawn to four volumes of a series of Alphabetical Registers forming part of the Treasury Records. In these volumes the minutes indorsed on the papers will be found recorded, except such as are entered in the Minute Books. The following are the dates of the volumes, viz.:—
May to July 1702.
March 1705 to September 1706.
June 1709 to August 1710.
August 1710 to June 1711.
They precede those mentioned in the Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. App. II. p. 62.
It would seem that Lord Godolphin originated these volumes, for the first of them commences a few days after his appointment, and his administration ceases with the third.
Perhaps some of the most important and interesting papers in this collection will be found amongst those relating to the union of Scotland with England, which took place in the year 1707. This union was a work of so much difficulty and nicety that until that time all attempts which had been made towards it for above a hundred years had proved ineffectual. (fn. 2) And when the union was actually accomplished, the changes introduced met with no little opposition, even resulting in the rising of mobs at Edinburgh and Leith, whilst at Glasgow they more quietly acquiesced in the new order of things. (Vol. CII., No. 84.) The papers give a great many details of the measures taken to assimilate the administration of the affairs of Scotland with those of England. The excise, the customs, the mint, had to be remodelled, and the weights and measures required a considerable amount of readjustment. Twelve gallons Scots were rated at 34 gallons English; but according to the English standards sent to Scotland, the 12 gallons nearly made 37 gallons Scotch, and to add to their difficulty, “the English quart did not agree to the English gallon.” (fn. 3) As the result of the union, a series of volumes called North Britain Books came into existence. In them are enrolled a large collection of memorials, reports, warrants, &c. connected with Scotch affairs. They are preserved with the Treasury Records, and are described in the Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, App. II., pp. 17 and 47.
Many of the papers, as will be seen by the Index, contain notices of our transactions in and with Portugal, with which country England was then allied against France and Spain; and the papers as to prize money, booty, &c., testify to our successes at Vigo Bay.
The principle that “the King never dies” does not appear to have applied to the debts of the kingly office, for many claims left unpaid by King William the Third were declined to be liquidated in Her Majesty's time. And if the arrears due to the Crown were not paid up, there appears to have been small chance of petitioners ever getting what was due to them. (See Vol. LXXXV., 49, 67, 74; XC. 11, 54, 57.) The minute “no fund for this” was but a poor answer to a legitimate claim on the Government.
In accordance with the plan pursued in the preceding volumes, the Editor would now draw attention to some of the more noticeable documents hereafter described.
Sir Godfrey Kneller was allowed for drawing full-length portraits of Her Majesty 50l. each by order of the Council, to be presented to ambassadors, and to be sent to the plantations. (See Vol. XCIV., No. 26.)
Seignior Verrio, who was much employed in artistically decorating the palace of Hampton Court, had the same difficulty in obtaining payment for his labour as so many public servants employed in those times experienced. In July 1702, 1,190l. were due to him, which did not include the work he had done at Windsor. He complains that his necessities were very pressing, and 600l. were ordered for him. (See Vol. LXXXI., No. 22.) He was complaining again in February 1703–4. (See Vol. LXXXIX., No. 41.)
A merchant of London who had contracted for 600l. to supply several marble statues from Italy to decorate the same palace by the late King's order, instead of being paid his bill was generously informed that he might have the statues again. (See Vol. LXXXVI., No. 76.)
The Archbishop of Armagh.
In a former volume a letter is calendared of Narcissus, Archbishop of Dublin, of 6th May 1701 (Vol. LXXIV., No. 7), in which he unfolds a scheme that was very dear to him, for erecting a public library at Dublin, and for giving part of his books and leaving the remainder thereto after his death. In this volume good testimony is borne to his generous open-handed liberality by the Bishop of London. He says that the Archbishop (then translated to Armagh) had become so cast down with his difficulties occasioned by his generosity, that he contemplated retiring from the archbishopric and setting up a private school for his livelihood. In this Calendar will be found a good part of the Archbishop's interesting letter, in which he relates that he had been three times one of the Lords Justices of Ireland, and had supported the charges of the Government (about 1,500l.) out of his own pocket. The library was nearly finished, and would cost him about 1,800l. besides books. (See Vol. LXXXVI., No. 107.)
