Introduction

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

William A. Shaw (editor)

Year published

1952

Pages

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Introduction', Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 22: 1708 (1952), pp. V-LVII. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=90530 Date accessed: 31 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Introduction

The first session of the second Parliament of Queen Anne had ended on the 19th March 1705–6. After five several prorogations the Houses reassembled on the 3rd Dec. 1706, the new Session having been postponed for over a month until the fate of the Treaty of Union with Scotland was settled. In her speech from the throne the Queen expressed the hope of seeing such a Balance of Power established in Europe as would make it impossible for one Power to disturb the peace and threaten the liberties “of this part of the world” (Commons Journals XV, p. 199). In reply the Commons assured her that seeing the Allies have showed their good disposition to advance the common cause they would exert themselves to the utmost in giving her speedy and effectual supplies to enable her to prosecute the war with vigour (Ibid., p. 201, Dec. 3).
By this time such a form of reply had become almost stereotyped: but as the Session was a month later than usual in starting the House made show of acting promptly. It went into Committee of Supply on the 5th Dec. and at once came to a Resolution that a Supply be granted.
Thereupon, and on the same day, the House called for the usual estimates and accounts for the year 1707. “Estimates of the charge for next year's war which 'tis said will amount to about 6 millions” (Luttrell VI, p. 114). The accounts and estimates called for were the Ordinary of the Navy, the Land Forces, the Ordnance, the Navy Debt, the Subsidies to the Allies, the Ordnance Debt and last year's expense; the number of men in the naval service and of ships employed; of prizes and of the Transport debt and expenses.
It is generally asserted or supposed that this 1706–7 Session of Queen Anne's second parliament proved as harmonious and expeditious in its financial proceedings as the Session of 1705–6 had been.
At the outset there certainly was an appearance of dispatch in the matter of voting Supply for the War. As stated above the House had assembled on the 3rd December: on the 5th it had gone into Grand Committee of Supply and on the 6th it had called for the War Estimates.
But thereafter, the Estimates were produced in a disjointed fashion, and although the first votes of Supply were agreed on the 9th December it was not until nearly the end of January that the War Supply votes were completed.
Why was this? Why was there any apparent want of zeal for the War or any apparent want of alacrity in voting Supply? For it was only a few days or weeks before—to wit on the very day of the opening of the Session—that the Whigs had obtained their own terms in forcing Sunderland upon the Queen.
The answer can only be that the Whig triumph of December 1706 drove Harley into intensified secret intrigue even whilst he still remained Secretary of State. Although the House in Grand Committee had called for War Estimates and accounts early in December it was nearly a month before St. John, as Secretary at War, brought in the Estimate relating to the War in Flanders, and it was two months before the remainder of the War Estimates (those relating to Spain and Savoy and the extraordinaries of the war) were laid on the table of the House. The understanding between Harley and St. John was complete. What the one contrived, the other performed.
While the Secretary at War was delaying the Estimates, Harley himself as a private member, although at the same time Secretary of State, was acting as a Reporter to the House on the question of the trade with Flanders, a question capable of inflaming the Commons at any moment and still more capable of inflaming the mutual animosities of Dutch and British.
The coincidence between the delayed action of St. John and the subterranean approaches of Harley is indeed remarkable. The Estimates which the Secretary at War had kept back for two months related to the King of Spain's Troops and Earl Rivers' Expedition; and simultaneously with their presentation Harley laid before the House the text of the Treaties with the King of Prussia and the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel and the diplomatic correspondence relating to the succour for Savoy, subjects as to which acute division of opinion prevailed.
It is therefore not surprising that at the next recorded division in the House, that on the Rye election, the Government majority fell to 5 (178–173) as compared with a normal 40 at the opening of this Parliament.
In view of the fact that the presentation of the Estimates for 1706–7 was so drawn out and disconnected it will be more helpful to bring them together under one summary regardless of the date or sequence of the presentation and to deal similarly with the votes of Supply and the discussions of Ways and Means.
Some of the Estimates and accounts which had been called for by the House on the 5th December were presented on the 7th December and the three following days (Dec. 7–10, Commons Journals XV, pp. 205–10).
Beginning with the Land Forces they were as follows:
The Estimate of the Guards, Garrisons and Land Forces in England, Jersey and Guernsey and the Plantations and for Sea Service, with the charge thereof for the year 1707: presented by Mr. St. John, Secretary at War.
£ s. d.
Horse.
First, Second and Third Troop of Guards (181 men each), Troop of Grenadier Guards (177 men) and Royal Regiment of Horse Guards 427 men: in all 1,147 men 85,607 14 2
Dragoons.
Queen's Regiment under Brigadier Carpenter (407 men); Earl of Essex's Regiment (407 men): in all 814 men 29,479 16 8
Foot.
First Regiment of Guards (2,283 men); Coldstream Regiment of Guards (1,143 men); Earl of Orrery's Regiment (834 men); Col. Townshend's Regiment (834 men): in all 5,094 men.
Regiments for Sea Service (Lieut.-Gen. Erle's 834 men; Brigadier Handaside's at Jamaica 966 men; Col. Livesay's 702 men; Col. Lillingston's for the Leeward Islands 834 men; Brig. Mordaunt's in Jersey, Guernsey, etc., 834 men; Lord Paston's 834 men): total 5,004 men: total of Foot 10,098 191,345 3 4
Four Companies at New York (449 men); one Company at Bermudas (58 men); one Company at Newfoundland (93 men): in all 600 men 9,885 17 6
total of Guards, etc., 12,659 men 316,318 11 8
General officers 10,669 10 0
Contingencies 7,501 16 8
Garrisons, &c. 17,510 1 8
Invalids 5,000 0 0
total Estimate for Guards and Garrisons £357,000 0 0
The above Estimate for the Guards and Garrisons was followed by that for the Forces in Flanders, i.e. for the original Force of 40,000 men and for the successive Troops of Augmentation.
Estimate for the 40,000 men to act in Conjunction with the Forces of the Allies in the Low Countries: with the charge thereof for the year 1707.
[The English portion.]
£ s. d.
Horse.
Lieut. Gen. Lumly's Regiment (598 men); Maj. Gen. Wood's (400 men); Brig. Cadogan's (400 men); Lieut. Gen. Wyndham's (400 men); Duke of Schonberg (400 men): total Horse 2,198 men 122,153 6 8
Dragoons.
Royal Regiment of Scots Dragoons (541 men); Major Gen. Ross's (541 men): total 1,082 men 38,677 16 8
Foot.
Royal Regiment of Foot (1,876 men); General Churchill's (938 men); Maj. Gen. Webb's (938 men); Lord North and Grey's (938 men); Brig. Howe's (938 men); Col. Godfrye's (938 men); Lieut. Gen. Ingoldsby's (938 men); Scots Fusiliers (938 men); Col. Sabine's (938 men); Col. Tatton's (938 men); Lord Dalrymple's (938 men); Sir Richard Temple's (938 men); Brig. Meredyth's (938 men); Col. Elliott's gone to Spain (938 men); Col. Evans's (867 men): total English Foot 14,937 men 258,514 5 10
General Officers 23,785 0 10
Contingencies 10,000 0 0
Forage and Waggon money 16,259 15 0
total for the English portion of the 40,000 men: in all 18,217 men 469,390 5 0
Foreign Contingent: Danes 6,000 men 116,282 15 0
Prussians 2,532 men 43,018 18 6
Hessians 3,080 men 53,685 0 0
Hanover and Celle 10,000 men 171,329 10 0
total of Foreign Contingent 21,612 men
total for the combined English and foreign Contingents 39,829 men 853,706 8 6
Bread Waggons for the Combined English and foreign parts of the 40,000 men 20,000 0 0
Forage, Waggon money and recruits for the foreign part of the 40,000 men, pursuant to the Treaties 20,000 0 0
total Estimate £893,706 8 6
The Estimate shows a slight increase over the preceding year's figures for the 40,000 men. In the article of General Officers the addition of 3 Major Generals and one Brigadier cost 2,737l. 10s. 0d. and the addition to the pay of the Aides de Camp and Majors of Brigade cost 4,745l.; making a total increase of 7,482l. 10s. 0d.
Estimate of the Troops of Augmentation in the Low Countries and the charge thereof for the year 1707 (Commons Journals XV, p. 207).
guilders stivers
English Foot.
Lord Mordaunt's Regiment: gone to Spain: to be replaced [by another Regiment of 876 men]; Brigadier Farringdon's Regiment: gone to Spain: to be similarly replaced, 876 men; Duke of Argyle's 876 men; Brigadier Macartney's: gone to Spain: to be similarly replaced, 876 men: total 3,504 men 607,037 10
Holstein Gottorp.
2 Regiments of Dragoons (1,116 men); 2 Regiments of Foot (1,766 men): total 2,882 men (The Treaty figure was 2884 men) 578,981 3
Saxe Gotha.
2 Regiments of Dragoons (892 men); 2 Regiments of Foot (1,708 men): total 2,600 men (The Treaty figure was 2,612 men) 488,260 10
Munster, Prince Bishop of.
3 Regiments of Foot: in all 2,442 men (The Treaty figure was 2,451 men) 352,754 5
Hesse Cassel, Landgrave.
1. Regiment of Foot (885 men) (The Treaty figure was 870 men) 122,621 15
Osnabrug, Bishop of.
1 Regiment of Foot (807 men) (The Treaty figure was 810 men) 110,626 18
Oost Frize.
1 Regiment of Foot (797 men) (The Treaty figure was 800 men) 113,405 10
Liège.
1 Regiment of Dragoons (581 men); 2 Regiments of Foot (1,596 men); 1 Regiment of Foot more (797 men): total 2,974 men 497,513 5
Palatine, Electoral Prince.
4 Regiments of Foot: in all 2,600 men 322,321 5
Danes.
Surplus of the Danish part of the 40,000 men, transferred to the Establishment of the 20,000 men (520 men) 174,752 17
total 20,011 men 3,428,275 0
Queen Anne's moiety of the above 10,005 men 1,714,137 10
£ s. d.
which at 10 guilders 10 stivers to the £ sterling make 163,251 3 6
Bread Waggons for the Queen's 10,000 moiety 5,000 0 0
Forage, Waggon money and recruits for the foreigners [forming part of the 20,000 Augmentation]; pursuant to the [respective] Treaties 9,260 0 0
177,511 3 6
Palatines.
additional Forces consisting of 3,000 men, the charge whereof amounts to 539,465 guilders per an.: her Majesty's share thereof is two thirds or 2,000 men 34,251 13 4
total for 12,005 men £211,762 16 10
The last item (the 3,000 Palatines) in this Estimate calls for special explanation. It was an entirely new body and formed no part whatever of the 20,000 troops of Augmentation. The origin of this 20,000 Augmentation early in 1703 and the various Conventions and Treaties connected with it have already been detailed (Introduction to Vol. XX of this Calandar, pp. xvii seq.). It was as stereotyped and unchanging in its form as was the Estimate for the 40,000 men. But three years later the condition of affairs in Savoy raised the question of a further augmentation. The Forces sent in May 1706 to the assistance of Victor Amadeus included 8,000 Prussians and 4,000 Palatines as well as 6,000 Hessians. John William, the Elector Palatine, seized the opportunity to sell to the Allies a further supply of his Troops and simultaneously with the dispatch of 4,000 of his men to Italy (to be followed by a further 3,000) it was agreed that the total of his Troops in the pay of the States General and Great Britain should be raised from 7,000 to 10,000 men. In this way, after the march of 7,000 Palatines to Italy there would still be left 3,000 available for the Netherlands. Marlborough himself had formed rather a low opinion of the Palatines, but nevertheless he carried through the treaty and it was signed on the 26 May 1706 as an agreement between Great Britain and the States General of the one part and the Elector Palatine of the other part. The schedule of pay (or what the English army authorities styled the Regulation) for the 3,000 new Palatines thus established is appended in full to the Treaty (Dumont VIII, p. 195; Lamberty IV, p. 60; Marlborough's Dispatches II, pp. 376, 515; Commons Journals XVI, p. 447) and in order that there should be no misunderstanding about the date of commencement of the pay the astute and greedy Elector insisted on the following clause in the Treaty.
Le paiement commencera du jour que les quatre mille hommes, qui iront les premiers en Italie, se seront mis en marche pour y aller. Et pour éviter toute dispute la dessus on comptera deux longs mois avant le jour que les premiers quatre mille hommes seront arrivéz en Italie et y auront joint l'armée Imperiale, à condition que les trois mille hommes susdits soient complets dès à présent.
This extraordinary clause says that the pay of the 3,000 new Palatines shall commence from the day the 4,000 old Palatines start their march to Italy: and then it goes on to say that the date of the start of the march shall be taken or construed or fixed by reckoning back two long months from or before the date of their arrival in Italy.
A long month was 6 weeks or 42 days so that two long months meant 84 days or nearly three months.
If the 4,000 men reached Italy by the 9th June 1706 then the date of the commencement of their march would be fixed as the preceding 17th March 1705–6 and that date was to be taken as the commencement of the pay establishment for the new Force of 3,000 Palatines. As a matter of fact this date, the 17th March 1705–6, was accepted as the date of the commencement of the pay (see Commons Journals XV, p. 228, as quoted infra, p. xvi, in the Extraordinaries for 1705–6. In the 1710 Estimate the date is given as 15th March 1705–6; Commons Journals XVI, p. 447, “additional Establishment of 2 Regiments of Foot and 3 Squadrons of Horse, of the Elector Palatines Troops commencing the 15th March 1705–6”).
