|1. “Memoriall praying that the Patent officers may be obliged to allow their deputys a sufficient maintenance.” Dated 5 Feb. 1684. And two other papers connected therewith, one of which is dated 11 March 1684. (Copies.)|
|2. “A true copy or extract of the establishment of the stables, signed by King James the 2d, the 20th day of Aprill 1685.” Showing the annualallowances to the various officers.|
||3. Copy of Surveyor General's report, respecting an allowance of 18l. per annum to the Corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull, in consideration of the castle and certain land there, surrendered to His late Majesty King Charles II. Dated 25 June 1685.|
||4. Rule for adjusting the rates of East India goods, subject to the new impositions. Dated 4 Nov 1685.|
|5. “Petition of ye several artificers employed in the building ye Earl of Mulgrave's lodgings, in the stone gallery, at Whitehall,” for payment of their claim, accompanied by a schedule of the sums. The date is supposed from John Earl of Mulgrave, who was made a privy councillor in the year 1685, and he is in this petition described as “the Right Honble.”|
Minuted:—“To be referred to Mr. Surveyor to state ye accompt & examine ye bills & report it to ye Lords Comrs.”
||6. Estimate of the revenue and of the yearly expense, probably of the year 1685. The expenses are made on a medium of five years ended at Lady Day 1684, and the late King mentioned.|
|7. Petition (signed) of Charles Bowles, master of His Majeslty's pavilions, hales, tents, and toils, addressed to the Lords of “his Maties Treary;” showing that the petitioner's brother William Bowles, with Robert Child, Esq., since deceased, were appointed to that office by patent of 14 Charles the Second; that after the death of Mr. Child the offices were executed by his brother and father, Sir William Bowles, and the accounts from 1672 to 1675 had been delivered to the auditors; that the petitioner in King Charles II.'s reign had been Deputy Commissary of the Musters, and had declared at the beginning of King James' reign that he would not pass any officer who should refuse the oaths and test, on account of which (as he believed) the accounts were refused to be passed, &c., praying that they might be presented before their Lordships [“your Lordshipp” in orig.] and declared.|
Minuted:—“A Lre to the audrs that when they attend my Lords wth any accts that they bring these to be declared.”
Undated; but the accounts above referred to were declared in 1685. See “Audit Office Declared Accounts.”
|8. Copy of Royal Order for the deduction of 12d. out of every pound from the pay of the forces: one-third to be applied for Exchequer fees and to the Paymaster of the Forces, and two-thirds to remain in the paymaster's hands; to be disposed of, either for the service of Chelsea Hospital or to the payment of the establishment of the forces. Dated at Whitehall, 1 Jan. 1685.|
|9. Bond given by George Viscount Grandison and the Hon. Henry Howard, of the parish of St. James, Westminster, Middlesex, Esq., to King James II. for the payment of 1,580l. The condition was to pay 790l. to Sir Henry Ashbournham, Bart., and others, Comrs of hearth money and excise. Dated 1 April 1686.|
||10. Letter of the Earl of Bath to the Lord Treasurer, enclosing the several papers he had received from his Lordship, concerning Mr. Treweek and the other supervisors of the tin blowing-houses; together with his opinion on the whole matter, stating that if Mr. Treweek had thought fit to prosecute the embezzlements of tin, mentioned in his information in the Court of Stannaries, his Lordship would have received an account of their discovery and punishment, for upon legal conviction, the person buying or selling uncoined tin, ought to pay a fine to the King, of the full value of the tin, and forfeit the tin; that the owners of blowing houses and all tinners, before they marked any tin, were obliged to enter their several hot marks, or signs of tin, in the book of marks, kept anciently in the Exchequer at Lostwithiel, and of late in the Stannary Court; that the owners of blowing-houses were obliged to present the names of the blowers, who ought to be sworn to deal justly between man and man; that the charter of Henry VII. seemed to imply that the owners of blowing-houses were themselves obliged to certify the quantities of tin blown in their respective houses, &c.; that the last convocation misbehaving themselves, the King dissolved them, and since that there had been no convocation called, so that the rights and customs of the Stannaries (being disused during all the time of the rebellion) some would persuade were grown obsolete, and were not so well apprehended as was necessary for the King's service, since the records of the duchy were burnt, together with the Exchequer at Lostwithiel, where they were kept, and further that the Stannary towns which elected convocators would (if His Majesty pleased to summon a convocation) he had no doubt, elect such loyal sober persons, as would breathe new life into those languishing laws. Dated 15 May 1686.|
Accompanied by the papers referred to, consisting of:—
A letter of George Treweek, one of the supervisors of the blowing-houses in the counties of Cornwall and Devon, addressed to the Lord Treasurer, informing him that he had discovered that several parcels of tin, blown the last year, had not been brought to coinage in the time appointed, according to the custom of the Stannaries, viz., at Michaelmas, at which time all tin blown in that year ought to be coined; also as to other irregularities in the preparation of the tin.