In 1707 an Act of the Irish Parliament was obtained for settling and preserving this library, the particulars of which are set out in the Liber Hiberniæ, Vol. II., Part VI. p. 31.
Dr. Stillingfleet's library formed part of the above collection, and there is the following postscript to a letter which throws some light on its purchase: “Pray let me desire you to further the Primate's request about getting ye 500li in order for buying Dr. Stillingfleet's library, unless you are afraid we should grow too learned.” (See Vol. XCIII., No. 134.) For the better preservation of the larger books the Lord Archbishop had provided iron chains, rods, and clasps, with close lattices, &c. See Liber Hiberniæ, ut supra.
The following interesting letter of Bishop Kenn (one of the seven bishops sent to the Tower by King James II. for refusing to read the Declaration of Indulgence) is found as an enclosure to a letter of George, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was the second in succession to Bishop Kenn:—
“All glory be to God.
“My very good Lord,
“Before your Lordshippe leaveng ye towne, I suppose yt you will wait on my Lord Treasurere, it being too much presumption to write to him my selfe, I entreat you to present my most humble acknowledgments to his Lordshippe for procuring me Her Majesty's royal bounty ye last yeare, wch came to me by your hand. I have no title to ye continuance of it, but his Lordshipp's unmerited goodnesse to me, wch I beseech God plentifully to reward, & if his Lordshippe should forbeare to continue it ye discontinuance shall not obliterate my gratefull sense of his favour past. I pray God to send you a prosperous iourney to your diocese, where your presence is generally much desired.
“God keep us in his most holy feare.
“My good Lord,
“Your Lordshipp's most affect, freind & br
“Feb. 27th. Tho Kenn.”
“To ye Right Reverend Fathere in God,
“George, Lord Bishoppe of Bath & Wells
(See Vol. XCVII. No. 98.)
Sir Isaac Newton.
This volume, like its predecessors, produces several papers in which Mr., afterwards Sir, Isaac Newton as an officer of the Mint was more or less concerned, and it may be observed that when he was one of the persons signing the papers, they were generally written by his own hand. Perhaps it need hardly be said that they bear the impress of his lucid mind, and show how carefully he went into the minutiæ of all that he had to attend to. The elaborate paper of 7th July 1702 on the value of foreign gold coins in proportion to silver will bear out this remark. (See Vol. LXXX., No. 105.) Another paper also, on a proposal to raise the price of tin, further confirms this observation. (See Vol. XCIX., No. 97.)
Daniel de Foe.
There are two notices of the talented popular writer De Foe, or Fooe as he is thrice written, viz., first under 25 Jan. 1702–3, where his name occurs in a list of persons to be prosecuted by the Treasury solicitor for the libel entitled, “The shortest way with Dissenters” (Vol. LXXXIV., No. 41); the second is as to 50l. reward claimed for apprehending him by one who did “not care to appear himself.” The Earl of Nottingham managed the business for this shy individual, and the 50l. found its way to him out of secret service money. (See Vol. LXXXV., No. 154.)
Permission to grub up a coppice in Epping Forest was refused by the Lord High Treasurer, as it was contrary to the opinion of the lieutenant of the forest, who did not think the verderers would join in a certificate as usual if it were desired of them. (See Vol. LXXXV., No. 70.)
The Attorney General gives his opinion on the making of new copyholds out of wastes, Oct. 30th, 1705. (See Vol. XCV., No. 120.) Also as to certain derelict land on which common rights were claimed. (Vol. XCVII., No. 79.)
Claims to estovers or fuel wood in the New Forest are made by various freeholders and others on the borders of the New Forest. (See Vol. XCVII., Nos. 49 and 52.)
An important report on the rights of the islanders of Portland to certain dues for stone quarried in that island is calendared in Vol. CI., No. 83. The paper is, however, wrongly dated by Mr. James Mountague, the Solicitor General, and should have been 31 March 1708 instead of 1707. It touches on the rights of the Crown (the Queen being lady of the manor) and the rights of the commoners there. The stone for Greenwich Hospital, St. Paul's Cathedral, Chelsea College, and several churches, was obtained from thence.