How unnecessary all this elaborate calculation was can be seen from Marlborough's Dispatches II, p. 515. On the 18th May 1706 Marlborough gave commission to Col. Hompesch to repair to Dusseldorf and there to take over the 3,000 men “d'augmentation que l'Angleterre et l'Etats ont pris de M. l'Electeur Palatin” and to conduct them to Maestricht and there to muster them.
The obvious explanation of all this laboured camouflaging of dates is that it was intended to provide and to conceal recruit money and march money for the new 3,000 men. This explanation is rather strengthened than weakened by the fact that in the treaty the Elector Palatine expressly disclaimed any title to such recruit money “sans pretendre aucun argent de levée pour les troupes d'augmentation.”
With regard to this new body of 3,000 men it only remains to add that Queen Anne undertook to pay two thirds of them i.e. 2,000 men as against the one third which the State General agreed to pay. As the project of the reinforcement of Savoy had originated with the Emperor, to whom the Elector Palatine was entirely subservient, the obvious and fair arrangement would have been for the Emperor to contribute his share of a third by taking 1,000 of the 3,000 Palatine on to his own army Establishment. But here again, as in the case of the Forces in Portugal, the British Government had shouldered the liability of the Emperor rather than miss an opportunity of a possible military success in Italy.
For the rest of the month of December the subject of army Estimates was not debated in the House and it was not until the 8th of January 1706–7 that the remaining Army Estimates were brought in. These were respectively for the Army in Spain, for Earl Rivers' Expedition; for Treaty Subsidies and for unvoted Extraordinaries. The first of these, viz. the Estimates for the Forces in Spain and Portugal were presented to the Commons by Henry St. John, as Secretary at War.
It was as follows (Commons Journals XV, pp. 221–2, 8 Jan. 1706–7):
Establishment of the Forces in Spain, for the year 1707.
Per an.
General and Staff Officers. £ s. d. £ s. d.
The General and 3 Aides de Camp 4,197 10 0
2 Lieut. Generals and 4 Aides de Camp 3,650 0 0
2 Major Generals and 2 Aides de Camp 1,825 0 0
4 Brigadiers and 4 Majors of Brigade 2,920 0 0
Quarter Master General 182 10 0
Adjutant General 182 10 0
Judge Advocate 182 10 0
Commissary of Provisions and Hospitals 547 10 0
Commissary of Stores of War 365 0 0
Commissary of the Masters 182 10 0
Secretary to the General 182 10 0
Chaplain to the General 121 13 4
Physician to the General 182 10 0
Surgeon to the General 182 10 0
one Physician to the Hospital 273 15 0
2 Master Surgeons 365 0 0
4 Mates 365 0 0
Provost Marshal and 4 men 310 5 0
Waggon master 54 15 0
£16,272 18 4
Contingencies 4,000 0 0
forage for the Forces and Waggon and baggage money for the Officers 6,000 0 0
26,272 18 4
for the charge of the Garrison at Gibraltar 1,770 5 0
for the pay of the General Officers for a body of 13,000 Portuguese pursuant to the Treaty: viz.
to Col. Richards, Lieut. General of Ordnance 547 10 0
Major Gen. O'Farrell as Major General 547 10 0
Col. Lundi, as Adjutant General 365 0 0
1,460 0 0
Regiments.
Horse. £ s. d. £ s. d.
Major General Harvey's Regiment (418 men) 23,107 10 10
Dragoons.
Royal Regiment (589 men) 20,652 18 4
Brig. Killigrew's (443 men) 15,725 8 4
Col. Pearse's (589 men) 20,652 18 4
another Regiment (689 men) 20,652 18 4
total Dragoons 2,210 men 77,684 3 4
Foot Regiments.
Earl of Portmore's (876 men); Col. Southwell's and Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (each 834 men); Lieut. Gen. Steuart's, Col. Hill's, Col. Barrimore's, Brig. Blood's, Brig. Brudenell's, Lord Mountjoy's (each 876 men); Col. Alnut's late Lord Charlemont's (834 men); Brig. Gorge's late Earl of Donegal's; Col. Wade's; Col. Hans Hamilton's (each 876 men); Lord Mohun's; Col. Elliott's; Col. John Caulfeild's; Col. Allen's late Brig. Gorge's; Col. Toby Caulfeild's; Lord Dungannon's; Col. Breton's, Sir Cha. Hotham's (each 834 men): total Foot 17,934 men (total Horse and Foot 20,562) 315,055 16 8
Total for the Established Forces in Spain (General Officers; Contingencies; Forage; Gibraltar; General Officers for Portugal; Horse, Dragoons and Foot) £445,360 14 2
Establishment for the Additional Forces in Spain [being for Earl Rivers' Expedition] (Commons Journals XV, p. 223, 8 Jan. 1706–7).
General and Staff Officers. £ s. d.
General and 3 Aides de Camp 4,197 10 0
Lieut. General and 2 Aides de Camp 1,825 0 0
Maj. General and 1 Aide de Camp 912 10 0
2 Brigadiers and 2 Majors of Brigade 1,460 0 0
Quarter Master General 182 10 0
Adjutant General 182 10 0
Deputy Paymaster 100 7 6
Judge Advocate 182 10 0
Commissary of Stores of War 365 0 0
Commissary of the Musters 182 10 0
Secretary to the Commander in Chief 182 10 0
Chaplain to the Commander in Chief 121 13 4
Physician to the Commander in Chief 182 10 0
Surgeon to the Commander in Chief 182 10 0
2 Surgeons and 3 mates for the Hospital 638 15 0
Provost Marshal and 4 men 310 5 0
Waggon master 54 15 0
11,263 5 10
Contingencies 4,000 0 0
15,263 5 10
Regiments.
Dragoons.
the French Regiment (761 men) 27,222 18 4
Foot Regiments.
Col. Hill's (876 men); Lord Mordaunt's, Brig. Farrington's and Brig. Macartney's (2,628 men); Col. Watkins' (834 men); Sir Cha. Hotham's (834 men); Count Nassau's, Col. Sibourgs' and Col. Blosset's (2,175 men): total 8,072 Foot 143,810 0 0
total of Dragoons and Foot (8,833 men) 171,032 18 4
total for the Expeditionary Force £186,296 4 2
On the same day (Jan. 8) on which St. John presented the Estimates of the armies to Spain and Portugal he laid before the House an account of the Treaty Subsidies payable by Great Britain. This was as follows (Commons Journals XV, p. 224):
Estimate of Subsidies.
An account of her Majesty's proportion of Subsidies payable to the Allies for the year 1707, pursuant to the Treaties.
£ s. d.
to the King of Denmark; to be paid in Bank Money at Hamburg 150,000 Crowns a year 37,500 0 0
to the King of Portugal, for defraying her Majesty's proportion of the charge of 13,000 men: 666,6662/3 Patacoons 33 stivers at 4s. 6d. each (equal to 600,000 Crowns) 150,000 0 0
to the Duke of Savoy, at the rate of 53,333⅓ Crowns per month (or 640,000 Crowns per an.) 160,000 0 0
to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel 25,000 Crowns 5,952 7 6
to the Elector of Treves 25,000 Crowns 5,952 7 6
to the Elector Palatine 20,000 Crowns 4,761 18 6
to the King of Prussia, for defraying her Majesty Queen Anne's proportion of the charge of 8,000 men sent to the assistance of the Duke of Savoy 200,000 Crowns 50,000 0 0
more to the King of Prussia by virtue of the Treaties of 1701 and 1706 on account of the 12,000 men sent by him to serve in the Netherlands, viz.:
guilders stivers
Queen Anne's share of the Agio or difference between the money current in the Empire and the rate at which the same money is current in the territories where the Prussian King's Troops are employed 109,666 10
More for Queen Anne's share of the bread 153,097 16
More for Queen Anne's share of the forage 125,865 0
388,629 6
being 155,4512/3
Crowns or 37,012 7 6
Additional Subsidy to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, for augmenting his Troops and 12,000 men and marching them into Italy [Crowns] 33,333½
More to him for defraying the expense of bread, waggons and Carriages and of Hospitals for the Sick and Wounded 46,666½
[Crowns] 80,000 20,000 0 0
total £471,179 1 0
The matter of these Subsidies and of the Treaties on which they were based has already been explained at length in the Introduction to Vol. XX of this Calendar. But in the present year the posture of affairs in Savoy made it necessary to arrange a further Augmentation of Troops. The negotiations for the Palatine Contingent have been referred to above, pp. x–xi. The separate Treaty with the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel which was concluded at Cassel on the 26 May 1706, provided for the march of 9,000 Hessian Troops into Italy, the Force to comprise the Hessian Troops already furnished to the Allied Cause under the Conventions of 7 Feb. 1702 and 31 March 1703 but increased by a battalion of Foot and 4 squadrons of Horse. The text of this Treaty is printed in the Commons Journals (XV, pp. 233–5) and forms a lengthy and involved document. It saddled Queen Anne with two thirds of the total charges, leaving the States General liable only to one third, although as has been already pointed out, the dispatch of this Force to Italy was undertaken at the pressing instance of the Emperor who contributed nothing to the upkeep instead of paying his one third all round. A subsidy of 50,000 Crowns under Article 3 was “for the Augmentation” meaning doubtless levy money. For the Hospitals and Waggon money a complicated alternative arrangement was adopted, viz. a subsidy of 70,000 Crowns Holland money or else a sick pay allowance of 4 sous a day for each sick man to be paid by the Queen and the Dutch. Furthermore the Treaty contained clauses relating to the payment of arrears due to the Landgrave and his army officers.
The only other Treaty made in this year bearing on Subsidies to the Allies was that of 24 Nov. 1706 made at the Hague with the King of Prussia relating to the quartering of his Troops between the Meuse and the Rhone, for the winter of 1706–7. This treaty stipulated for payment of 9,845 florins 10 sols Dutch money for the agio; 12,758 florins 3 sols per month for bread rations and 41,955 florins Dutch money per month for forage. The text of the Treaty with the “Repartition” appended to it is printed in the Journals (Commons Journals XV, pp. 232–3).
Neither of these two Treaties affect the above Estimate of Subsidies for the year 1706–7 as they were not concluded at the time that Estimate was submitted to the House.
On the following day, Jan. 9, Henry St. John, still in his capacity as Secretary at War, laid before the House the Estimate for Extraordinaries of the War not provided for by Parliament in the previous session or which had incurred since that session. This account was as follows (Commons Journals XV, p. 228, 9 Jan. 1706–7):
Extraordinaries of the War.
An Account of some extraordinary Charges of the War not provided for in the last Session of Parliament or incurred since.
Extraordinaries for Italy. £ s. d. £ s. d.
to the Duke of Savoy, over and above his Subsidy in the year 1706; for especial services relating to the War in Italy 50,000 0 0
for her Majesty Queen Anne's share of a loan to the Emperor for the service of the War in Italy 47,500 0 0
to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for her Majesty Queen Anne's quota of the extraordinary charge on account of his Troops of Augmentation for the service of Italy upon a late Treaty from the 20 May 1706 to 23 Dec. 1706 11,780 18 0
total of Extraordinaries for Italy 109,280 18 0
Extraordinaries for Spain and Portugal.
for account of Levy money, pay and Contingencies of the Forces gone on the Expedition under the Command of Earl Rivers 63,661 13 6
for the pay of the General Officers for a body of 13,000 men of the Troops of the King of Portugal to 23 Dec. 1706 pursuant to the Treaty in that behalf 3,014 0 0
for services relating to the garrison of Gibraltar in the year 1706 3,520 16 8
total for Spain and Portugal 70,196 10 2
Extraordinaries for the Netherlands.
to the Elector Palatine for her Majesty Queen Anne's share of the pay of 3,000 men Troops of Augmentation pursuant to the Treaty with the said Elector from the 17th March 1705–6 to 23 December 1706 26,692 13 10¼
to the King of Prussia by virtue of the Treaties of 1701 and 1706 on account of the 12,000 men sent by him to serve in the Netherlands [to wit to the 23 Dec. 1706] viz.
for her Majesty Queen Anne's share of the agio, or difference between the money current in the Empire and the rates the same money is current at in the territories where his Troops are employed, 68,515 guilders 10 stivers.
for the Queen's share of the bread, 96,961 guilders 18½ stivers.
for the Queen's share of the forage 41,955 guilders, in all 207,432 guilders 8½ stivers or 19,755 9 6
to the States General, in full of all demands for her Majesty's quota of the charge and expenses of the succour of the Cevennois to the 1st September 1705 new style 1,380 5 11
total Extraordinaries for the Netherlands £227,305 7 3
“Besides the excess of the 250,000l. granted the last Session of Parliament, and accordingly issued, for services [to prosecute the successes] in Spain, which cannot yet be ascertained; the accounts of the distribution of the said 250,000l. not being [yet] come over.”
Extraordinary charges of the War in the years 1705 and 1706 for horses of the English Troops and Foreign Troops in English pay [viz. of horses] killed or lost on service or that have died of the common distemper: for which no provision has yet been made by Parliament (Commons Journals XV, p. 228, 9 Jan. 1706–7).