“An account of severall parcells of tinn imbezled in the year 1684 & 1685.”
A petition of the supervisors of the tin blowing-houses of Cornwall and Devon, praying for an order to be made for laying out money in the prosecution of delinquents; also matters proposed to be put in execution in the Stannaries, in order to the better preventing of frauds of the King's dues, &c. In ten separate items.
“The Earle of Bathe's answer to the proposalls of ye supervisors.”
In this paper the ten proposals set down for the improvement of Stannaries are recapitulated, together with the Earl's replies.
8 pages; 3 of brief size.
||11. Letter signed “Jo. Arundell,” without address, stating that he would not neglect a minute to acknowledge the receipt of his correspondent's letter; and the enclosed from the Lord Treasurer, which was directed to others as well as himself, he would take care to deliver, &c. Dated 19 July 86.|
||12. Letter of the Earl of Bath to the Lord Treasurer, acknowledging the receipt of his Lordship's letter for the speedy calling a convocation or parliament of tinners; expressing his readiness to do so, and appointing September as the fittest time; asking his Lordship to hasten his warrant with His Majesty's signature for the calling the same. Dated 22 July 1686.|
(Holograph.) 3 pages.
||13. Letter of Sir R[obert] Sawyer, Attorney General, addressed to Henry Guy, Esq., at the Treasury, stating that he conceived it fit that His Majesty by privy seal directed to the Lord Warden, should command him to summon and hold a convocation in the Stannaries, according to the laws and customs of the Stannaries. Dated 29 July 1686.|
||14. Letter of the Earl of Bath to the Lord Treasurer, stating that he had received his Lordship's warrant for calling a convocation of tinners; but desiring a mistake in it, might be rectified in the privy seal, viz.:—In the preamble of the warrant the Stannaries of Cornwall and Devon were mentioned; but in the body, which gave authority for calling the same, mention was only made of the town of Lostwithiel, which only concerned Cornwall; and those of Devon would expect their convocation at their old accustomed place, for they would not come, any more than those of Cornwall, to any such convocation but in their proper country, according to usage; and if it were appointed otherwise it would prove only an assembly of disputers about their privileges: proposing this amendment, instead of naming “Lostwithiel” to say “at the old and accustomed places, used in Cornwall and Devon.” Dated 10 Aug. 1686.|
||15. Report to the Lord Treasurer of certain officers of the Navy Office, on the petition of Sir Edward Dering, in favour of his having a privy seal passed, as he desired, to discharge him of a debt of 2,666l. 13s. 4d. Dated 20 Sept. 1686.|
Minuted:—“November 4, 1686.
“Mr. Hewer is of opinion that it may be a prejudice for the King to grant the privy seal desired, and that Sir Edward Dering is fully discharged already, and can never be troubled in it.”
The petition of Sir Edward Dering, Knight, addressed to Laurence, Earl of Rochester, Lord High Treasurer, showing that he had a patent from the late King to furnish the Navy with stores, and had furnished quantities of goods, in particular in the great sickness year, and in the times of both the wars with Holland, and had suffered for want of payment, according to contract; and a considerable sum still remained due to him; and amongst other dealings which he had, an imprest bill for 2,666l. 13s. 4d. had been vacated by consent between the Comrs of the Navy and himself; but was afterwards put “in super” and charged upon the petitioner in the Treasurer of the Navy's account, by Mr. Fenn, then Cashier of the Navy; praying that the privy seal for the petitioner's discharge might pass, which Sir Charles Porter, who had satisfied the demand, had seen, and that he (the petitioner) who had suffered great injury and expense, might stand fair in the noble favour and good opinion of his Lordship.
[From the docquet it appears the above sum was given by privy seal to the Duke of Monmouth and the Lord Latimer by the late King.]
||16. Letter of the Earl of Bath without address, stating that he is very well satisfied with his correspondent's reasons for staying; that he had received the Lord Treasurer's letter, with a privy seal bearing date the 8th inst. for calling the convocation; upon which, without delay, he issued the usual precepts to the four Cornish Mayors, for meeting at Lostwithiel on the 26th of the next month, to choose their respective stannators; but he was much surprised at what his correspondent had told him, of further errors and mistakes in the said privy seal; which if he had duly considered, he would not have sent forth his summons for the meeting, but that could not then be remedied; desiring his correspondent to forthwith attend the Lord Treasurer, Mr. Guy, and the Treasury, for the despatching another privy seal to him, with all necessary amendments, bearing the same date with the former, by virtue of which he had issued the several precepts; otherwise, he must dissolve the intended assembly, which might be of ill consequence; further, though he had seen several of their considerable countrymen, and should see more, he had not informed them of the mistakes in the privy seal, &c. Dated 23 Sept. 1686.|
(Holograph.) 4 pages.