A copy of a letter of 2/13 August 1703 gives some details of the plans for the investment of the town of Huy in Germany, under the command of the Duke of Marlborough. (See Vol. LXXXVII., No. 2.)
The copy of another letter, from the Earl of Peterborough, gives an account of the successes in Catalonia in 1705. (See Vol. XCVI., No. 51.)
The autumn of the year 1703 was memorable for a fearful storm in and around England, and there is frequent mention in these papers of the havoc caused by it. The Bishop of Oxford craved successfully the indulgence of the Lord High Treasurer for time to pay his first fruits, as, besides other things, he had to repair the “hurt done by the late great storm.” (See Vol. LXXXIX., No 22.) Another bishop, viz., Dr. Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, as is well known, lost his life by the fall of a stack of chimneys blown down by the same storm. His successor also wanted consideration for his first fruits, and mentions that one part of the dilapidations produced by the storm was the cause of his predecessor's death; and another part of them was hurled down so shortly after, that it could not be distinguished whether it was before or after his death. This seems to have made it a difficult matter as to who was answerable to make good the dilapidations. He obtained a respite. (See Vol. LXXXIX., No. 85.)
Another sufferer by this storm was the widow of the ill-fated Henry Winstanley, who built the Edystone, or Eddystone lighthouse, and was swept away in it, having expended about 5,000l. in the erection. She supplicated the royal bounty, and obtained 200l. at the end of the year 1707, and 100l. per annum from Lady-day 1708. (See Vol. XCIII., No. 30.)
The widow of the gallant Micaiah Browning, the captain of the ship which brought relief to the famishing inhabitants of Londonderry, when so sorely besieged in 1689, seeks payment of nine years' arrears of her pension of 60l. a year, settled on her by King William III. The response to this relict of as brave a man as Ireland ever produced, who volunteered to risk his life, and lost it, for the succour of his fellow citizens, will hardly be considered generous. Its terms are:—“To be paid so much as is due in ye Queen's time.” (See Vol. LXXXV., No. 74.)
One of the many attempts at law amendment was proposed by John Cresset, Esq. He asked to be allowed to employ himself wholly in inspecting, reviewing, and separating the most excellent common and statute laws from the rubbish they almost lay buried under, and to lay the same before learned judicious persons, that they might amend them. An undated paper. (See Vol. LXXXIII., No. 116.)
On the right to repair certain bridges, see the Attorney General's Report, Vol. XCV., No. 3.
Lighthouses in Ireland.
A full abstract of some interesting papers on certain lighthouses in Ireland is given under date 1st August 1704. There had been six lighthouses in Ireland, but they were then reduced to two, and those were insufficiently maintained. Coals, burnt in a grate, were used to produce the light. The fires from these were occasionally put out by the rain, or the smoke arising from them obscured the light, so that they were at times of little use. They had to be blown up by a smith's bellows. At one lighthouse it was proposed to place large lamps, 36 in number, as the light would be more steady and constant. The Earl of Abercorn had a grant which was dependant upon these lighthouses. It was quite inadequate, and if the lights were kept up, his lordship would have been a great loser. He surrendered the grant, and received 1,000l. a year for three years. (See Vol. XCI., No. 71; Vol. XCII., No. 58; and Vol. XCIII., No. 57.)
Records at the Tower of London.
Much information as to the state of the public records preserved at the Tower of London, and the calendars to the same, as well as to the steps taken to reduce the records to order, will be found hereafter set out. In the Cæsar's Chapel they were lying in confused heaps, and were in danger of perishing. (See Vol. LXXXIX., No. 147.) A committee was appointed to report on them, and on the place wherein they were kept. (See Vol. XC., No. 64.) They made their report on 6th September 1704, and recommended that such as were written on one side should be fixed into books with paste prepared with “colliquintida,” to secure it against worms. The records of each reign should be “glued” on indiscriminately as they were cleaned, and when a book was finished and bound it should be indexed. Abstracts of the records, and not mere names of persons and places, were to be given. (See Vol. XCI., No. 117.) The details of what the Lord High Treasurer ordered to be done to preserve these records, and make them accessible, are referred to in Vol. XCII., No. 32. Quarterly reports were afterwards made by the keeper, showing the progress of the sortation and calendaring, the first being rendered on 25th December 1704. (See XCII., No. 82.) In that of 25th March 1705 specimens of the paper proposed for the calendar are enclosed. (See Vol. XCIII., No. 115.)