Anno 1705.
for levy money for recruiting the horses of the Foreign Troops in the Queen's pay that were killed and lost in passing the enemy's lines and which died of the common distemper in the year 1705 in Flanders, according to the allowances made by the States General to the [like] Troops in their service; of which no account could be regulated before the [House of Commons] Committee of Supply was closed the last Session 34,607 13
to augment the allowance of levy money for 382 horses at 3l. each, of the English Dragoons, lost in like manner the same campaign 1,146 0 0
for levy money, to recruit the horses of the English Horse and Dragoons which died of the common distemper after the said campaign, viz. between the 31 Oct. 1705 and the latter end of February 1705–6 5,073 0 0
and for Officers' horses which died by the same distemper within the said time 2,500 0 0
£ s. d.
Anno 1706.
for levy money for recruiting the horses of the English Horse and Dragoons which were killed or lost on service this last campaign or which died of the common distemper between the 1st May 1706 and the 31 Dec. 1706 in the Low Countries 11,298 0 0
for levy money to make good the like loss sustained by the Danish Troops in the pay of England and Holland between the 1st January 1705–6 and the end of October 1706, her Majesty's share amounting to 16,055 12 6
to make good the like loss sustained by the Troops of Hanover in her Majesty's pay in the 1706 Campaign 1,775 0 0
£72,455 5 11½
Eight days after the presentation of the above Estimate and Accounts, a still more contentious subject was raised by Harley and St. John in the following form:
Resolved: that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty that she will be pleased to give order that the papers relating to the 50,000l. for the Duke of Savoy and to the 47,500l. loan to the Emperor and also the particulars of the 63,661l. 13s. 6d. for the pay, levy money and contingencies for the Expedition under the Command of the Earl of Rivers may be laid before this House (Commons Journals XV, p. 240, 17 Jan. 1706–7).
On the 20th Mr. Secretary Harley reported the presentation of the above Address and thereupon St. John laid before the House
an account of the charges of maintaining 6,360 men of the King of Spain's Troops for 6 months and other necessary expenses attending the said Troops as also for the support of the said King and his retinue: as follows:
for 6 months.
£ s. d.
Horse.
for the pay of a body of 4 Regiments of 500 men each and necessaries and officers 48,322 4 0
Foot.
for the pay of a body of Foot of 4 Regiments of 1,000 men each with 4 Companies of Grenadiers of 90 men each and necessaries and officers 45,703 0 0
Waggon and Baggage money, necessary stores of Ordnance and incidents 15,974 16 0
to the King of Spain for the support of his Majesty, of his Court, Stable and baggage and of his Life-guard of 100 Horse 40,000 0 0
£150,000 0 0
Referred: to the Committee of Supply (Commons Journals XV, pp. 242–3).
Two days later St. John presented to the House an account of the Extraordinary charges on account of the Expedition under the Earl Rivers as follows (Jan. 22, Commons Journals XV, p. 248):
£ s. d.
for levy money issued towards raising the French Regiment of Dragoons and providing small accoutrements for them 969 5 0
ditto for raising Lord Mark Kerr's Regiment of Foot 1,611 0 0
ditto for raising Count Nassau's Regiment 1,611 0 0
ditto towards raising 5 other Regiments under the Command of Brigadier Vimarre, Col. Sibourg, Col. Blosset, Col. Fontjuliane and Col. Labarthe 3,600 0 0
(total levy money 7,791l. 5s. 0d.)
for the pay of the French Regiment of Dragoons from 1 June to 23 Dec. 1706 10,015 0 0
for the pay of Comte Nassau's Regiment from 25 April to 23 Dec. 1706 8,359 2 2
for the pay of Col. Sibourg's and Col. Blosset's Regiments from the several days of raising in April and May to 23 Dec. 1706 11,659 2 2
for the pay of Brig. Vimarr's and Col. Fontjalian's and Col. Labarthie's Regiment from the several days of raising in April and May to 29 Aug. following when they were broke 8,070 0 0
for the pay of Lord Mark Kerr's Regiment from the several days of raising in May and June to 23 Dec. 1706 8,371 14 4
for the pay of the Earl Rivers, and his Aides de Camp from 25 March 1706, and of the other General and Staff Officers attending the expedition under his Command, from 1 June to 23 Dec. 1706 8,053 16 4
for several Contingencies, viz. medicines for the Forces, Hospital, printers and printing presses and other incident charges relating to the Expedition 1,341 13 6
£63,661 13 6
Ordered: to lie upon the table, to be perused by the Members.
The Army Estimates and Accounts, brought together as above, were completed by the Estimates and Account for the Transports. The Transport Accounts were submitted to the House on the 10th Dec. 1706 by the Commissioners for Transports. The service was regarded as one which could not be estimated for in advance, so that for guidance the House had of necessity to fall back upon the accounts of the preceding year's expense and upon the state of the Transport Debt.
The accounts submitted accordingly were as follows (Commons Journals XV, p. 210):
(1) The account of the expenses for transporting her Majesty's Forces for one year ending [ended] 30 September 1706.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
for freight of shipping [i.e. ships] in monthly pay for service to Spain and Portugal, which arose and grew due within the said year 149,389 1 8
for freight of Forces transported to Holland at a rate per head, within the said year 6,934 9 7
156,323 11 3
£ s. d. £ s. d.
for provisions and stores furnished within the said year for [the] service to Spain and Portugal such as oats, hay, cask, bedding, cabins, &c.: and also for wheat bought and sent to Spain for her Majesty's army there 24,114 16 11
for provisions and stores furnished within the said year for [the] service to Holland such as bread, beer, cheese, oats, hay, cask, &c. 1,560 12 11
25,675 9 10
for interest on bills made out and registered for payment in course in part of the aforesaid service within the said year 2,891 11 6
for freight of soldiers transported from England to the Leeward Islands by the pacquet boats 995 10 10
for sundry incident expenses such as cooperage, lighterage, pressing hay, labourers' hire, house expenses, travelling charges, repairing returned bedding &c. within the said year 944 10 8
for salaries, stationery, ware and rent of this [the Transport] Office 2,800 0 0
total £189,630 14 1
(2) The account of the state on the 30th Sept. 1706 of the Debt for transporting her Majesty's Forces accruing since the beginning of the present war. (Ibid. p. 210. This account is dated “Transport Office, 10 December 1706.”)
£ s. d.
Due on the Book of Bills Registered for payment in Course: viz.
for freight of shipping 130,930 11 8
for provisions and stores such as cabbins, cradles, bedding, stabling, cask, oats, hay, &c. 12,762 4 7
143,692 16 3
and for interest thereon to 30 Sept. 1706 4,140 6 9
147,833 3 0
Remaining due to 75 ships hired in England, Holland and at Lisbon for [transport] service to Spain and Portugal, by the month, that were discharged before 30 Sept. 1706 whose accounts were not then adjusted 49,660 16 4
also Remaining due to several ships which have carried Forces to Holland before the 30th Sept. 1706 and whose accounts were not then adjusted 1,008 5 0
due to 135 ships hired in England, Ireland and at Lisbon for [transport] service to Spain and Portugal, by the month, that were continued and running in the service on the 30th September 1706 82,422 10 3
due for freight of soldiers transported from England to the Leeward Islands by the pacquet boats, freight of clothing, etc. 1,464 18 1
for one year's charge of this [the Transport] Office 2,800 0 0 137,356 9 8
total £285,189 12 8
Memorandum: on the 30th September 1706 there were in her Majesty's Transport service running in monthly pay 135 ships, the growing charge whereof is 17,111l. 2s. 0d. per month.
Memorandum: Since the 30th September 1706 there has been paid in part of this debt 23,526l. 5s. 0d.
In order to complete this view of the Estimate material which the Grand Committee of Supply required for its deliberations there remains only the Estimate for the Navy and that for the Ordnance Office.
As a matter of fact or long usage neither of these statements took the form of an Estimate proper.
For the Navy it was usual to separate the Navy Ordinary from the Navy at sea. The Naval Ordinary provided for the Admiralty Office and Staff, the Navy Office and Staff, the yards and the ships in port or laid up. With unfailing regularity the House voted 120,000l. for the Naval Ordinary, but on the few occasions on which a detailed account or estimate of this Ordinary is preserved for us in the Journals it very much exceeds the stereotyped vote. Why the House should have so consistently or obstinately refused to budge from its figure for the Navy Ordinary is a mystery. For the excess expenditure on the peace Establishment of the Navy was bound to be carried forward as an item of debt, to increase the Navy Debt about which the House was always so concerned. It can only be that the vote was regarded as a token vote intended to keep the service going: but the corollary to this, viz. that a later Vote should be or would be taken to complete the service was not put into practice under William or Anne. The whole carry forward of Navy Ordinary liability was thrown into the common pot of Navy Debt and all the acrimony of party debate was spent on that omnibus item whenever anxiety or fear as to its increase overtook the Commons.
Exactly the same remark applies to the item of the Navy at Sea. The House and the Admiralty alike had settled down to the routine of fixing a quota of 40,000 men for the Navy at a cost or estimate of 4l. per man per month and this item was usually voted straight away at the commencement of the Session. Thereafter, as occasion arose, the House would ask for a return of the names and ratings of the ships actually in commission, and for a separate return of the number of men actually employed. Invariably it was found, i.e. during the War, that the number and pay greatly exceeded the 40,000 fixed by the opening vote of the Session, but the Commons never returned to the subject with the idea of passing a Supplementary so as to bring voted Supply into true relationship with service requirements. It only returned to the subject when the growing carry forward of Navy Debt cast its shadow before and frightened the House.
The usual mechanism or procedure was to call for a statement of Navy Debt simultaneously with the adoption of the Vote of Credit for 40,000 men and the Admiralty always had the statement of debt ready prepared. It was laid before the House instanter. But once it was brought in, the House left the matter and turned to other subjects of debate until it was absolutely driven back to face the problem.
This was exactly the procedure in the present instance. The House called for a statement of Navy Debt on the 6th December the first effective business day of the Session. Three days later Dec. 9 the statement was handed in, being dated “Admiralty Office Dec. 7th.”
The statement was as follows:
Navy Debt.
An Estimate of the Debt of the Navy as it stood on the 30 Nov. 1706 (Commons Journals XV p. 204, Dec. 6 called for: delivered Jan. 9, pp. 225–6). £ s. d.
Bills on the Second Book (pursers' balances, &c.: a debt outstanding since before the last reign) 15,944 7 8
Wear and Tear ordinary and extraordinary: all incurred since the Queen's accession 899,831 17 7
Yards and Rope Yards ordinary and extraordinary: all incurred since the Queen's accession 201,855 0 0
Seamen's wages, flag pay and pilotage (whereof 64,266l. 14s. 5d. due before the Queen's accession) 1,423,658 3 0
Victualling (whereof 7,500l. due before the Queen's accession) 964,798 15 10
Sick and wounded (all incurred since the Queen's accession) 30,620 0 0
Subsistence of French prisoners of war (all incurred since the Queen's accession) 9,227 0 0
£3,545,935 4 1
Register Office for seamen.
Due to seamen registered according to the Act of Parliament (whereof 111,395l. incurred before the Queen's accession) £257,930 8 8
Towards the above combined debt total of 3,803,865l. 12s. 9d. the Treasurer of the Navy on the 30 Sept. 1706 had in his hands 67,962l. 19s. 9d. in cash (including 11,362l. cash in the hands of the Cashier for Sick and Wounded and Prisoners of War).
He had a further sum of 53,673l. in the form of tallies on Reversionary Annuities, and, further, there still remained to be issued out of the Voted Supply for the Session the Sum of 266,035l. 1s. 5d. Neither of these last sums could be treated as certain or accruable assets. The nett debt, therefore, was 3,735,902l. 13s. 0d. at 30 Sept. 1706.
Comparing this figure with that of the preceding year as it stood at 30 Sept. 1706, we find an increase within the twelve month of 380,660l. 14s. 1d. (Commons Journals XV pp. 19, 226):
£ s. d.
nett Navy Debt (including the Navy Register Office debt) at 30 Sept. 1706 3,735,902 13 0
ditto, 30 Sept. 1705 3,355,241 18 11
increase of the Navy Debt between Sept. 1705 and Sept. 1706 £380,660 14 1
The chief contributory item towards this increase was, of course, the excess numbers of men employed in sea service and victualled, over and above the 40,000 men voted by the House of Commons in their Supply vote.
The numbers actually employed were as follows (Commons Journals XV p. 227):
Men.
1705 Nov. 47,731
Dec. 48,831 1706
Jan. 53,951
Feb. 54,408
Mar. 53,875
April 52,050
May 51,369
June 52,104
July 51,199
Aug. 51,154
Sept. 51,249
Oct. 50,239
This represents an average of 51,475 men which at 4l. per man per month of 4 weeks each would amount to 2,676,700l. as against 2,080,000l. voted by the House. This would mean an increase or difference of 596,700l. less 44,777l. tallies in hand, or 551,923l. in all.
In order to reconcile this figure of 551,923l. with the above stated 380,660l. 14d. 1d. it is necessary to bear in mind that in the year in question the Navy Treasurer had paid out for Navy services 51,890l. 7s.d. more than he had himself received out of the Exchequer for the Navy. This sum when added to the declared 380,660l. 14s. 1d. made a total Debt increase of 432,551l. 1s.d. for the Navy in the year March 1705 to March 1706. This is probably the truer figure than the hypothetical 559,123l.