||17. Letter of the Earl of Bath [to the Lord Treasurer] stating that he hoped his two last, of 26th and 30th Oct., which brought the minutes of all the proceedings of the convocation, with his former [letter] of the 23rd, came to his Lordship's hands; that he was ready immediately to come to London, but dared not without the King's permission, and besought his Lordship to move His Majesty, that he might by his personal attendance represent those things with which he was intrusted. In the meantime assuring his Lordship that no meeting could ever end better that had so ill a prospect of agreement before it met. The Bishop of Bristol had endeavoured to prejudice the tinners against him, insinuating that he (the Bishop) had by his interest at Court procured the convocation “to get them a farm” and a good price for their tin; on all occasions making use of the Lord Treasurer's name and the King's authority; acting therein contrary to his (the Earl's) commission: which made it very difficult to reconcile all things to the satisfaction of the tinners and convocators, and impossible to mention a less price, as the Bishop had so raised their expectations.|
The other parliament of tinners in Devonshire which had usually been called after that in Cornwall, might as well be held, as in former times, before his (the Earl's) Vice-Warden, Sir Nicholas Stanning, who had been in the King's service all the summer in the camp, and at Portsmouth with his (the Earl's) regiment, and would not return to the west till the 6th or 7th of the month; further begging his Lordship to suspend his judgment on those affairs, not doubting to give him a true state of the country and entire satisfaction. Dated 2 Nov. 1686.
||18. An Order of the King in Council, reciting the report of the Earl of Rochester, in favour of Ester de Civille, from whom Philip Warwick, Esq., deceased, had borrowed 1,000l. previous to his going as envoy to Sweden; approving the said report and commanding the payment of the same 1,000l. with interest, out of the money due to the said Philip Warwick. Dated 30 Dec. 1686.|
||19. An abstract of the accounts of the paymaster of the works, including:—|
The account of Hugh May and Philip Packer, Esquires, late paymasters of the works, of the moneys by them received and paid for that service; between the first of June 1665 and the last of October 1672.
Accounts of the said Philip as above, from 1 April 1683 to March 1684, and from the last of March 1684 to 1st of April 1685 (the latter rendered by his son Philip).
Account rendered by the same for building a palace at Winchester, between 1 Jan. 1682 and the last of May 1686. And
Account by him for building the privy gallery, between 1 April 1685 and the last of Dec. 1686.
||20. “Copy of an instruction given to Sir Nathan Johnson, Governor of the Leeward Islands in 1686,” as to the remission of fines or forfeitures above 10l.|
[Most likely an enclosure, copied considerably later.]
||21. “Extract from a Mint Indenture in 1686,” showing what Thomas Neale covenanted to do, in relation to the coining of four sorts of money of crown gold, viz., as to their weights and values.|
[Most likely an enclosure.]
||22. A small book, imperfect at the beginning, consisting of an army list, arranged under the different regiments in a tabular form, showing the names of captains, lieutenants, ensigns, gunners, &c.: also the list of the various garrisons.|
Undated; but most likely 1686, from mention of John Lord Churchill, who was only created Baron Churchill in 1685, and many of the names being found in the Earl of Ranelagh's account ending 30 June 1686.
24 small pages.
|23. A debtor and creditor account of tin farthings and half-pence [coined]. The account appears to have been made up to 10 Feb. 1686.|
||24. Report of the Lords of the Treasury, under their signature, to the King; stating that the master and assistants of the hospital, in the New Work, near the borough of Leicester, by their petition had set forth, in behalf of the poor there, that certain fee-farm rents, of the yearly value of 230l. 1s. 7d., were yearly paid by the receiver of the duchy of Lancaster to the petitioners for the support of the hospital; and 20 marks yearly for salary to the master; but about six years past, the trustees for the sale of those rents granted part of the rents away, so that the said allowance fell short 24l. yearly, besides the master's fee; they therefore prayed the King to continue the said allowance of 230l. 1s. 7d. and 20 marks per ann., by settling fee-farm rents upon the said hospital to that value; informing His Majesty that the said revenue for three or four years had fallen short 24l. 9s. 2¾d., and that the 20 marks to the master had been paid no further than to Michaelmas 1682, and advising the King to issue his warrant to the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster to pay the said arrears, until the trustees for the sale of fee-farm rents could find some rents in the duchy yet unsold to supply the defect, &c.|
Dated 15 Feb. 1686.