The agents for taxes state that the taxes of the “cities of London, Middlesex, and Westminster” amounted to 430,000l. yearly, being more than a sixth of the taxes of the whole kingdom. (See August 5, 1703, Vol. LXXXVII., No. 15.)
St. James's Park.
In the methods proposed to improve St. James's Park, the doors and passages through the same were recommended to be only so many as Her Majesty thought fit. There are also other proposed regulations, amongst which no dogs or rude people were to be admitted, and a servant was to be kept, to wear the Queen's badge or coat, to look after the sentries, as there was no dependence on them. (See Vol. LXXXII., No. 80.)
A proposal to remove the library of Cotton House to a depository over the usher's room in the House of Lords, is made by Sir Christopher Wren in his report upon the room it then occupied in Cotton House, which he says could not be repaired without pulling down a good part of the dwelling house. The room proposed would be more capacious, and only two fifths of the expense, (See Vol. LXXXVII., No. 126.)
His scheme did not find favour, and this rare collection remained in Cotton House, and for better accommodation 27 presses were fitted up and ordered to be paid for. (See July 29, 1704, Vol. XCI., No. 66.)
The papers which detail the negotiations for the sale of Cotton House to preserve this collection are hereafter calendared. The House of Lords recommended the purchase to Her Majesty, that this treasure of books and MSS. so generously given for the public service should not remain any longer useless and in danger of perishing. In Sir John Cotton's estimate of the premises, he says the ground was capable of great improvement by its near situation to the two Houses of Parliament, where convenience might be made for the accommodation of members of Parliament by building a square which might contain 24 houses. The members might go directly out of “Parliament House” into their lodgings. (See 15 May 1706, Vol. XCVIII., No. 51.) Some particulars of the derivation of title to the premises are given under June 17, 1706. (See Vol. XCVIII., No. 102.) Several years elapsed from the time the collection was secured to the nation before proper provision was made for its preservation; but at last, after some bargaining between the Government, who wanted the house for 4,000l., and Sir John Cotton, who wanted 5,000l. for it, the property was finally bought for 4,500l. (See Vol. C., No. 45, and Minute Book, Vol. XIV., No. 136.)
New Palace Yard.
The clock tower and clock having been demolished, efforts were made to get a good large sundial set up, that the members of Parliament, the courts at Westminster Hall, the officers of the Exchequer, and others might thus have the “great convenience” of knowing the time, and the Lord High Treasurer was willing to pay the charge if it did not exceed 20l. (See Vol. XCVII., No. 36.)
The Old Gate House.
The keeper of the Gate House prison claimed 2s. 6d. a week each for the accommodation of certain French gentlemen who were prisoners of war. The accommodation was of the scantiest description, as some of them had to lie on the boards. The keeper was, however, ordered to find beds for them fit for their condition. (See Vol. XCII., No. 17.)
Some other particulars of the Old Gate House occur under date 16 Feb. 1705–6. It was then in contemplation to pull the building down. (See Vol. XCVII. No. 70.)
A scheme for cleansing and scouring Dover Harbour by building a wall across it, with sluices, through which the back water was allowed to rush at low water, is said to have answered well. There are also notices of works required for repair of the pier and harbour. (See June 1, 1706, Vol. XCVIII., No. 75.) Exceptions were taken against the scheme, and other papers are described relating thereto, in Vol. XCIX., No. 82, and Vol. CI., No. 37.
The Excise Office.
Information as to the old Excise Office may be gathered from papers described in Vol. LXXXVI., Nos. 17 and 57.
Trade and Manufactures.
The Linen Manfuacture in Ireland.
As the Treasury Papers contain so much information in regard to the setting up of the linen manufacture in Ireland, and the difficulties it had to contend with before it became established, some little account of its rise and progress, drawn from these papers and from some other sources, may not be out of place here.