The remaining Estimate and Debt statement concerned the Ordnance. As a rule this Estimate was divided into two parts, firstly that concerning the sea service, and secondly that covering the Land Service of the Ordnance. The Sea Service Estimate for the Ordnance was incorporated in the Navy Vote. It was taken uniformly to be 4s. out of the 4l. per man per month of the Navy Vote which worked out at 104,000l. and to this was added 10,000l. for building a wharf at Portsmouth. No details were submitted to the House and when the Navy Vote had been passed it was regarded as automatically disposing of the Navy Ordnance or Ordnance Sea Service as it was styled. Whenever the House of Commons departed from this office custom of sinking the details of the Ordnance Sea Service figures in the general omnibus Navy Vote it may be taken that some special navy construction was in hand calling for a special provision. In such a case the Board of Ordnance would submit to the House an Estimate showing the details of such provision.
For instance, in the year 1705–6, as already noted, supra, Treasury Calendar, Vol. XXI, Introduction, p. xii, 8 new ships were put in hand to replace those lost in the great storm. The Ordnance for these were classed as follows (Commons Journals XV p. 20):
£ s. d.
1 ship of 70 guns 2,670 9 8
3 more of 70 guns 8,011 9 0
1 ship of 60 guns 2,388 16 8
3 more of 60 guns 7,166 10 0
This new construction, which ran up the Ordnance Sea Service Estimate from 114,000l. to 132,238l. 17s. 4d. was formally submitted to the House as an Estimate.
But for the Army Ordnance (Ordnance Land Service) it came to be usual to submit an Estimate together with a statement of the outstanding Ordnance debt.
For the financial year 1706–7 the Estimate for the Ordnance Land Service and the statement of Ordnance debt were as follows (Commons Journals XV p. 208, 9 Dec. 1706):
The Estimate of the charge of the Office of her Majesty's Ordnance Land Service, for the year 1707. £ s. d.
the charge of the Holland [or Low Countries Artillery] Train 45,000 0 0
the Ordinary of the [Ordnance] Office comprising salaries, rents and repairs of storehouses, barracks, platforms, carriages ; as likewise the expense of stores in the several Garrisons and other incident charges 28,273 13 9
for 200 tons of saltpetre for supply of the Stores 10,600 0 0
the yearly charge at Jamaica 511 0 0
the yearly charge at New York 182 10 0
the yearly charge for officers [of the Ordnance and] gunners, etc., at Gibraltar 3,631 15 0
the yearly charge for the Officers attending the [Artillery] Train in Spain and the charge of bringing home such Officers as are reduced 9,772 17 6
the yearly charge of the Officers, etc., of the Train with the Earl of Rivers 7,811 0 0
the charge of replenishing the Stores, which are very much exhausted by the Expedition of the Earl of Rivers, and sending stores to Gibraltar and Barcelona: amounting to 77,635l. 13s. 2d. [whereof for the Land services] 35,000 0 0
the charge of repairing and adding to the fortifications at Gibraltar according to the Estimate by the principal Officers and Engineers there 18,000 0 0
[the above items total only 158,782l. 16s. 3d. The deficit is 10,974l. 5s. 0d. which may represent an item accidentally omitted.] £169,757 1 3
The Debt of the Office of Ordnance for Stores delivered and services performed to the 30th September 1706.
due to artificers and others for stores delivered and services performed to 30 Sept. 1706 173,016 13
due for saltpetre 32,390 10 0
due to the Holland [Artillery] Train to 30 Sept. 1706 700 0 0
due for arrears to the Portugal [Artillery] Train 2,655 5 6
due to the Catalonian Train to 30 Sept. 1706 1,496 5 0
due to engineers, storekeepers, gunners, artificers at New York, Jamaica, Barbados and Newfoundland to 30 Sept. 1706 1,474 11 6
due to Fire-workers, bombardiers and carpenters attending the bomb-vessels to 30 Sept. 1706 642 12 0
due for freight of ships as tenders on the bomb vessels to 30 Sept. 1706 1,872 19 1
due to Fire-workers, bombardiers, gunners and artificers, &c., at Gibraltar to 30 Sept. 1706 1,270 5 0
due for freight of ships to carry stores to Gibraltar 949 8 0
due for freight of ships for carrying of stores and attending the Fleet at Lisbon 1,430 0 9
due for freight of several ships that went with the additional [Artillery] Train to Barcelona 5,997 10 9
due for freight of ships for attending the Expedition with the Earl of Rivers to 30 Sept. 1706 3,696 3
due for salaries and rents of storehouses to 30 Sept. 1716 4,111 10
£231,703 15 1
The above figures, both for current estimates and for debt, hardly differ from those of the preceding year. For that year, 1705–6, the Land Service Estimate amounted to 172,980l. 18s.d. and the debt stood at 237,379l. 13s.d. So that on the head of Ordnance there had certainly been no shortage of supply or increase of floating debt.
Turning from the question of Estimates to that of the actual Votes of Supply it is convenient and more useful to bring together all the Votes regardless of the space of time intervening between the separate Resolutions and regardless of any difference of opinion upon them in the House.
On the 9th December 1706, following the introduction of the first set of accounts and Estimates, the House adopted as substantive Resolutions the recommendations from the Grand Committee of Supply as follows (Commons Journals XV p. 209, 9 Dec.):
(1) that 40,000 men be employed in the Sea Service for the year 1707, including 8,000 marines.
(2) that a sum not exceeding 4l. a man per mensem [every 4 weeks] be allowed for maintaining the said 40,000 men for 13 months, including the Ordnance for sea service.
(3) that 120,000 be allowed for the Ordinary of the Navy for the year 1707.
(4) that 357,000l. be allowed for Guards Garrisons and Invalids for 1707, including 5,000 men to serve on board the Fleet.
(5) (6) that 40,000 men to act with the Allies be continued for 1707, and 893,706l. 8s. 6d. be granted for maintaining them for the service of 1707.
(7) that 10,000 additional men be continued for 1707 and 211,762l. 16s. 10d. be granted for maintaining them for 1707.
To this latter Resolution an Amendment was adopted by the House to add the words “and her Majesty's proportion of the 3,000 Palatines taken into her Majesty's service the last campaign.”
On this amendment the term “10,000 men” was changed to “Additional Forces” so as to include the 3,000 Palatines and thereupon the Resolution finally read as follows: “that a sum not exceeding 211,762l. 16s. 10d. be granted for maintaining the said Additional Forces for the service of the year 1707.”
Further Resolutions on Supply followed a month later, 9 and 10 Jan. 1706–7, Commons Journals XV pp. 228, 231.
that 120,000l. be granted for the Land Service of the Ordnance for the year 1707.
that the further sum of 10,000l. be allowed to the Office of Ordnance [Sea Service] towards making a wharf and storehouse at Plymouth.
that 144,000l. be granted towards defraying the charge of transporting Land Forces.
that 37,500l. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the subsidies payable to the King of Denmark for the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 150,000l. be granted to defray the Queen's proportion of the charges of 13,000 men in the service of the King of Portugal for the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 160,000l. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the Subsidies payable to the Duke of Savoy for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 5,952l. 7s. 6d. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the Subsidies payable to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 5,952l. 7s. 6d. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the Subsidies payable to the Elector of Trèves for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 4,761l. 18s. 6d. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the Subsidies payable to the Elector Palatine for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 50,000l. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the charge of 8,000 men sent to the assistance of the Duke of Savoy, for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 445,350l. 14s. 2d. be granted for defraying the charge of maintaining 20,562 men, part of her Majesty's Forces to be employed in Spain or Portugal, and for the General Officers, Contingencies, Hospitals, Forage, and Waggon money; and for the Garrison of Gibraltar and for General Officers serving the King of Portugal; for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 186,296l. 4s. 2d. be granted for defraying the charge of maintaining 8,833 men additional Forces to be employed in Spain or Portugal and for the General Officers and Contingencies for the service of the year 1707 (Commons Journals XV p. 256, 27 Jan. 1706–7; Luttrell VI p. 128 under date 15 Jan.).
that a sum not exceeding 50,000l. be granted to defray the 50,000l. advanced by her Majesty to the Duke of Savoy for the better defence of Turin and for the service of the war in Italy in the year 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 47,500l. be granted to defray her Majesty's share of a loan to the Emperor for the service of the war in Italy in the year 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 63,661l. 13s. 6d. be granted to her Majesty for the levy money, pay and contingencies of the Forces sent on the Expedition under the Command of Earl Rivers.
that a sum not exceeding 3,014l. be granted to defray her Majesty's expense for the pay of the General Officers for a body of 1,300 men of the Troops of the King of Portugal to 23 Dec. 1706 pursuant to a Treaty in that behalf.
that a sum not exceeding 3,520l. 16s. 8d. be granted towards defraying expenses relating to the Garrison of Gibraltar in the year 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 26,692l. 13s. 10¾d. be granted for defraying her Majesty's share of the pay of 3,000 Palatine Troops pursuant to the Treaty with the Elector Palatine, viz. from 17 March 1705–6 to 23 Dec. 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 37,012l. 7s. 6d. be granted to defray her Majesty's share of the agio, bread and forage for 12,000 Prussians employed in her Majesty's service in the Netherlands.
that a sum not exceeding 20,000l. be granted for an additional subsidy to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for augmenting his Troops and marching into Italy and for defraying the expense of bread waggons and carriages and of Hospitals for the sick and wounded for the service of the year 1707.
that a sum not exceeding 19,755l. 9s. 6d. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the agio, bread and forage for the above said 12,000 Prussians from their coming into her Majesty's service until the 23rd Dec. 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 11,780l. 18s. 0d. be granted to defray her Majesty's proportion of the Extraordinary charge for the Augmentation Troops of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel employed in Italy from the 20th of May to the 23 Dec. 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 34,607l. 13s.d. be granted for levy money to recruit the horses of the Foreign Troops in her Majesty's pay that were killed or died of the common distemper in Flanders in the year 1705.
that a sum not exceeding 1,146l. be granted for a further allowance of levy money for recruiting the horses of the English Horse and Dragoons lost in the same campaign in Flanders.
that a sum not exceeding 7,573l. be granted for levy money to recruit the horses of the English Horse and Dragoons and for Officers' horses which died of the common distemper after the campaign between 31 Oct. 1705 and the latter end of February following.
that a sum not exceeding 11,298l. be granted for levy money to recruit the Horses of the English Horse and Dragoons which were killed and died of the common distemper in the Low Countries between 1 May and 31 Dec. 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 16,055l. 12s. 6d. be granted to defray her Majesty's share of the levy money for recruiting the horses of the Danish Troops in the pay of England and Holland that were lost in the same manner between 1 Jan. 1705–6 and 31 Oct. 1706.
that a sum not exceeding 1,775l. be granted to make good the like loss sustained by the Troops of Hanover in her Majesty's pay during the last campaign in Flanders.
that a sum not exceeding 150,000l. be granted towards prosecuting the successes of King Charles III for recovery of the monarchy of Spain to the House of Austria. (Luttrell VI p. 130, under date Jan. 23.)
In the above extracts relating to the Supply proceedings of the 27th January I have printed the Resolutions of the Grand Committee of Supply. But when reported to the House there was one item which the House rejected, viz. that of 3,520l. 16s. 8d. for the expenses of the Garrison of Gibraltar in 1706. Furthermore the first 4 Resolutions were punctuated by the reading of the diplomatic correspondence between Count Briançon and Secretary Harley and by the reading of copies of acquittances from the Emperor's Paymaster General for moneys paid.
According to Luttrell VI p. 128, the Grand Committee had accepted these items, that is they had on the 15th January accepted the items of 50,000l. advanced by the Queen to the Duke of Savoy, 47,500l. lent to the Emperor, 63,664l. 13s. 6d. for the Rivers' Expedition, 3,520l. 16s. 0d. for fortifying Gibraltar and 26,692l. 13s. 10d. for the 3,000 Palatines. Similar Committee Resolutions are recorded in Luttrell VI, pp. 129, 130, for the other items. But the Journals of House contain no record of these Committee proceedings, and when on the 17th Jan. the Report should have been made it was interrupted by a debate which must have been acrimonious, for instead of adopting the figures the House (Commons Journals XV, p. 240) adopted a Resolution to address the Queen
“that the Papers relating to the 50,000l. to the Duke of Savoy, the 47,500l. loan to the Emperor, as also the particulars of the 63,661l. 13s. 6d. for the pay, levy money and contingencies for the Expedition under the Command of the Earl of Rivers may be laid before this House.”
The spirit underlying the whole of this protracted wrangle over Supply is indicated by the final division of the House which wound up the proceedings on the 27th Jan. (Commons Journals XV, p. 257, 27 Jan. 1906–7).
A Motion was made and the Question proposed that the several sums of money for the extraordinary services for the year 1706, which have been agreed to by the House, have been advanced and expended for the preservation of the Duke of Savoy, for the interest of King Charles III of Spain against the common enemy, and for the safety and honour of the [British] nation.