Minuted:—“To rest till there be a Chancellor of the Duchy appointed.”
||25. Copy of the report of the Lords of the Treasury to the King, stating that they had considered the petition of John Low, Esq., setting forth that in the reign of Henry the Eighth the manor of Alderwasley in the county of Derby was granted to his ancestors, and a parcel of common called Millmoore, or Millheymoor, which was enjoyed till 1639, when 800 acres thereof were decreed by the Duchy Court to King Charles the First; whereupon, in 1640, the King granted it to Richard Nevill and his heirs, at the fee-farm rent of 35l. 19s.; that the said common had been enjoyed as common till lately, when an arrear of 500 and odd pounds was charged “in super,” and a lease granted thereof till the arrears were satisfied at 5l. per ann., and the arrears of the said 5l. per ann. to Michaelmas 1683; and the other arrears, being more than the value of the said fee-farm, were granted to Tho. Windham, Esq., by King Charles the Second; that the petitioner's grandfather, father, and five uncles were commission officers, in arms for King Charles the First throughout “the rebellion;” and that the petitioner, who had the interest of Nevill, was desirous to obtain the fee-farm rent, and a discharge of the arrears; which petition had been referred to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Attorney-General, who reported in favour of the discharge of the said arrears, and of the grant of the said Millmoore and premises; advising the King that the grant to Mr. Nevill, and the assignment to Mr. Eyre, must be first surrendered, &c. Dated 26 Feb. 1686.|
Accompanied by the copies of the two reports referred to.
3 pages and 3 half-pages.
|March 4 and
|26. Report of Sir John Buckworth, Cha. Duncombe, and Ja. Hoare, Esq., made on a letter of one Mr. Elia Palmer, in which they express their opinion that the said Mr. Palmer would deserve the 2,000l. reward, as in the letter is desired, if he carried out what he proposed with respect to the tin in Cornwall. He was to find persons to take the management of His Majesty's pre-emption and coinage of tin, paying the tinner 3l. 10s. per cent., and 20,000l. per ann. to the King; and they were also of opinion the said managers should have the liberty to make farthings, halfpence, and pence for England, Scotland, Ireland, and America, &c. Dated 4 March 1686.|
Also, a letter of Henry Guy to the said Sir John Buckworth and the others, inclosing the paper of Mr. Elia Palmer in answer to the foregoing report, for their consideration and report. Dated 14 March 1686–7.
||27. Petition of Richard Earl of Ranelagh to the King, showing that the Lords of the Treasury here, for receiving and paying the revenue of Ireland, had empowered Thomas Taylor, Esq., to make payment by way of imprest, which was in effect a suspension of the petitioner from his offices of Vice-Treasurer, Receiver-General, and Treasurer-at-War; seeking that the effects of the farmers of the revenue of Ireland may be made available to pay the petitioner 2,608l., the remainder of 4,445l. 16s. 6d. due to him for fees and poundages on payments made by the said Taylor.|
With the order for the Lords of the Treasury to consider the case. Dated 8 March 1686–7.
||28. “Principal Officers of the Ordnance, their report upon Sir Geo. Whartons interest accounts,” &c. (A copy.) Dated 10 March 1686–7. [Sir George Wharton, Bart., was Treasurer and Paymaster of the Ordnance.]|
|29. Report of O. Wynne, Tho. Neale, and Ja. Hoare, officers of the Mint, addressed to the Lords [of the Treasury], on their Lordships' order, inclosing a paper of the Lord Maitland's about standard pieces of gold and silver, to be delivered to him for the Mint in Scotland; acquainting their Lordships that there had not been any indented trial pieces made since those which were made by direction of the King and Council, the 19th of Oct. 1660, which said pieces were disposed of to the Treasury, to the Warden of the Mint in the Tower, to the Master and worker of the Mint, to the Wardens and Company of Goldsmiths in Goldsmiths' Hall, to the Treasury of Scotland, and to the general and other officers of the Mint of Scotland; their report finds that standard pieces were wanted, and it might be requisite for their Lordships to be attended by the Wardens and some other of the Goldsmiths, and themselves to receive directions to prepare standard pieces of gold and silver for the several services. Dated 7 April 1687.|
Accompanied by the paper referred to, in which it is stated that the Lord Maitland had to open the Mint in Scotland on 1 May then next coming.