Anderson in his “Origin of Commerce” (Vol. I., p. 451), quoting from Hakluyt (Vol. I., p. 187), says, that as early as the year 1430, linen was manufactured in Ireland. The manufacture had, however, come to little or nothing, for the Lords Justices observe on 1 Feb. 1706 (Treasury Papers, Vol. XCVII., No. 51), that seven years before, i.e. 1699, it was of no manner of consequence. What there was manufactured of it was in the north, and the people were entirely ignorant of the art of managing and working flax, spinning the yarn, and whitening the cloth, and they were absolutely strangers to the looms and other utensils necessary for the work. The finest they could make was worth but 12 or 15 pence a yard, but it had then (1706) risen to be worth 8s. and 9s. an English yard. An Act of Parliament for its encouragement, in 7 & 8 Will. III. (cap. 39), was obtained, and Anderson says, “This law was wisely framed for the encouragement particularly of French Protestant refugees to settle in Ireland, many of whom were well skilled in the once noble linen manufacture of France, since sunk almost to nothing; and late experience has shown that this law laid the foundation of Ireland's present (fn. 4) most flourishing and almost immense manufacture of linens and cambricks.” (See Ib., Vol. II, p. 626.) And again, at p. 642, he says, A.D. 1698, “In the same year the English House of Peers addressed King William in order to his discouraging the woollen manufactures of Ireland, the increase of which had given umbrage to the people of England, and that His Majesty would, on the contrary, encourage the linen manufacture of the said kingdom of Ireland, pursuant to an Act of Parliament in the year 1696, already mentioned, which manufacture has since been brought to great perfection in that kingdom. The English House of Commons likewise addressed the King to induce the people of Ireland to cultivate the joint interests of both kingdoms, and that as Ireland is dependent on and protected by England in the enjoyment of all they have, they would be content to apply themselves to the linen manufacture; whereby they would enrich themselves and be beneficial to England at the same time, both which points have since been successfully effected.”
An Order in Council dated 1 Feb. 1699, for setting up the manufacture, is described in the Calendar of Treasury Papers, Vol. LXVII., No. 24, and there is a warrant to the Lords Justices of Ireland, dated 14 Feb. 1699/1700 in the Irish Book (Treasury), Vol. V., p. 56, granted on the advice of the Commissioners of Trade, directing letters patent to be passed in Ireland to appoint trustees for the establishment of a linen manufacture in Ireland, to take charge of an allowance of 800l. per annum for 10 years to pay the interest of 10,000l. at 8 per cent., or any part thereof, which should be advanced by Lewis Crommelin or Crummelin, merchant, (fn. 5) or by his procurement. He was to make a bleaching yard and a folding or pressing house, to sow, cultivate, and prepare hemp and flax, and to provide all necessary tools and utensils, looms and spinning wheels for the persons employed. This advance was to be repaid by them in such small payments as they were able to make. He was also to advance the necessary sums for subsistence of such workmen and their families as should come from abroad, as well as for the persons in Ireland who should be employed. The trustees were to see that 200l. per annum were allowed to Mr. Crommelin during pleasure, and 120l. per annum to three assistants, and a pension of 60l. per annum to a French minister.
In furtherance of the above warrant, King William III., by his letters patent dated 17th August 1700, constituted the chief governor or governors of Ireland and several other persons trustees for erecting a linen manufacture in that country, allowing for the same 1,180l. a year for 10 years. No part of the sum of 10,000l., previously named, had been advanced by Mr. Crommelin, but several plain looms had been erected of the value of 30l. each, as well as other looms called “Estilles,” (fn. 6) for making fine linen in imitation of that of France and Holland, of the value of 50l. each. The patent had determined by the death of the King; and Queen Anne, by warrant dated 4th December 1702, authorised the trustees to accept these looms as stock, and 8 per cent, to be allowed to such owners as had advanced the money. She also authorised letters patent to be passed under the great seal of Ireland, appointing other trustees for a similar purpose for 10 years. (See Irish Book (Treasury), Vol. V., p. 266.) By a further warrant of 12th June 1704, the Queen appointed some of the same and other trustees to manage the payment of the 1,180l. a year for 10 years. (See Ib., p. 319.)