The Tory opposition tried to prevent this question being put, but on a division the opposition was badly beaten by 254 to 105, and then the Resolution was adopted verbatim The vote meant a Whig ministerial majority crushing a determined Tory minority opposition, but it also meant that Harley, still a minister of the Crown and a colleague of Godolphin, was resuming his old insidious position of a secret underground leader of a country party on the same lines as in 1701.
With the passing of the above Resolution the total war Supply for the year 1707 had been voted. The final item of the financial settlement with Scotland in consequence of the Union came late in the Session and can be more easily kept separate from the war finance.
Gathering all the war Supply Votes together, the total grants agreed to during this Session were as follows:
£ s. d.
Navy at Sea 2,080,000 0 0
” Ordinary 120,000 0 0
Army Guards and Garrisons 357,000 0 0
” Flanders 40,000 men 893,706 8 6
” “ (Augmentation) 211,762 16 10
” (Subsidies) :—
Denmark 37,500 0 0
Portugal 150,000 0 0
Savoy 160,000 0 0
Hesse 5,952 7 6
Trèves 5,952 7 6
Palatine 4,761 18 6
Prussia for Italy 50,000 0 0
” Spain and Portugal 445,350 14 2
” ” ” ” (Rivers) 186,296 4 2
Ordnance (Land services and Plymouth) 130,000 0 0
Transport 144,000 0 0
Extraordinaries of the War :—
Savoy 50,000 0 0
Emperor 47,500 0 0
Earl Rivers Expedition 63,661 13 6
Portugal General Officers 3,014 0 0
3,000 Palatines 26,692 13 10¾
Prussians Agio, &c. [1705] 37,012 7 6
Hesse Cassel (additional Subsidy 1707) 20,000 0 0
Prussians Agio, &c, 1706 19,755 9 6
Hesse (1706) 11,780 18 0
Horses (1705) 34,607 13
” ” 1,146 0 0
” (1705–6) 7,573 0 0
” (1706) 11,298 0 0
” (Danish) 16,055 12 6
” (Hanover) 1,775 0 0
Spain Charles III 150,000 0 0
£5,504,155 5
Ways And Means.
In devising Ways and Means for the War Supply summarised as above the House as a matter of course started off with the Land Tax and Malt Duties. The Bills for these two branches of revenue were passed without trouble and with comparative dispatch, so much so indeed that Anne when she gave the royal assent to the Bills on the 21 Dec. 1706 thanked the Commons for this their “more than usual.” dispatch. After the Xmas recess, however, matters did not move so quickly, and it was not until the end of January that the Committee on Ways and Means resumed its debates. The Land Tax Act (6 Anne, c. 1) fixed the total assessment at 1,997,763l. 3s.d. and authorised loans up to 1,850,000l. upon it. The Malt Duty had no forecast of yield put upon it but the Act (6 Anne, c. 5) authorised loans up to 650,000l. on it at 5 per cent. Put together these two credits only amounted to 2½ millions towards Supply grants which totalled slightly over 5½ millions, that is to say there were 3 millions still to be found.
On the 31 January the Committee debated a variety of projects for raising money, extending the Bank's Charter, farming the Excise, and a further issue of Exchequer Bills. Three days later the Committee rejected the Excise farm project and took up the idea of forming a fund for Annuities. On its side the Bank was willing to negotiate an advance of 1,200,000l. at 5 per cent. in return for a 12 years' extension of its charter, “and will bring into the Exchequer 100,000l. a month till the whole be paid “ (Luttrell VI, pp. 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 148, 149).
The Committee interviewed the Bank on this proposal on the 7th Feb. but came to no conclusion, and at the same time “another proposal was offered to raise 1,500,000l. by Exchequer Bills at 6 per cent. but came to no resolution and they are to go upon it again on Wednesday next.” On that day, Wednesday the 12th Feb., the Committee sat till 5 at night debating the Exchequer Bill proposal and the problem of settling a fund to pay the interest. On the 14th “the Commons in a Committee upon Ways and Means debated the proposals of several merchants and goldsmiths to raise 1,500,000l. at 5 per cent. upon a good fund by circulating Exchequer Bills redeemable by Parliament upon a year's notice; and the Bank offering to do it at 4½ per cent. the Committee divided and carried for the latter by 200 against 175: which was this day [the 15th] reported and agreed to “ (Commons Journals XV, p. 298, that a fund be provided for securing 4½ per cent. interest for 1,500,000l. to be circulated in Exchequer Bills redeemable by Parliament on a year's notice and to be Specie Bills upon their final issuing and to continue so during their currency).
On the 17th February “the Commons in a Committee of Ways and Means resolved that the Window Tax which [under the second Deficiencies Act] expires in 1710 be continued and be a fund to pay the interest of 1,500,000l. which the Bank are to advance at 4l. 10s. 0d. per cent. and that till 1710 they shall have Exchequer Bills to pay the interest amounting to 65,000l. per an.” These proposals were adopted by the House on the 19th Feb. (Commons Journal XV, p. 303).
Having carried the Exchequer Bill proposal the Committee of Ways and Means turned to the project of Annuities, and on the 19th Feb. resolved “that towards raising the Supply, 1,120,000l. be granted [raised on a fund] for 99 years by the sale of annuities at the Exchequer to commence from Lady Day next: and that the several impositions granted by an Act first made in the 4th year of King William and Queen Mary upon several goods and merchandizes; and the Duties upon velom, paper and parchment granted in the fifth year of their said Majesties (both which expire on Aug. 1710) be further continued for 99 years to make good the fund for payment of the said Annuities “: which Resolutions were reported to the House on the 29th Feb. and agreed to and a Bill ordered to be brought in. “So there wants but 800,000l. more to be raised this Session “ (Commons Journals XV, p. 304).
A month later, March 15 (Commons Journals XV, p. 342), the composition of the fund for the service of these annuities was completely altered and made to consist of the Duties on Low Wines, Hawkers and Pedlars, Stamps, and the One-third Subsidy for Tonnage and Poundage and a series of four specified surpluses (6 Anne, c. 2).
In connection with this question of the Surpluses the proceedings in the House in these two days Feb. 19 and 20 deserve more than a passing notice. In the debate on the 19th on the Exchequer Bill proposal the House divided on the question of providing for the first two years' interest, i.e. until the 29 Sept. 1710 when the House Duties would become available and accruable as an active source of revenue. The Committee's recommendation was that for these two interim years the interest should be paid by and out of new or further Exchequer Bills to be issued solely and entirely for interest paying purposes. This was the origin of the particular type of Exchequer Bills which in the history of the Bank of England came to be known as “Quarterlies,” by which term is meant not bills having a currency of a quarter of a year but bills issued only for payment of a quarter's interest on this 1,500,000l. issue.
To any financial minded man such a project has a very sinister sound and look. It is a vicious instance of paying interest on interest. It is not surprising that the House divided on the proposal. But so meagre are our accounts of the debates both in the Committee of Ways and Means and in the full House that we cannot tell how the proposal originated or who formed the opposition element. The proposal passed by 136 to 72 and the Tellers for the majority were Sir Charles Turner and Mr. Monckton. For the minority they were Mr. Caesar and Mr. Pole (Commons Journals XV, p. 303).
More notable still were the proceedings in the Commons on the following day (Feb. 20) when the House came to review the Committee's recommendations regarding the fund for Annuities. In the first place the House adopted without further demur or division the proposal to pay the Annuity payments falling due up to Michaelmas 1710 out of annuity moneys, to be provided by increasing the Annuities to be sold by 35,000l. per an.—the same rake's progress idea which had been adopted for the Exchequer Bill issue. In the second place—and this is more significant still—the House adopted a proposal to take over or to seize from the Crown the Surplus or any Surplus arising on the Fund for Annuities created by the Act, 5–6 Wm. & Mary, c. 7, the Act for the Sixteen Year Annuities. The Committee's Resolution as adopted by the House was as follows (Commons Journals XV, p. 304):
Resolved that it is the opinion of this Committee that for completing all the moneys which shall grow due for the quarterly payments of the said Annuities at (or at any time before) Michaelmas 1710 so much as shall be sufficient for that purpose be taken and applied out of the overplus moneys which shall arise from time to time by [or out of] the Funds formerly settled for the payment of Annuities granted before this session of Parliament, the said overplus moneys being such as are disposable for the public service by the several Acts of Parliament relating thereto.
The words shown in italics enshrine a deliberate untruth and no one other than Robert Harley could have penned them or championed them in debate. This matter has been already explained in a note to Vol. XIX, p. 271, and in the Introduction to Vol. XXI, p. cxiv. of this Calendar. The Act (6 Anne, c. 2) for these Annuities is not quite so unblushing in its preamble but it proceeds to appropriate four separate possible or prospective surpluses as “belonging to her Majesty for the public use and service.”
To make this matter plain it need only be repeated that the Bank Act, 5–6 Wm. & Mary, c. 20, granted to the Crown of England for ever a ninepenny Excise (9d. on every barrel of beer) to meet the 100,000l. Annuity to the Bank of England and further to meet the liability on 300,000l. worth of Annuities. The grant by Parliament was absolute and not a single word was said about any possible surplus arising from it. As a matter of fact no surplus arose until 1704 and the moment any such surplus did appear the Lord Treasurer (as for the Crown) disposed of it for public uses and communicated the fact to the House of Commons. He would have been perfectly within his rights if he had devoted it to the much depleted Civil List, for there were arrears of civil service salaries long outstanding. Instead of this, however, the surplus was used to pay off debt liability. But the mere suspicion or mention of a surplus was enough for Harley and he proceeded to obtain a rescinding of the grant by underhand means. He threw a smoke screen of misrepresentation over the subject by mixing up the Bank Act Excise grant with three other grants in such a way that the Bank 9d. Excise remained hardly distinguishable and then broadly asserted of all the four funds that they “belonged to the Crown for the public use and service.” The truthful statement would have been that three of the funds were for public use but that the fourth fund, the Bank 9d. Excise, was at the disposal of the Crown and could be applied either to the Civil List or to the public uses entirely as the Crown or the Lord Treasurer should decide.
We do not know whether the untruth started by Harley was challenged in the Committee debates, but once the phrase was expressed in print, in one Act of Parliament, it remained for ever after undisputed.
Harley had proceeded in exactly this underhand way when he fraudulently took 3,700l. per week of the Hereditary and Temporary Excise away from the Civil List and turned it over to public uses. And he proceeded in exactly the same way in 1712 when he tricked Queen Anne over the Civil List Lottery. It is clear that at all times there was a body of fluctuating non-party opinion in the House which in a moment could be swayed by the slightest suggestion or suspicion of financial mismanagement and it was this body of fluid opinion which Harley had learned to play upon ever since the days of the first Commission of accounts. There was no political philosophy in his action, it was simply his inveterate treachery to friend and foe, to Queen and Country alike.
To return to the Ways and Means provision made by the Acts just reviewed. The total provision came to 2,620,000l., viz. 1,500,000l. by Exchequer Bills and 1,120,000l. from sale of Annuities. The total shortage of Supply was 3,000,000l. so that there still remained 380,000l. to be found to complete the War Supply. Furthermore by reason of the Union with Scotland an extra sum of 405,641l. had to be found for the “Equivalent,” viz. 398,085l. 10s. 0d. to the Scots, 2,641l. to the City of Carlisle for abolished tolls, and 5,000l. to the Musgrave family for abolished border cattle tolls. These sums were voted on the 13 March (Commons Journal XV, p. 339).
The sums mentioned nearly made up the 800,000l. which formed the last item in the Session's deliberations on Supply. In the Committee of Ways and Means the item was deliberated on the 15th of March, in order to provide funds for 800,000l. “one moiety of which is for the Scots “ (Luttrell VI, p. 149 ; Commons Journals XV, p. 342).
This provision took the form of the Act (6 Anne, c. 27) which continued the Tonnage and Poundage granted for the Deficiencies Acts, the Impositions on Wines and Vinegar, Tobacco, East India goods, New Impositions and Whale fins.
This composite fund was to be a security for a loan of 822,381l. 15s.d. But the loan clause of the Act contains the words “and any further sum over and above this sum in order to make good the interest until the fund of the subsidy of Tonnage and Poundage be sufficient to pay the same.”
In accordance with this clause the loans actually taken in at the Exchequer during the financial year 1706–7 amounted to 834,717l. 9s. 11d. which was 12,335l. 14s.d. beyond the authorised loan of 822,381l. 15s.d.
With the passing of this Act the provision of Supply for the financial year 1706–7 was complete.
The Budget situation thereupon stood as follows :
Total Supply Voted. Total Ways and Means Provision.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
for the fighting Forces 5,504,155 5 Land Tax 1,850,000 0 0
Malt Duty 650,000 0 0
for Circulating Exchequer Bills 35,000 0 0 Exchequer Bills 1,500,000 0 0
” ” 35,000 0 0
Annuities 1,120,000 0 0
for Army Debentures 49,000 0 0 Impositions 822,381 15
Debt on the Union with Scotland 405,736 10 0 £5,993,891 15
£5,997,381 15
The Civil List is not included in this Budget position. It was supposed to be fully provided for by the grants of revenue made at the commencement of the reign.
Before passing to the consideration of this Supply from the point of view of sufficiency it is necessary to emphasise certain unusual features of the Sessions proceedings. In the first place the debates on Supply had been prolonged and wavering and plainly acrimonious.