||30. Report of [Sir] R[obert] Sawyer [Attorney-General], addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, stating that he had considered Mr. Blunt's petition, and found that the late King demised several derelict and encroached lands in Norfolk, Kent, Middlesex, and Southampton, to George Howard, Esq. and others for 31 years, at 10l. per ann. rent, with a covenant to account for the profits, beyond 8,000l. per ann.; advising that the King might grant the premises in reversion to the petitioner. Dated 23 April 1687.|
||31. Copy of a report signed B. Bridges, T. Done, and Wm. Aldworth, addressed to their “Lopps” [of the Treasury], stating that they had considered Mr. Jones' petition, and acquainted the late managers of the revenue of hearth money with the contents thereof, (a copy of whose letter they annexed, together with a certificate from Sir Robert Howard, Auditor of the Exchequer, certifying that the said managers had paid into the Exchequer 150,000l.,) and that the first 50,000l. of the advance money was paid into the Exchequer before the passing of the patent for that management, but they had received no tallies for that amount, nor for 9,851l. 2s. 8d. of the remaining 100,000l. of the said advance money, nor for 19,369l. 2s. of their rent, payable half-yearly; complaining that the perfecting the accounts was hindered by the said tallies not being supplied, and submitting three inquiries as to how they should proceed in relation to the said tallies; sending in addition a copy of Capt. Shales' answer delivered to Mr. Guy. Dated 14 July 1687.|
The copy of the letter and certificate are not now with the above, but the following is a description of the paper last referred to, viz.:—
A paper touching a bond sealed by [Captain] John Shales [commissary of His Majesty's forces], and John Hinde, in a penalty of 9,000l., with condition to pay John Jones 4,680l., viz., 4,500l for money lent, and 180l. for eight months' interest. The said Jones received as additional security three Exchequer tallies for 5,050l., which had been granted to Shales on the security of the hearth money, and pressed the payment of his claim against Capt. Shales, the said John Hind having become a bankrupt. Dated 1 Jan. “1686/5.”
On the dorse is a copy of a letter of the said Jones to the Lord Chancellor, with a copy of his Lordship's order to Mr. Aldworth, to take care that no allowance was made to the late managers of the hearth duty upon the tallies for 4,500l. till the money advanced thereon and interest were satisfied.
||32. Report by the Comrs of Excise on the petition of Charles Banson, one of the general surveyors of the Excise, who had been bound for his brother, a defaulter to the extent of 1,653l. 15s. 5¾d.; recommending him to the King's clemency and goodness. Dated 4 Aug. 1687.|
Also the petition of the said Charles to the King.
A further petition of the said Charles Banson, gent., to the Lords of the Treasury, praying them to move His Majesty to remit the debt. Without date, but most likely not much later.
And a third petition, recapitulating the previous one, praying a consideration of his case. On the dorse is, “21 June 1688. To speake to the Commiss. Excise.”
||33. Certificate, by Tho. Duppa, gentleman usher, of the swearing in and admission of Charles Powell as musician in ordinary to King James the Second of the private music, in place of Geoffry Aldworth, deceased. Dated 8 Aug. 1687.|
||34. Copy of a warrant of the Lords of the Treasury to Sir Robert Howard, Knight, auditor of the receipt of the Exchequer and others, in favour of Sir Thomas Duppa, Knight, who had been a collector of tenths from the clergy in the diocese of Exeter. Dated, 20 Oct., 1687.|
A bond given to the said Thomas Duppa, Knight, by Francis Blight, of Bodmin, for the performance of the office of agent, for collection of tenths from the clergy, as above.
Also, “an account of the tenths of the diocese of Exon for Sir Thomas Duppa, Knight, due to the Kings Majesty, at Christmas, 1686, made by me, Francis Blight.”
||35. A debtor and creditor account, entitled:—“His Maties revenue for the year ended at Michaelmas 1687, and expence for the same year.”|
The revenue amounted to 2,330,845l. 9s. 9½d., and the expenditure was 46,991l. 12s. 5¼d. less than the income.
||36. A paper, entitled:—“The state of the rent for post-fines, per ann. 2276li,” in the several years, 1682 to 1687, showing the sums paid for annuities, &c., out of the same.|
Minuted:—“A copy of this to bee sent to my Lord Grandison.”
|[? Early in
|37. A proposal as to the pre-emption and coinage of tin, if the King should manage the tin in co-partnership. In four clauses; also a supplement to the former proposal, for His Majesty keeping the whole pre-emption to himself.|
Without date, but supposed to be early in 1688, from the subject of the management of the tin being then much under consideration.
|38. A memorandum or schedule, signed “Fran. Blight,” as to sums due by him to Sir Thomas Duppa, Knight, on the receipt of the tenths of the diocese of Exeter, in which he promises to pay 137l. 4s. 8d. due to the said Sir Thomas by bill of exchange, &c.|
Dated, 19 Jan. 1687.