An interesting document on the subject of this manufacture (previously slightly noticed) will be found under date 1st February 1705–6 (Vol. XCVII., No. 51). The manufacture had then made a wonderful advance, under the care of Mr. Lewis Crommelin, and the Lords Justices were very anxious that the art and mystery should be extended from the north to the south of Ireland, for the people to whom it had been already communicated were generally Scotch, and of that extraction, who would most certainly engross that manufacture to themselves, and “never suffer it to come out of that country.” The Lords Justices therefore press it upon the Duke of Ormonde to take measures to induce Mr. Crommelin to remove himself and family to some part of the centre of the kingdom, in order to settle a colony there and establish this manufacture, that it might soon diffuse itself into the other three parts of the kingdom, “which is now generally inhabited by English, and those of that extraction.” Kilkenny was the place recommended by Mr. Crommelin for the goodness of the air, water, and soil. He demanded 2,500l. (fn. 7) to remove himself, family, and looms, to build a bleaching yard there, and an addition to his patent of four years. The revenue would not allow this, and he made a further proposal for 12 years addition to his patent, giving up the ready money.
The Commissioners of Trade concurred in the desirability of the removal suggested, and saw no objection to the additional term to the patent. (See 17th June 1706, Vol. XCVIII., No. 101.)
The Lord High Treasurer, by a minute on the dorse, says “that when Her Majty shall think fit to inlarge this term, my lord thinks it should be under ye restriction to make only coarse linens.”
The considerable merchants in the city of London, and the importers of foreign linens, looked upon this scheme of the further extension of the linen manufacture in Ireland with anything but favour. The Commissioners of Customs in England having called upon them for their opinion, they, as might be supposed, expressed it pretty strongly. They said that it would entirely hinder the importation of all broad Germany linen, “damas,” diaper, &c., from Hamburgh, as also of all low-priced linen from Flanders and Holland, the duties on them being so great. If it were further encouraged they would lose the export of woollen manufactures; for if we did not take their linen, they on the continent would fall to making woollen manufactures. They (the merchants) proposed a duty on certain of the linens imported from Ireland.
These views the Commissioners of Customs approved, and strongly advised against the scheme. (See Vol. XCIX., No. 85.)
The Lords Justices, urged by the trustees for the linen manufacture to recommend this matter to the Duke of Ormonde, that he might use his interposition with Her Majesty for its effectual encouragement, write on the 21st of January 1707 to the Duke, concurring entirely with the trustees, that the promotion thereof, under the present decay of trade, would be the only means of recovering the poor sinking country from its miserable poverty. (See Vol. CI., No. 18.)
Notwithstanding the objections raised against this extension of the manufacture, the Duke of Ormonde (who had steadily advocated the matter all through) was successful to the extent of getting a promising minute put on his application of 25th March 1707 (Vol. CI., No. 72) to the Lord High Treasurer. The Duke says the people on that side (Ireland) were very intent upon it, (fn. 8) and that the Commissioners of Customs had only consulted the merchants concerned in the Hamburgh trade, who were against all manner of encouragement of the linen manufacture in Ireland; but he hoped that would have no effect in opposing a national interest and concern, wherein both Houses of Parliament on this side (i.e., England) had so heartily concurred. The minute above referred to was:—“Read 26 March 1707. A wt to be prepared, but to express therein that 'tis consented to, in consideration of the loss that k[ingdom] susteyns by the prohibic[i]n of the exportac[i]n of ye woollen manufactures from thence, & ye encouragemt that was intended by ye English parlt at that time to be given to the linen manufacture in Ireland.”