The last Act of Supply just referred to had passed within a week of the end of the Session, a circumstance which had never happened before in Anne's reign, and this was the Session which followed the victory of Ramillies and the complete victory of the Whigs in the matter of ministerial appointments. Godolphin might justifiably have expected the swiftest co-operation from Parliament in the matter of Supply in 1707, but instead the Supply debates had been protracted as never before.
In the second place three of the Acts of Supply, that for Annuities, that for Exchequer Bills and that for the Impositions, contained the unusual provision for payment of interest for a certain period out of capital, i.e. in the case of Exchequer Bills, out of extra Exchequer Bills; in the case of Annuities, out of extra Annuities; in the case of loans or Impositions, out of extra loans. This was cowardly finance and gambling finance and no other brain than Harley's would have evolved it, that brain which had conceived the wild scheme of the Land Bank in 1696 and which was soon to conceive the still wilder scheme of the South Sea Company. Harley was a born gambler in finance.
In the third place, by his underhand leadership of the Opposition the House of Commons had committed itself definitely to the defrauding of the Civil List in the matter of the Bank Excise Surplus, just as it had in 1701 in the matter of the 3,700l. per week out of the Hereditary Excise. Not only so but the House had taken a series of surpluses into credit in building up the fund for the 1707 annuities as if they were existing and reliable quantities whereas it was not known that they existed at all or could be depended upon to come into existence in the future in any such measure as would contribute to the service of the Annuities. The House was in effect gambling on hypothetical surpluses.
So much for the general characteristics of the Budget debates and decisions of the winter 1706–7. Turning to the question of the sufficiency of the new supply the actual product was as follows:
loans on the Tenth 4s. aid 1707— £ s. d. £ s. d.
in money 1,375,222 14 2
in tallies 474,777 5 10
1,850,000 0 0
loans on Malt 1707—
in money 264,334 5 0
in tallies 62,224 19 6
326,559 4 6
sales of Annuities (1706) 874,354 0 0
Exchequer Bills issued 1,470,225 0 0
loans on Subsidies and Impositions 834,717 9 11
£5,355,855 14 5
As against a total voted Supply of 5,993,891l. 15s.d. the total of receipts represents a Budget shortage of 638,036l. 1s.d. So far as Anne's reign had gone this was the most serious revenue shortage which the Treasury had been called upon to face. But more than this, the Budget or rather the House of Commons had made no provision for the payment of interest on floating debt.
This subject of interest on floating departmental debt forms one of the most difficult problems connected with the Budget finance under Wm. III and Anne. From what sources were the moneys obtained for paying such interest, and if the interest was not paid how did it affect the national accounts?
Broadly speaking, in the case of funded debt the question of interest did not trouble the House of Commons during the Estimates period. When the House decided to raise money by a long term credit operation, its first care was to provide a fund for the service of the liability during its currency and for its extinction or liquidation within the appointed time. The fund was simply a grant of Supply in some form sufficient to raise revenue required to meet the yearly liability plus amortisation, and when once sufficient Supply had been found and granted and the service of the operation was running smoothly the House turned its back on the whole matter and did not trouble further about it. For instance, when the Government borrowed from the Bank of England the whole of its capital in 1695 it made a grant of a special fund or revenue of a ninepenny excise for ever, and the revenue derived from that grant was paid into the Exchequer and from the Exchequer it was paid out automatically to the Bank of England year after year without further interference from anybody. Similarly when the House decided to raise money by selling 99 years' annuities it granted a fund for 99 years sufficient to meet the annuities throughout the whole of the 99 years. The revenue granted was the basis or foundation or bottom of the credit operation and the idea of a 'Fond' or Fund was primarily the extinction of the capital debt and secondly the annual service of the debt until the point of complete extinction or liquidation was reached. Such “funded” operations as these, therefore, did not affect any subsequent Budget or the annual Estimates or Supply debates. They were not budgeted for; they swelled the figure of total revenue and total expenditure simply because the moneys poured through the Exchequer, into it as receipts and out of it as payments: but they did not affect the figure of the Estimates and they did not trouble the House during debates on Ways and Means. They were already and permanently provided for.
For instance, during the year here discussed, the year Michaelmas 1706 to Michaelmas 1707, interest was paid on items of funded debt as follows:
£ s. d.
Bank of England on its Annuity (out of the ninepenny Excise) 100,000 0 0
Annuities for one, two or three lives (out of the nine-penny Excise) 37,103 4 9
Million Lottery (out of the 16 years' Excise) 144,000 0 0
Malt Lottery (out of the Deficiencies Fund) 216,985 2
the 99 years' Annuities (out of the 99 years' Excise) 133,954 6
the East India Company on its 2,000,000 loan to the Government (out of Salt Duty, &c.) 184,962 15 10¾
Annuities on the 3,700l. per week Excise (out of the Hereditary and Temporary Excise) 190,264 10
Bankers' Annuities (charged on the Hereditary Excise) 12,829 2 10½
Annuities for 99 years anno 1706 (out of the ad hoc fund) 211,806 2 6
total £1,230,925 5
Of the above items only the 1706 Annuities had figured in the 1706–7 Budget Estimates, or in Votes of Supply or in debates on Ways and Means or in any appropriation clauses. The other items did not involve the imposition of any new taxes or the discussion of new sources of Supply.
Behind and distinct from the above category of “funded” debt lay another large category, viz. the Registered debt representing annual Parliamentary guaranteed loans. In order to enable the Executive (or the Treasury) to raise money on Supply with the least possible delay it became more and more the custom to insert a loan clause in an Act of Supply. Such a clause authorised the Treasury as soon as ever the Act became law to take in loans at the Exchequer on it, viz. to such or such a total amount and at such or such a rate of interest. The lenders of money were registered in the order of their loans and as soon as the proceeds of the tax began to come in the receipts were used to pay off the loans in the strict order or sequence of their standing on the loan Register. The principal money of the loan was repaid out of the tax receipts as fast as they came in. But out of what was the interest to be paid ? for it had to be paid as and when the principal was repaid. It is a remarkable fact that this point was overlooked in all the loan clauses in these Acts of Supply. It was assumed that the tax receipts would be sufficient to repay the principal of the loan and at the same time to discharge the interest. But it was frequently the case that the tax receipts proved deficient, that is to say unequal to discharge the principal of the loan without reckoning the interest. In such cases the unpaid balance of loan was carried forward as debt and this item of debt included interest unpaid as well as principal not repaid. It was the accumulation of these “Deficiencies” which led to the Deficiencies Acts of Wm. III (8–9 Wm. III, c. 20) and of Anne (1 Anne, c. 7). Each of these Acts was practically a Sinking Fund operation, a special fund of income being granted to liquidate the accumulations of unpaid interest and unrepaid principal of loans made to the Treasury on the guarantee of the House of Commons. In order to arrive at a true conception of this complex problem of interest paid on Parliamentary loans it is necessary to segregate these Sinking Fund payments of accumulated unpaid interest. For instance, in the year 1705–6 out of a total sum of 357,105l. 12s.d. of interest paid the amount of 68,610l. 11s.d. came out of the Deficiencies Funds granted by 1 Anne, c. 7. This left a balance of 288,495l. 0s. 11¼d. of interest paid out of current revenue.
In the following year 1706–7 the figures are more striking. The total sum paid in interest money was 761,748l. 9s.d., out of which the Deficiencies Fund or Sinking Fund accounted for 437,293l. 13s.d. leaving a balance of 324,454l. 15s. 9d. of interest money paid out of current revenue.
It so happens that for these two consecutive years the amount of debt interest paid out of current revenue nearly approximated. But this is an accident. There is no normal or average for Parliamentary guaranteed interest as an item of national expenditure. All the year round the Lord Treasurer was fencing for his own head, financing from hand to mouth, scraping together income from all or any odd available sources to meet such liabilities as immediately pressed most upon him, and the item of interest had to wait its turn.
But it is necessary to emphasise the point of this resume. The balance of interest paid out of current revenue is the balance arrived at after the elimination of two factors, viz. (1) funded debt interest, (2) Sinking Fund or Deficiencies interest. Both these factors had been provided for by Parliament once for all. But after their elimination there still remained this crushing debt for interest which was not provided for by the House of Commons. It did not figure in the yearly Estimates, and only became the subject of debate in Supply at intervals of several years when the Treasury and the House of Commons were brought reluctantly face to face with the problem of finding another Sinking Fund to wipe out another set of accumulated interest debts and departmental deficiencies.
The system on which the national financial machine was worked was that in each year Voted Supply could only be made effective and immediately available for working the services by means of loans. The moment a Land Tax Bill was passed, the Treasury took in loans on it, and when the tax began to yield actual receipts those receipts were taken to pay off the previous year's loans. The Treasury's borrowings on a tax were always one year ahead of tax receipts, and therefore a year's loan interest had to be paid and should have been added to the Estimates. The system was necessary and may be said to prevail in all national finance. But all the implications of the system were not recognised in the time of Queen Anne. The costs of a Lottery operation or of an Annuities operation were properly calculated and provided for beforehand, but the costs of a loan, viz. the interest to be paid, were not so obvious. The rate of the interest was fixed in the Act, but nothing more. No provision was made for meeting such interest and the Lord Treasurer was always put to it to devise means of payment. Money taken to pay interest was simply money diverted from one or other of the services.
Ultimately, of course, any such system leads of necessity to an increase of national debt, whether on the Exchequer in general or on any of the service Departments. The only way in which it is possible to trace the reaction of this item of interest on the services or on the national debt account would be by analysing the actual payments to a service year by year and to take the results of such analysis and place them side by side with the statement of the growth of the debt on that service. In the case of the Navy it is possible to proceed in such a way because we have the assistance of a periodic statement of Navy debt. But in the case of the army we lack such assistance and it is quite hopeless to attempt to compile a clear statement of the growth or fluctuation of the debt on the Forces. The item of War Extraordinaries was used periodically to extinguish Army Debts as well as subsidy debts, and War Extraordinaries invariably meant a grant of Supply by the House. That is to say, Army Extraordinaries or Extraordinaries of the war were not allowed to accumulate. They were periodically liquidated by grants of Supply. But this partial liquidation of floating army debt on Extraordinaries could easily go alongside a growing floating debt on the head of Army Subsistence: for normally the Army accounts or the Regimental accounts were many years behindhand in the matter of audit, and during that time the floating debt or subsistence might exist unstated or even unsuspected by the House. In the absence of a succinct statement of Regimental debt or subsistence debt all we can do is to analyse the Lord Treasurer's payments to the Land Forces in each year.
For instance, in the financial year partly covered by the present volume, that is to say in the year from Michaelmas 1706 to Michaelmas 1707, the Lord Treasurer issued to the Paymaster General of the Forces Abroad a total of 2,770,366l. 15s. 9d. for the Forces abroad, including subsidies. But of this total
£ s. d.
8,976 14 10 was on account of the year 1704
49,664 0 ” ” ” 1705
470,692 18 ” ” ” 1706
The deduction of these sums left only 2,241,033l. 2s.d. available for the service of the current year 1707.
Similarly, for the Guards and Garrisons the Lord Treasurer issued a total of 378,161l. 1s. 11¼d. But of this total the sum of
£ s. d.
10,931 13 10¾ was on account of the year 1703
18,109 5 ” ” ” 1705
112,113 19 ” ” ” 1706
The deduction of these sums left available for the 1707 service of the Guards and Garrisons only the sum of 235,901l. 19s.d.
The total payments, therefore, for the year 1707 for all the Forces, both at home and abroad, on all heads and sub-heads was
£ s. d.
2,241,033 2
235,901 19
£2,476,935 1 11¾
This was as against the Estimate demands and the Supply Votes ut supra, p. xxxi, viz.:
£ s. d.
for Guards and Garrisons 357,000 0 0
the Land Forces Abroad and for Subsidies 2,151,282 17 2
Extraordinaries of the War 521,872 8
£3,030,155 5
On this showing, therefore, the supply payments to the Army for the service of the financial year 1706 Michaelmas to 1707 Michaelmas fell short by
£ s. d.
3,030,155 5
2,476,935 1 11¾
£553,220 3
Proceeding in the same way for the other fighting services we obtain the following amalgamated result :
Effectual issue for the service of the year 1707 after deduction of payments made for arrears of previous years. Estimates demand and Supply Voted.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Navy 1,919,826 14 2,200,000 0 0
Army 2,476,935 1 11¾ 3,030,155 5
Transport 77,321 1 3 144,000 0 0
Ordnance 214,000 0 0 130,000 0 0
£4,688,082 17 3 5,504,155 5
4,688,082 17 3
Shortage of payment as compared with the Estimate £816,072 8
I take this to be the sum by which the floating Departmental debt was increased during the financial year 1706–7.
To this sum must be added the amount of unprovided interest money paid on the floating debt, viz. 324,454l. 15s. 9d. ut supra, p. xli. The combined shortage on the year was therefore:
£ s. d.
Departmental services shortage 816,072 8
floating debt interest money shortage 324,454 15 9
shortage on revenue receipts (Estimates 5,504,155l. 5s. 8d., receipts 5,355,855l. 14s. 5d.) 148,299 11 3
shortage on Civil List as compared with the agreed 700,000l. (after deducting loans on tin and First Fruits and Tenths) 62,999 4
difference between Remains brought forward at Michaelmas 1706 (1,286,820l. 2s. 9d.) and Remains carried forward at Mich. 1707 (906,777l. 13s. 8d.) the difference representing assets (Remains) applied to expenditure 380,042 9 1
£1,731,868 9
The final figure of Departmental shortages is thus brought as near as possible to the 1,646,981l. 3s. 10½d. by which the loan money taken in at the Exchequer exceeded the repayments of loan money.