||39. Proposal by some persons calling themselves J. K. and Company, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, under the signature of the Earl of Bath, who had authority to contract with the said persons; viz., to join His Majesty in partnership for the pre-emption and coinage of tin. The said company promised to use their utmost endeavours to advance this branch of His Majesty's revenue by improving the price of tin, and in coining pence, half-pence, and farthings of intrinsic value for England, Scotland, Ireland, and the American plantations. Dated, 31 Jan. 1687.|
|40. “An explanation of the Earle of Bathe's last proposall, with an additionall proposall, concerning the tynne farme.”|
Stating that J. K. & Co., London merchants, proposed to pay the tinner 3l. 10s. per cent., stannary weight, and to His Majesty, for his pre-emption and coinage duty of tin, 16,000l. per ann., and would leave the coinage of farthings and half-pence to the King's disposal, or they would pay for the whole 18,000l., as farmers, for 11 or 21 years. Signed by the Earl.
Undated, but probably about January 1687–8, by comparison with the above paper of 31 Jan. 1687–8.
||41. “A calculation of what money must be advanced to pay for one years tynn, at 3 li. 10s. per c., and what profit may be made when sold.”|
Undated, but probably about Jan. 1687–8 by comparison with others.
|42. Proposals made to the King, if he should keep the tin in his own hands, and manage it by three Comrs, viz., if the King provided 60,000l. for the coinage, the proposer would give security for one year's tin over and above the 60,000l., to be paid by the King at the interest of 4l. 10s. per cent. He and two other Commrs. would expect for the management 2s. 6d. out of every pound, i.e., one-eighth of the profits, after all charges, interest, &c., in Cornwall and London were deducted, and to be at liberty to coin as many pence, half-pence, and farthings as would be exhausted in the King's dominions.|
Undated, but see other papers in Jan. 1687–8.
||43. A paper headed:—“Several proposals made by London merchants concerning His Majesty's pre-emption and coinage of tin unto the Earl of Bath, Lord Warden of the Stannaries, and presented by his Lordship to the Right Honourable the Lords Comrs of His Majesty's Treasury, according to the commission given unto the said Earl, to treat concerning the same.”|
Undated, but about Jan. 1687–8, by comparison with another paper of 31 Jan. 1687–8.
|44. A paper headed:—“The Case of the Tynn rightly stated,” showing what the King's rights were in relation to the tin in Devon and Cornwall, asserting, 1stly, that in all grants the King reserved 4s. a cwt. for tin made in Cornwall, and that the tinners were obliged to bring all their tin to the four towns of Liskerd, Lostwithiel, Truro, and Helston to be stamped; 2ndly, that the King could take the whole tin made, at the market price, which was settled by a convocation of tinners, “who are a parliament”; 3rdly, that this taking the tin is called pre-emption, because the King had the privilege to buy it before all others, the contract being made by the Lord Warden, and by the convocation of 24 tinners, and every law made by them, as much obliged every tinner as an act of the three estates of Parliament did every individual member of the kingdom. It then traces the history of this pre-emption from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and shows the reasons the late farmers did not gain by their contract, and the reasons why the pre-emption of tin at 3l. 10s. per cwt. might be managed to better advantage. It further lays down directions, by the observance of which the controller might prevent embezzlement of tin; and then gives reasons why, in the contract now to be made the tinners could not, as formerly, receive their money at Truro on certain days, after all the tin of the county was coined, except it were agreed upon at the convocation.|
Undated, but probably in March or April 1688, as there was a proposal to take all the tin to be raised in Cornwall and Devon at 3l. 10s. per cwt., dated 30 April 1688.
2 pages and 2 lines.
|45. Letter of John Shales, Esq., addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, stating that he had informed the gentlemen who had proposed to give two-thirds of the clear profits for the management of the King's pre-emption of tin, that their Lordships were inclined to take 10,000l. per annum for the said two-thirds, which proposal some of them readily embraced, but when Sir Henry Hobart returned to town and advised with them they were discouraged, and were inclined to adhere to their first proposition, giving summarily their reasons. Dated 24 April 1688.|
Accompanied by:—(1.) “The proposall of Mr. Shales & al. for ye præemption of tyn,” under eight divisions. Signed by Sir H. Hobart and six others.
(2.) A copy of the same, to which are subjoined four considerations by the said John Shales. Dated, 28 February 1687–8.
(3.) “A computation of the Kings two-thirds of the præemption of tynn.”
(4.) “Methods to consume ye tinn of England beyond its formr consumption, to ye advantage of his Matie., in His customes and excise,” under four divisions.