It seems that at this stage some of the trustees had a mind to oppose the removing of the manufacture to Kilkenny. (See 13 May 1707, Vol. CII., No. 18.) They wanted it to be set up at Cootehill. (See 23 May 1707, Vol. CII., No. 29.) However, to give effect to the above minute, a draft of the letters patent was sent over from Ireland for the Lord High Treasurer's approval, in June 1707, in which it was proposed that seven years should be added to Mr. Crommelin's patent, and for his charges in removing into the south, he promising to set up 40 looms the first year, and to increase them to 60 in two years more, and to keep them constantly employed in making such sort of foreign cloths as he should think fit. (See Vol. CII., 55.) Many exceptions were taken to this draft of patent, and although they had been fully answered from Ireland on 23 May 1707 (see Vol. CII., No. 29), yet even then the grant of the extension of Mr. Crommelin's patent was not obtained, for the Earl of Pembroke, the successor of the Duke of Ormonde, writes to the Lord High Treasurer on 6 August 1707 (Vol. CII., 83) that no further progress had been made, though it would be for the general good of the kingdom. There was a further reason to induce Her Majesty to grant what was desired, viz., that the whole town of Lisburn, where the French colony was settled for carrying on that manufacture, was lately destroyed by an accidental fire, and they had not provided themselves with habitations, in expectation of Her Majesty's pleasure for their removal to Kilkenny.
This paper is minuted: — “Read 10 Aug. 1707. Orderd.”
Subsequently another board of trustees for the linen and hempen manufactures was established in the ninth year of Queen Anne, by an Act of the Irish Parliament. It consisted of 72 members, appointed for life. (See Liber Hiberniæ, Vol. II., Part VII., p. 226.)
The facts here brought together will make it apparent that the sister country had been hardly dealt with, for she had been induced to give up the manufacture of wool with the understanding that the linen manufacture should be encouraged, and then experienced all these obstacles to its establishment. (See Vol. CI., No. 18.) But the justice of the case was too strong to be resisted, and the success of the manufacture in Ireland was more remarkable than the difficulties with which it had to contend. To prove this it need only be said that in 1689 Ireland did not export linen to the value of 6,000l. per annum, but in 1741 its exports had increased to 600,000l. (See Anderson's Origin of Commerce, Vol. III., p. 230.)
A notice of another manufacture, which was as much upon the decline as the last was upon the rise, is contained in a report of the Surveyor General of 11 January 1702–3. This manufacture was carried on at the Tapestry House at Mortlake, which was very old and ruinous, where there were 16 looms comprised in two work-houses. There were also certain garrets, an old chapel, &c. Some additional topographical and other particulars are given. It is added that the commodity did not vend as formerly, and so there had been but little work of late years. (See Vol. LXXXIV., No. 22.)
A tender for the supply of stationery for the use of the Commissioners of Customs, at 20 per cent. lower than it was supplied, was accepted, but one Mr. Sharpe was to continue to supply it jointly with the contractor. The prices proposed by the latter were not to be exceeded, and the articles were to be as good as those supplied by Mr. Sharpe. (See Vol. C., No. 13.)
The Commissioners of Customs discourage the transfer of offices on payment of part of the salaries from the incoming to the outgoing occupants of offices, as the purchasers would be apt to make up their salaries by defrauding the Crown, or by exacting from the subject, and “my Lord” agreed with the Commissioners. (See Vol. LXXXIV., No. 21.)
The sureties for a Customs' officer consisted, amongst others, of a poor fellow who was a prisoner in the Queen's Bench, a poor barber in Finch Lane whose goods were seized, and a journeyman cooper, a poor man who had absconded. (See Vol. LXXXV., No. 26.)
Twenty pounds were paid out of secret service money as compensation for the bite of a great dog which went mad, belonging to the receipt of the Exchequer. (See Vol. LXXXVI., No. 113.)
The Master of the Rolls, in order that he might take the air, was allowed the privilege of having a gap left in the wall which was being built opposite his house in Knightsbridge, for enclosing Hyde Park. (See Vol. XCII., No. 115.)
A royal present of hawks to the Queen from the King of Denmark did not appear to have been very acceptable, for the hawks were bestowed by Her Majesty on the keeper, together with 60l. for his trouble in looking after them. Whether he was gratified does not appear. It would seem that hawks were no greater favourites with Her Majesty than the ducks in St. James's Park were with her royal brother-in-law. (See Vol. LXXXVII., No. 105; XCIV., No. 86.)
Medals of the value of 55l. were distributed to the master of a vessel, three mariners, and a boy, for their extra-ordinary courage in having set upon 13 Frenchmen in whose charge the vessel then was, and recapturing it. (See Vol. LXXXVII., No. 133.)