The conclusion shows that during this year 1706–7 Lord Treasurer Godolphin financed the floating Departmental debt out of loan money. The total loans taken in at the Exchequer during the year (including Exchequer Bills issued) had amounted to 4,640,924l. 7s. 2d., all short term money repayable within the twelvemonth. Of this sum he had only repaid 2,993,943l. 3s.d., so that he was in deficit on this account and to the extent of 1,646,981l. 3s. 10½d. This balance of loan money he had employed to meet or liquidate or pay off arrears of the services as follows:
£ s. d.
Navy, arrears of the years 1702–6 332,063 13
Army Abroad, arrears of the years 1703–6 529,333 13 5
Army Guards and Garrisons, arrears of the same years 142,259 2
Ordnance, arrears of the years 1704–6 111,479 16 5
£1,115,136 5
He had taken this money out of his short loan account and the payments had operated or resulted simply in preventing pro tanto the increase of the floating debt on the services. But to just the same extent these payments had prevented him squaring his short term loan money account which he should have squared within the twelvemonth. So that he was left in the position of facing the coming year 1707–8 with a floating Departmental debt of nearly 1¾ millions, and at the same time with a short term loan money deficit of 1,646,981l. 3s. 10½d. knocking on his door for repayment.
The total Debt increase, therefore, for the year stood as follows:
£ s. d.
Funded Debt annuities (1706) (part) 874,354 0 0
” ” Exchequer Bills issued 1,470,225 0 0
Floating Departmental Debt 1,731,868 9
short term loan money deficit (1,646,981l. 3s. 10½d. less 1,470,225l. of Exchequer Bills already reckoned in as above) 176,756 3 10½
£4,253,203 13
The Financial Year, Michaelmas 1707 to Michaelmas 1708.
The chief respect in which the financial year 1707–8 differed from the preceding year 1706–7 was in the increase of the Civil and Military Estimates as a consequence of the Union with Scotland. Queen Anne's Civil List itself was not affected, as the Scottish Civil List and the Royal Charity Roll continued to be framed as a separate Establishment, but in the event of a deficiency of the royal revenues in North Britain the deficiency fell on the English Exchequer as did the Equivalent Fund and the pensions and grants arising out of the Union negotiations. In the case of the Home Forces the transfer of the Scottish Regiments to the British Establishment operated automatically as an increase in the Guards and Garrisons Estimate.
With these two exceptions the Estimates for 1707–8 ran on the usual hard-and-fast lines. Within 8 days of the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session the House voted Supply for 40,000 men for the Navy and 120,000l. for the Navy Ordinary (18 Nov. 1707, Commons Journals XV, p. 419). Four days later it voted the usual items for the war in Flanders, viz. for the 40,000 men, the 10,000 Troops of Augmentation and the anno 1706 separate Augmentations of 3,000 Palatines, to which were now added the new items of 4,639 (2,319) Saxons and 800 (400) Bothmar's Dragoons.
On these items there was no dispute and the voting of Supply was smooth and frictionless. But when the House reached the subject of the war in Spain and Portugal the shadow of the disaster of Almanza still lay across the path, and the votes of Supply for this head did not pass until the 20th December although the Estimates had been submitted on the 28th November. The Estimates and votes for this theatre of the war differed so completely from those of the year 1706 that it is necessary to give them in full.
Estimate of the Forces on the Spanish and Portugal Establishment with the charge thereof for 1708
Horse. £ s. d.
Major Gen. Harvey's Regiment (418 men) 23,107 10 10
Dragoons.
the Royal Regiment (589 men); late Brigadier Killigrew's (443 men); Col. Edward Pearce's (589 men); Count Nassau's (589 men); the French Regiment (761 men): total 2,971 men [as against 2,210 men at 77,684l. 3s. 4d. in 1706] 104,907 1 8
Foot . £ s. d.
the Earl of Portmore's Regiment (876 men); Col. Southwell's; (834 men) ; Col. Tho. Peirce's (725 men); Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (834 men) ; Lieut. Gen. Stuart's (876 men); Col. Hill's, Earl of Barrymore's and the late Brigadier Blood's (2,628 men); Col. Newton's (725 men); Lord Mountjoy's (876 men); Col. Alnut's (834 men); Brig. Gorge's (876 men); Lord Mordaunt's and Col. Wade's (1,752 men); Lord Mohun's (834) men; Brig. Sankey's (725 men); Col. Elliott's (834 men); Col. Bowie's (834 men); Brig. Macartney's (876 men); the Marquis de Montandre's (834 men); Col. Breton's, Col. Watkins', Sir Charles Hotham's and Col. Caulfield's (3,336 men); Col. Stanwix's (725 men); Lord Mark Kerr's, Col. de Magny's, Col. Sibourg's and Col. Blosset's (2,900 men): (total 23,734 Foot as against 17,934 men in 1706 at a charge of 315,155l. 16s. 8d.) 420,492 3 4
General Officers 14,934 11 8
” ” more to serve with 13,000 Portuguese pursuant to the Treaty 1,460 0 0
for the charge of the Garrison of Gibraltar 1,770 5 0
Contingencies upon account 8,000 0 0
forage, waggon money and baggage money, upon account 12,000 0 0
£586,671 12 6
This Estimate provides for a total Force of 27,123 men as against a total of 20,562 men in 1706, involving an increase of 141,320l. 18s. 4d. in the Estimate (Commons Journals XV , pp. 447–8). When this Estimate was reported from Committee of Supply nearly a month later it passed without alteration.
Resolved that the sum of 586,671l. 12s. 6d. be granted to her Majesty for maintaining her Majesty's established Forces to serve in Spain and Portugal including the pay of General Officers and the charge of Contingencies and for forage, Waggon money and Baggage money and for the charge of the Garrison of Gibraltar (Commons Journals XV , p. 478).
But this increase of Estimate did not stand alone. The Resolution was followed by a further vote.
that a further sum not exceeding 500,000l. be granted to her Majesty for the Augmentation of her Forces, in order to strengthen the army of the Duke of Savoy, for making good the alliances with the King of Portugal and for the effectual carrying on the war for recovery of the Spanish monarchy to the House of Austria (Ibid. ).
It is important to bear in mind that this 500,000l. is not a vote for Extraordinaries, i.e. for past expenditure hitherto unprovided for. It is provision for an unspecified augmentation of Forces and expense in the coming campaign in Italy and Spain, as additional to the specified augmentation set out in the detailed Estimate printed above. It is therefore a direct result of the disasters of the 1707 campaign and shows the reaction of the House of Commons to those disasters.
But this is not all. The list of Subsidies to Allies which was voted on the same day as the above, viz. November 28, contained a special and new item relating entirely to the Italian campaign, viz. the additional subsidy to the Landgrave of Hesse as below:
Her Majesty's proportion of Subsidies payable to the Allies for the year 1708 pursuant to the Treaties.
£ s. d.
to the King of Denmark, to be paid in Bank money at Hamburg (150,000 Crowns a year) 37,500 0 0
to the King of Portugal, for defraying her Majesty's proportion of the charge of 13,000 men (600,000 Crowns a year or 666,666 patacons 33 stivers at 4s. 6d. each) 150,000 0 0
to the Duke of Savoy: 640,000 Crowns a year at the rate of 53,333? Crowns per month 160,000 0 0
to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel (25,000 Crowns a year) 5,952 7 6
to the Elector of Trèves (25,000 Crowns a year) 5,952 7 6
to the Elector Palatine (20,000 Crowns a year) 4,761 18 6
to the King of Prussia, for defraying her Majesty's proportion of the charge of 8,000 men sent to the assistance of the Duke of Savoy (200,000 Crowns per an.) 50,000 0 0
more to the King of Prussia by virtue of the Treaties of 1701 and 1706 on account of the 13,000 men sent by him to serve in the Netherlands, viz.: for her Majesty's share of the agio or difference between the money current in the Empire and the rates the same money is current at in the territories where his Troops are employed (109,666 guilders 10 stivers) ; more for her Majesty's share of bread (153,097 guilders 16 stivers); more for her Majesty's share of forage (125,865 guilders): total 388,629 guilders 6 stivers 37,012 7 6
to the Landgrave of Hesse for her Majesty's quota of his additional subsidy on account of the 10,000 men of his Troops in Italy (66,666? Crowns a year):
more to him for defraying the expenses of Bread waggons, carriages and of Hospitals for the sick and wounded with the necessary officers thereto belonging (69,796f Crowns a year):
more to him upon account of her Majesty's share of the agio or loss by exchange of money upon the pay of the Hessian Troops, remitted to Italy, as well as of the 3,000 men in his own pay during the six months of their winter quarters (37,578 Crowns a year): total 174,041½ Crowns 43,510 7 6
total £494,689 8 6
(Commons Journals, XV , p. 448.)
Quite apart from and additional to the above formal Estimates the House on the 22 December considered and voted an account as follows of some Extraordinary charges of the war which had not been provided for by Parliament in the preceding year or which had incurred since that time.
Extraordinaries for Italy.
£ s. d.
to the Duke of Savoy, over and above his subsidy in the year 1707, for especial service in prosecuting the war against France 100,000 0 0
to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for his additional subsidy on account of his Troops in Italy, pursuant to the Treaty [of 20 May 1706] 42,957l. 2s. 0d.: whereof 20,000l. allowed by Parliament in 1707 towards this expense (see supra, p. xiv) leaving unprovided 22,957 2 0
for the Garrison of Gibraltar .
for payments made for defraying the charge of the fortifications and other services of the Garrison of Gibraltar in the year 1706 12,284 19
£135,242 1
(Commons Journals XV , p. 479.)
The sole remaining Estimate which showed an increase over the preceding year's Estimate was that for Guards and Garrisons. In this case the increase was due not to the war but to the Union with Scotland. The Estimate for the English portion was identical with that for the preceding year 1706–7 (see supra , p. vii) and amounted to the stereotyped figure of 357,000l. The Estimate for the year 1708 for the addition for the Scottish Regiments taken on to the British Establishment was as follows:
Forces, &c. in North Britain. £ s. d.
the Troop of Horse Guards (181 men) 16,783 18 4
the Troop of Horse Grenadiers (177 men) 11,050 7 6
two Regiments of Dragoons (814 men) 29,990 16 8
the Regiment of Foot Guards (1,467 men) 32,497 3 4
two Regiments of Foot (1,668 men) 29,187 16 8
another Regiment at Fort William (834 men) 14,995 18 4
three Independent Companies (174 men) 3,029 10 0
total 5,315 men 137,535 10 10
General Officers 3,084 5 0
Garrisons, &c. (617 men) 13,098 17 2
Ordnance 1,016 5 6
total Forces 5,932 men at £154,734 18 6
To this Estimate there is appended the following note :
“Besides what shall be granted for the year 1708 there is due, for clearing the expense of the Military Establishment of North Britain between the 1st May 1707 and the 24th Dec. 1707, the sum of 38,361l. 2s. 8d. which sum the funds of that [Scotch] part of the Kingdom (proving deficient) fell short of satisfying” (Commons Journals XV , p. 447).
The above figure of 154,734l. 8s. 6d., added to the English figure of 357,000l., made the total Estimate for Guards and Garrisons up to 511,734l. 8s. 6d. for the year 1707–8 and this was the figure which was voted by the House on the 20 December:
Resolved: that a sum not exceeding 511,734l. 8s. 6d. be granted to her Majesty to defray the charge of maintaining Guards and Garrisons in Great Britain and for payment of the Invalids for the service of the year 1708, including 5,000 men to serve on board the Fleet (Commons Journals, XV. , p. 478).
It will be seen from the vote that the House ignored the debt of 38,361l. 2s. 8d. resting on the Scotch military Establishment at the end of 1707. The Union came into force as from the 1st of May 1707. But as the army accounts ran from December to December the broken period from 1 May 1707 to Dec. 24, 1707 formed part of the accounting year 1707 (January to December).
This sum has no relation to the old debt to the Forces in Scotland accrued due before and up to the Union [as to which see pp. 78–79 in the present Vol. XXII of this Calendar]. The matter in question refers entirely to the payment, the subsistence, of the Scottish Forces, the Forces on the Scottish Establishment, during the interim period of rearrangement which followed the commencement of the operation of the Union. Between the 1st of May 1707 when the Union took effect and the meeting of the first joint Parliament of Great Britain Queen Anne had disturbed the administrative arrangements in Scotland as little as possible. The Civil List remained as it was: the army was subsisted on the old Establishment and was paid from the cess granted by the Parliament of Scotland [for the year 1707 under the 11th article of the Union] as far as it extended.
Defoe says (History of the Union , p. 574) that the deficiency of the cess “was left to the Parliament of Britain to supply.” But the deficiency of the cess for the pay of the Scotch Troops amounted to the very sum quoted above, viz. 38,361l. 2s. 8d. which the British Parliament ignored when it voted Supply for the Guards and Garrisons on the 20th December 1707.