(5.) Some trifling memoranda about Sir Henry “Hubbard” and others.
6 pages and 2 halves.
||46. A paper addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, signed by the Earl of Bath, stating, by way of introduction, that he had conceived, that by their Lordships' order of 10 Feb. last, the King had laid aside his resolutions to a partnership with the merchants of London in the pre-emption and coinage duty of tin; that before he took his journey into the west, he released the merchants by him procured for partnership, that they might attend their Lordships, with their proposals for the said farm, if willing to engage in it alone; but the said Earl had received fresh advice from those merchants, which occasioned the letter written by him from Plymouth; that the expectation of the country seemed much raised by the King's letters, communicated to the convocation or parliament of tinners; but what merchants were likely to undertake that farm their Lordships best knew; nevertheless as their Lordships had encouraged the said Earl to renew his endeavours, and as they were free to receive any new proposals for farming the said pre-emption and coinage duty of tin, he had discoursed with persons of experience, and the accompanying proposal, dated 30 April 1688, was the result.|
Then follows the said proposal, in five clauses. Accompanied by a query in relation to the second clause, with the answer thereto.
|47. A paper docquetted:—“Tyn affairs.”|
Memoranda, under four heads, for inquiries to be made as to the quantity, value, and disposal of the tin; perhaps with a view to farming it. Undated, but query April or May 1688, by comparison with other papers.
||48. “The further answer of the present undertakers for the Tynn Farme,” addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, and signed by the Earl of Bath. Dated 31 May 1688.|
||49. Draft of Articles of Agreement between the Right Hon. John Lord Belasyse and other Comrs of the Treasury, on behalf of the King of the one part, and the Right Hon. John Earl of Bath, for himself and partners on the other; covenanting to take all the tin raised in the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall for 11 years, commencing 24 June then coming, at 3l. 10s. per cent., and to pay for a farm of the sole pre-emption of tin and the duty commonly called the coinage duty, during the same period, 4s., “for every hundred of tin.” Dated [ ] May 1688.|
One side of a large sheet.
||50. A paper signed by the Earl of Bath, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, expressing the willingness of the undertakers for the tin farm to agree to the terms of a paper dated 31 May, concerning the limitation of the tin coins, and further stating that they had empowered the said Earl to sign the contract in relation to the said tin farm. Dated 2 June 1688.|
Accompanied by the paper referred to.
||51. Memorial of the farmers of His Majesty's pre-emption and coinage duty of tin; praying that all the engines, presses, tools, and utensils belonging to the King in Skinners' Hall, which were made use of for the late tin farthings, might be delivered by inventory to Mr. Richard Holt of London, merchant, one of the farmers, or to Mr. Eliah Palmer, for the use of the said farmers; and that they might have the use of Skinners' Hall till 8 August then next coming, when the rent paid by His Majesty would expire; in order that they might prepare their patterns of pence, half-pence, and farthings for the King's approbation; and that they might consider whether it would be fitting to continue the Stannary mint there or remove it. Signed “Bathe.” Dated 26 June 1688.|
|52. Petition of William Allwood and divers others, on behalf of themselves and many others having estates near the Thames, in the parishes of Bermondsey and Redriffe, in the county of Surrey, to the number of 100 persons and more; addressed to the Lords of the Treasury; praying them to stop any new grant to the Earl of Terrington, or any others, and all proceedings in respect to a patent granted to Isaac Marryot, to their detriment.|
Also copies of Marryot's petition, which was referred by the Lords of the Treasury to the Attorney-General, and his report thereon, dated 21 June 1688, together with the copy of a “cessat processus” against Isaac Marryott's proceedings.
||53. “An inventory of the presses, engines, tooles, goods, & other utensills, belonging to His Majtie att Skinners Hall, taken this 12th of July 1688, and delivered to Mr. Richart Holt, mcht, pursuant to the Rt Honble the Lords of the Treasury's order,” dated the 3rd July 1688.|
With an acknowledgment of the receipt of the same by the said Richard Holt.
It is docquetted:—“October 15th, 1689,” so that it seems to be a copy.