Certain Greek youths were decoyed away from Oxford, and a narrative of what happened to them is given. (See Vol. LXXXVII., No. 142.) Dr. Woodroffe, who superintended their instruction and maintenance at Oxford, had considerable difficulty in obtaining the means necessary to meet the expense. (See Vol. XCVI., No. 104.)
There is mention of an engine of the diving-bell species, whereby work could be done for several hours under water. James Trefusis was endeavouring to get permission to have for seven years the treasure he should recover by it out of the sea. (See Vol. LXXXIX., No. 111.)
Interesting particulars are afforded as to the hospital of St. Thomas's, Southwark, and the care of sick and wounded seamen, during the reign of King William the Third and the beginning of that of Anne; the allowance for diet, care, surgeons, &c. The governors, in their petition, remark that it seemed reasonable that those who were wounded in the public service should be repaired at the public charge. Two of the medical officers had obtained a large payment for the same in a clandestine manner. (See Vol. XC., No. 55.) There is also the report of the Commissioners for sick and wounded seamen in answer thereto. (See Vol. XCV., No. 28.) In their view sending the sick to St. Thomas's and St. Bartholomew's hospitals, was only to ease the Government of the charge, and they never heard of the payment of such allowances.
Philip Raleigh, Esq., a grandson of Sir Walter Raleigh, who had been brought up to accounts, is an applicant for employment, and the Lord High Treasurer was willing to recommend him for anything for which he was qualified. (See Vol. XC., No. 58.)
The widow of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Bart., of Islet Hall, Cumberland, whose husband had left to the Queen 600l. as conscience money to satisfy taxes he ought to have paid to the Crown, made it a point of conscience to oppose the payment of that legacy, and the plea of six small children induced Her Majesty to give up her claim. (See Vol. XCIII., No. 109, and XCIV., No. 57.)
One who says that he had lived almost “25 years under the shadow of the sunbeams of” the Lord High Treasurer's favour, adds that if his lordship would not do him good he must prepare for sudden death, which he prophesies must be in a few days, except a miracle should happen. His petition is probably a good index to himself, as he appears by the Commissioners of Customs' account of him to have muddled his intellect by drunkenness and debauchery, so that he must have required his lordship's sunshine on his merits and his shadow over his faults. (See Vol. XCIV., No. 53.)
Another says that his lordship was now in such a station that his countenance might be like rain upon the mown grass to him and his family. (See Vol. LXXIX., No. 102.)
The family of Killigrew made several successful applications to the Lord High Treasurer. Mr. Henry Killigrew claims to be a near kinsman to his lordship. Mr. William, however, was the most importunate. He describes himself as a poor relation, and reminds his lordship that “qui cito dat, bis dat.” (See Index.)
Dr. Charles Morley claims to have been a medical reformer in the navy, having so controlled the surgeons' chests, and brought them to be furnished with good medicines by the Apothecaries' Company, that they were no longer stuffed with unwholesome and improper medicines, resulting in the loss of many seamen's lives. (See Vol. XCVIII., No. 100.)
Her Majesty acted as her own surveyor, or rather inspector of nuisances, when a complaint was made by Lady Diana Howard about a house and kennel which had originally been built for King Charles the Second's spaniels, near her ladyship's dwelling in Duke Street, Westminster. (See Vol. XCIX., No. 76.)
A ready means was then found for raising money for the poor, or for charitable objects, by cutting down the trees in the royal forests, and Lord Ranelagh sends up a pathetic appeal to the Lord High Treasurer to have the fine old trees in Cranbourne Chace spared. He implores his lordship's pity for his afflicted neighbours in their anticipated loss, “and for his devoted servant old Ranelagh.” Even the heart of the surveyor is touched with pity at his lordship's appeal; but from his reply, as the woodman's axe was not to come within a mile of Cranbourne, the old trees probably survived their old friend. (See Vol. CI., No. 69.)
The Index has been prepared by Mr. R. A. Roberts, a gentleman on this establishment, to whom the Editor is indebted for various suggestions during the passing of the volume through the press, and which he is glad to have the opportunity of acknowledging.
2 November 1874.