The fact of the matter was that the Queen and the Lord Treasurer had taken measures to meet the emergency six months earlier. On the 1st July 1707 Treasurer Godolphin wrote to the Earl of Glasgow as follows:
I find by yours of the 26th June 1707 that there is no money at present in the Treasury of Scotland but that on conferring with the Commissaries of the Army [in Scotland] you judge that they will be able to subsist the Troops [in Scotland] to the end of the year out of the funds for that use if 12,000l. be remitted from England towards the same, in the present juncture, when you expect nothing out of the [Scotch] Customs and Excise.
I have laid this matter before the Queen and she has consented to supply, out of the Civil List here [in London] the said 12,000l. towards the immediate service of paying the said Troops, till such time as it can be reimbursed to her out of the Equivalent payable to Scotland. Thereof 6,000l. will be forthwith remitted and the rest by 3,000l. a month. (Treasury Calendar XXI, pp. 323, 343, 347–8).
Godolphin goes on to say that he wishes the [Army] Paymasters and Commissaries in Scotland to continue in their methods till further order. Towards the end of September he induced the Queen to advance a further 8,000l. out of her Civil List for the same purpose (Ibid., pp. 445–6). Both the Queen and the Lord Treasurer acted on the same pre-supposition of the British Parliament refunding to the Queen's Civil List the sums thus advanced.
Defoe continues as follows:
On the 1st of May 1708 the [Scotch] Army received their pay from London, the Regiment of Foot Guards was received as English Guards (“Union” p. 574).
This statement is incorrect. The joint Establishment of British Guards and Garrisons applied as from 1707–8 Jan. 1. As the Army accounts ran from January to December, the deficiency period for which Queen Anne provided as above out of her Civil List was for the interim period 1 July 1707 to 31 Dec. 1707, that is not so much from the actual date of the commencement of the Union (May 1) as from the date at which the Scottish Treasury found itself deficient of funds and unable to pay the soldiers hitherto paid on the Scottish Establishment.
As has already been stated, the British Parliament did not refund these two sums to the Queen's Civil List.
With the above explanations the total votes of Supply for the year 1708 may be summarised as follows:
£ s. d.
Navy, 40,000 men including 8,000 Marines 2,080,000 0 0
” Ordinary 120,000 0 0
Army, Guards and Garrisons (England and Scotland) 511,734 8 6
” 40,000 men in Flanders 894,272 3 6
” 10,000 Troops of Augmentation in Flanders 177,511 3 6
” 3,000 Palatines in Flanders 34,251 13 4
” 4,639 Saxons in Flanders 43,251 12 6
” Bothmar's Dragoons in Flanders 9,269 16 6
” Troops in Spain and Portugal 586,671 12 6
” Augmentation for the Army in Savoy, the Portuguese alliance and the war in Spain 500,000 0 0
Subsidies to Allies 494,689 8 6
” to Savoy 100,000 0 0
” for the Troops of Hesse Cassel in Italy to complete 42,957l. 2s. 0d. for 1701 22,957 2 0
Gibraltar garrison 12,284 9
Ordnance, Land Service 120,000 0 0
” for Portsmouth 10,000 0 0
Transporting Land Forces 144,000 0 0
interest on old Army and Transport debentures 60,334 19
circulating old Exchequer Bills 3,500 0 0
Capt. James Roche, due out of forfeited lands in Ireland 2,120 18 6
£5,426,849 8
Towards the total voted Supply of 5,426,849l. 8s.d. the British Parliament passed the following series of enactments:
(1) An assessment in the form of a 4s. Land Tax, the so-called Eleventh 4s. Aid (6 Anne, c. 35). The total contributions or assessments for this tax were fixed at 1,995,882l. 0s.d. for England and 47,954l. 16s. 0d. for Scotland. The loan clause in this Act permitted the Treasury to borrow 1,880,000l. on it at 5 per cent. interest.
(2) A renewal for 1708 of the malt, mum, cyder and perry Duties (6 Anne, c. 38). The loan clause in this Act authorised loans up to 650,000l. on it at 5 per cent. payable quarterly.
(3) The 40,000l. Annuities on a Composite Fund of Low Wines, &c, by 6 Anne, c. 39. This was expected to produce 640,000l.
(4) The 80,000l. Annuities on a Fund of the Half Tonnage and Poundage (6 Anne, c. 48). This was expected to yield 1,280,000l.
(5) The East India Company Act (6 Anne, c. 71) which was the condition of a loan of 1,200,000l. from the Joint Company.
(6) The Act for continuing the Half Subsidies of Tonnage and Poundage (6 Anne, c. 73) as a Fund for a loan of 729,067l. 15s.d. at 6 per cent. payable quarterly.
In addition to the above there was a further Act of Supply (6 Anne, c. 50) continuing the Coffee and other Duties and the Two-Thirds Tonnage and Poundage, but appropriated strictly to meeting the deficiency of the 700,000l. loans on the Act 3 Anne, c. 18, and the 636,957l. 4s.d. loans on the Act 3–4 Anne, c. 3. In consequence of this strict appropriation no part of the yield of this Act would be available for the Supply Service of the year 1708.
Omitting this last item, therefore, the series of Supply Acts as above showed on paper a total expected contribution as follows towards the service of the year 1708:
£ s. d.
Land Tax Assessment loans 1,880,000 0 0
Malt Duty loans 650,000 0 0
Sale of Annuities (40,000l.) 640,000 0 0
” ” (80,000l.) 1,280,000 0 0
Loan by East India Company 1,200,000 0 0
Loan on the Half Subsidies 729,067 15
£6,379,067 15
On paper this shows an excess of Ways and Means grants over Supply votes as follows:
£ s. d.
total Acts of Supply 6,379,067 15
total votes of Supply 5,426,849 8
excess of grants £952,218 7
But the actual figure of receipts from these grants within the financial year, Michaelmas 1707 to Michaelmas 1708, was as follows:
£ s. d.
Land Tax loans and tallies 1,880,000 0 0
Malt Duties “ “ 392,454 10 6
Half Subsidy loans 482,650 18 3
East India Company Loan in part of 1,200,000l. 600,000 0 0
40,000l. Annuities sales 640,000 0 0
80,000l. Annuities sales (in part of 1,280,000l.) 975,724 0 0
in full of 115,500l. on the Act 6 Anne, c. 2, granted for the service of the year 1707 280,646 0 0
£5,251,475 8 9
Out of this total of Parliamentary revenue thus made available the Lord Treasurer provided for the services by payments as follows:
Payments for the financial year 1708. £ s. d. £ s. d.
to the Navy 1,645,699 16
to the Ordnance 174,500 0 0
to the Army:
40,000 men 756,407 0 5
10,000 men 177,511 3 6
3,000 Palatines 25,658 5
4,639 Saxons 31,823 9
Bothmar's Dragoons 6,853 9 3
Established Forces in Spain and Portugal 563,086 12
strengthening the Duke of Savoy 383,209 17
Subsidy to Denmark 28,125 0 0
” Portugal 85,607 19
” Savoy 129,777 15 4
” Hesse 4,464 5
” ” (augmentation) 11,904 1 6
” Trèves 4,464 5
” Palatine Elector 3,571 8 10½
” Prussia 42,433 3 6
” “ (agio) 37,012 7 6
(total of Subsidies 347,360l. 7s.d.)
services of former years paid out of funds for 1708 68,851 8
Extraordinaries of the war 23,028 0 0
2,383,789 14
Guards and Garrisons 310,877 14
Chelsea Outpensioners 782 19 7
Transport 49,303 0 2
£4,564,953 5 10¾
Payments for previous years or for arrears: made out of the financial provision for the year 1708.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Navy for 1702 53,961 4 11½
1703 1,858 12 7
1704 4,307 18
1705 132 19 7
1706 1,406 2 9
1707 176,173 5 11½
237,840 4
Ordnance for 1704 735 1 7
1707 20,000 0 0
20,735 1 7
Army for 1705 339 17 6
1706 6,246 18
1707 148,967 10 8
155,554 6
Guards and Garrisons for 1703 166 15 0
1704 148 0 0
1705 132 3 11
1706 1,369 9 0
1707 121,098 0
122,914 8
total of payments for arrears of the services out of the financial provision for 1708 £537,044 0
£ s. d. £ s. d.
payments for the Services (anno 1708) 4,564,953 5 10¾
payments for the Services (arrears) 537,044 0
payments for King William's debts 1,332 6 5
payments for Funded Debt not budgeted for but provided for out of Established Funds:
Million Lottery 140,000 0 0
Malt Lottery 184,017 8 10
Bank of England 105,000 0 0
East India Company 143,411 1
” ” ” 27,484 7
1693 Annuities 133,647 16
1694 ” 36,890 4 4
1704–5 ” 151,685 16
” ” 1,430 0 0
1706 ” 189,267 15
1707 ” 82,145 10 0
Bankers' Annuities 38,611 6
(total of Funded Debt payments 1,233,591l. 7s.d.)
payments for interest not budgeted for but provided for out of Established Sinking Funds (120,493l. 7s.d.)
interest payments not budgeted for nor provided for by parliament but paid out of the revenue of the year 1708 464,268 19
total payments by the Lord Treasurer (exclusive of Civil List) £5,567,598 12
The sums thus disbursed by the Lord Treasurer, total 5,567,598 12
the total receipts from revenue granted by Parliament 5,251,475 8 9
therefore his disbursements exceeded his receipts by £316,123 3
To this figure must be added the sum of 121,960l. 10s.d., being the amount by which the Exchequer “Remains” or “Carry forward” at Michaelmas 1708 exceeded the “Remains” or “Brought Forward” at Michaelmas 1707. The final result reached is that in the financial year Michaelmas 1707 to Michaelmas 1708. Treasurer Godolphin issued on all heads and branches of expenditure 316,123l. 3s.d. more than all the realised Parliamentary Supply came to within the same time and that he finished up the financial year with 121,960l. 10s.d. more in the Exchequer than he possessed at the commencement of the year.
Where did this excess money (totalling 438,083l. 13s. 11½d.) come from? There are only three items visible and they do not account for the whole figure.
(1) The balance of his loan money account (excess of total moneys borrowed over total moneys repaid) was 187,136l. 18s. 5d.
(2) A sum of 99,625l. was issued in Exchequer Bills during the year.
(3) The sum of 33,590l. 18s. 11d. had been taken from the income of the Queen's Civil List and had been applied to public uses (see the Account, infra, p. ccxxxi).
Taken together these sums account for 320,352l. 17s. 4d. of the Lord Treasurer's excess issues. And there is always the possibility that Queen Anne made advances of subsidy money to the Emperor either out of the secret service or the privy purse heads of the Civil List. If we had the accounts of either of these two heads we could probably square Treasurer Godolphin's Receipts and Payments to a penny.
How did this year's finance affect the growth of the public Debt? Directly, it added the following items to the Funded Debt or long dated debt:
(1) The East India Company Loan of 1,200,000l.
(2) The 40,000l. per an. annuities running for 99 years.
(3) The 80,000l. per an. annuities running for 96 years.
It also added to the short dated debt the loan of 729,867l. 15s.d. authorised by the Act for the Half Subsidies (6 Anne, c. 73).
Lastly, it added distinctly to the floating debt resting on the fighting services, but to what extent or by what amount it is difficult to state. Taking the vote of Supply for each of these services as intended specifically for the service of the year 1708 (and each particular vote emphatically says so) then the already existing floating debt will be increased by so much as the actual payments for the year fell short of the sum voted. In this way:
£ s. d. £ s. d.
the Navy vote was 2,080,000 0 0
the actual issues were 1,645,699 16
the deficiency was 434,300 3
the army and subsidies and extraordinaries vote was 2,865,159 2
the actual issues were 2,383,789 14
the deficiency was 481,369 7
the vote for Guards and Garrisons was 511,734 8 6
actual issues were 310,877 14
the deficiency was 200,856 13
£ s. d. £ s. d.
the vote for the Ordnance (Land Service) and Portsmouth was 130,000 0 0
the actual issues were 174,500 0 0
the excess issue was 44,500 0 0
the vote for the Transport was 144,300 0 0
the actual payments were 49,003 0 2
the deficiency was 94,696 19 10
1,211,223 4
less excess of 44,500 0 0
total deficiency of payments as against votes £1,166,723 4
This sum of 1,166,723l. 4s.d. represents the lowest possible figure for the net increase of the floating departmental debt. But as already explained (supra, p. xxi), the voted Supply for each of these services was only a stereotyped figure for a merely stereotyped number of men. The Navy vote was only for 40,000 men whereas the number of men entertained in the Navy during the war was hardly ever less than 50,000 men which would require a sum much in excess of the dummy figure 2,080,000l. for 40,000 men. Similarly, the Army vote took no account of the Extraordinaries of the war. It would therefore be most difficult to state even approximate the actual net addition to the Army Floating Debt during the year 1708. And so for the Ordnance and the Transport services. The only guidance which we have as to the movement of the floating departmental debt is afforded by occasional restatement in the Journals of the House of Commons of the total debt position over intervals of several years.
On the whole showing it is clear that the years 1707 and 1708 were financially a period of severe strain. The real cause of the stringency lay in the stereotyped system of the Annual Estimates and in the restriction of Supply by Parliament. But underneath this fundamental defect and the machinery of Estimating and Supply there is patent evidence of the treacherous, sinister, secret political activity of Harley, always working underground, always destructive and disruptive.