2 long pages.
||54. Royal Warrant to John Lord Belasyse and the rest of the Comrs of the Treasury, ordering them to issue their warrant for the cutting of certain woods in the forest of Dean, in the co. of Gloucester, to the value of 800l. per annum, without prejudice to the forest, &c. Dated 17 July 1688.|
Also “an account of such wood and underwoods within His Mats forrest of Deane as may, without any prejudice to the said forrest, be cutt downe in the places hereunder menc[i]oned, and which will never be tymber or of greater value than now it is.”
||55. Report of three officers of the Mint to the Lords of the Treasury, on the nature of the office of controller of the tin farm: giving an exact account of what the controller's duties would be; for the discharge of which he would require at least two deputies or clerks, with the constant care and diligence of the controller himself; and stating their opinion, that he would deserve a salary of 500l. or 600l. a year. Dated Mint, 30 August 1688.|
||56. Petition of Anthony Eyre, Esq., addressed to the King, showing that the manor of Minshall-Vernon, in Cheshire, had been conveyed in 1663 by the King [when Duke of York] and certain trustees, to Col. Anthony Eyre, the petitioner's father; but that the conveyance being in the hands of Serjeant Bigland, in his chambers at Grays Inn, was burnt, praying a grant or confirmation of the same grant, as he was about granting long leases of the said estate.|
On Sept. 8, 1688, the King referred the petition to the Lords of the Treasury. This reference is signed by “Sunderland.” On 13 Sept. they referred it to Mr. Attorney-General, who subjoined his report thereon. Dated 15 Sept. 1688, advising the confirmation of the same.
||57. Reply, signed by four persons on behalf of themselves and company of contractors for the pre-emption of tin, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, in answer to a letter from the said Lords, desiring the payment of the remainder of the 8,000l.; stating that they were ready to pay the same as soon as they could have their patent passed, according to the contract; but immediately after the contract was made the Prince of Wales was born, upon which event their Lordships concurred with the Earl of Bath, that they had need of good counsel, and ever since had been the long vacation, and the said Earl was gone to the “convocation” in the west, and they dare not proceed to any conclusion till his Lordship's return; they had in the meantime performed their parts to the tinners, and paid them 3l. 10s. per cent. for all their tin, and lent them money gratis, and though the difficulties of the times were such that they could not sell any of their farmed tin, yet they had made full provision to pay for all the tin. Dated 5 Oct. 1688.|
||58. Letter of the Earl of Bath addressed to Lord Godolphin, stating that in his last he had given an account of the proceedings of the convocation or parliament of tinners at Lostwithiel, which had adjourned to Saltash. He had made his Lordship's compliment to his countrymen, the gentlemen of the said Cornish parliament, who returned thanks for his Lordship's favour. On Thursday the 11th inst. the convocation met at Saltash, when he thought there would be nothing to do but sign the laws and ratify the agreement for the farm; but instead, he found the influence of the times had so wrought on their tempers that some were grown peevish and suspicious, and started new jealousies and difficulties, which engaged them in disputes till Saturday afternoon, when he was forced to acquaint them that the King's service called him to Plymouth, and the next day being the King's birthday, he invited several of them over with him, and the convocation was adjourned to Monday, at which time he hoped they would have been better qualified, but found still the same heats; but at last the agreement (of which the enclosed was a copy) was sealed. He then went to Tavistock to the Devonshire parliament of tinners; their interest in tin was small in comparison with Cornwall, but their concern for their privileges as great as the others, but the matter was finally brought to a conclusion, as his Lordship would find by the enclosed copy. The reason the contractors had not paid the 8,000l. he conceived was, the general disturbance of affairs, and because their patent was not passed. He hoped there would be no further delay, unless the present storm that hung over them were a disturbance to their measures. He need not remind his Lordship of his pains, trouble and expense, but hoped his petition would be attended to. He had lent his name to encourage responsible men and “undertakers,” but hoped he might be excused from involving his fortune, and that his name might be left out of the patent. His Majesty's proclamation and Order in Council reached Cornwall last night, and would give great satisfaction and assurance of His Majesty's gracious resolutions throughout England; but the corporations in Cornwall (making up a great part of the exceptions in the proclamation) would not equally enjoy the royal favours. His Majesty had commanded him by that post to take care of the city of Exeter, and to raise some part of the militia to secure the peace of it under such officers as he could put no confidence in. Exeter was a place of vast importance, therefore he craved His Majesty's more particular directions. The Mayor, who was major of the militia of Exeter, was a person in whom he had no confidence, as he had often faithfully acquainted the King; the rest of the officers had tendered him their commissions, and desired to be excused from serving under him (the Mayor), so that his Lordship might easily judge what was to be expected from such a commander in case of necessity. He had not thought fit to remove him, but would be glad of His Majesty's pleasure therein by the next post. Without putting the militia of that city into better hands it was impossible (unless the King sent some of his standing forces) to preserve that important place long in peace, or defend it against an enemy. Dated Plymouth, 23 Oct. 1688.|
Accompanied by the two agreements referred to.
||59. Declaration of John Smith, gent., Receiver General of the Revenues of the King in the counties of Norfolk and Huntingdon, finished at Michaelmas 1681. Declared 8 Dec. 1688.|
1 page (brief size).