Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:49:34.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI Lord Cutts's Letters, 1695

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2009

John Childs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Acknowledgements 373

Abbreviations 374

Introduction 375

Editorial Practice 380

Lord Cutts's Letters, 1695 381

Appendix: Biographical Index of army Officers Mentioned in the Text 407

The publication of this edition of Lord Cutts's Letters is by the kind permission of the current owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Moore, of ‘Hancox’, Whatlington, Sussex. The editor is especially mindful of Mrs. Moore's generous hospitality and assistance during the transcription and preparation of these documents. The editor also wishes to thank Dr. Paul Hopkins for drawing his attention to these letters of Lord Cutts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Camden Fourth Series , Volume 39: Camden Miscellany XXX , July 1990 , pp. 371 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 375 note 1. Principally, PRO, WO 4 & WO 5; BL, Add. MSS. 9,719–9, 735 and 38,694–38,707.

page 375 note 2. Childs, John, The British Army of William III (Manchester, 1987), pp. 26–30, 165.Google Scholar

page 375 note 3. Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 46–51, 141–6Google Scholar; Horwitz, Henry, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III (Manchester, 1977), pp. 146–50.Google Scholar

page 376 note 4. Although the volume of letters is headed ‘1694’, this is an Old Style dating with the new year beginning on 25 March. By reckoning the new year to commence on 1 January, the letters fall into 1695.

page 376 note 5. For a general biography of Cults see DNB. Further details of his career will be found in the footnotes to the text, especially numbers 19, 23 and 39, in HMC, Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS., pp. 64–208Google Scholar, and Childs, , Nobles, Gentlemen, p. 23.Google Scholar

page 376 note 6. Symcox, Geoffrey, The Crisis of French Sea Power, 1688–1697 (The Hague, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgan, W.T., ‘The British West Indies during King William's War, 1689–97’, Journal of Modern History, ii. (1930), pp. 398–400Google Scholar; Harlow, V.T., Christopher Codrington, 1668–1710 (Oxford, 1928), pp. 34, 64–72Google Scholar; Ehrman, John, The Navy in the War of William III, 1689–1697 (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 505–53, 609.Google Scholar

page 377 note 7. For a general biography of William Blathwayt see, Jacobsen, G.A., William Blathwayt, a late seventeenth century administrator (New Haven and London, 1932).Google Scholar

page 377 note 8. The volume was MSS. 9,450 in the Phillipps Collection. See, The Phillipps Manuscripts, ed. Munby, A.N.L. (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Munby, A.N.L., Phillipps Studies (Cambridge, 1951–1960), v. 57–8.Google Scholar

page 379 note 9. BL, Add. MSS. 9,722, f. 70; Berkshire County Record Office, Reading, Trumbull MSS., Add. MSS. 118.

page 379 note 10. Luttrell, iv. 533, 552, 559, 561.

page 379 note 11. Trumbull MSS., Add. MSS. 118, Sir William Trumbull to Major-General William Stewart, 2/12 March 1697.

page 379 note 12. Houlding, J.A., Fit for Service: the Training of the British Army, 1715–1795 (Oxford, 1981), p. 297.Google Scholar

page 381 note 1. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 381 note 2. See Appendix.

page 381 note 3. During William III's reign, a battalion of foot possessed a paper strength of 650 privates and NCOs, and 42 commissioned officers (Cf, xi.176–8; Dorset County Record Office, Dorchester, Ilchester MSS., Box 278). In practice, Blathwayt assumed that a battalion contained a maxumum of 600 privates and NCOs (BL, Add. MSS.9,724, f. 169). The majority of infantry battalions consisted of twelve companies of 50 men each, with one grenadier company.

page 381 note 4. Legal recruiting could only involve unmarried men between the ages of sixteen and forty who were not householders (Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 103–19).Google Scholar

page 381 note 5. ‘spotted fever’ generally referred to typhus.

page 381 note 6. See Appendix.

page 381 note 7. Lillingstone's battalion had marched into Plymouth ready for embarkation on 27 and 28 December 1694 (CSPD 1695, p. 303Google Scholar). On 14 January 1695, Cutts had been instructed to make a draft of 1,200 men from the four regiments in the Plymouth garrison to form a new battalion especially for the expedition to Martinique. Although Lillingstone's regiment was also to sail with this expedition ‘entire’, its officers were excused service in the West Indies and were promised places in other regiments in England and in Flanders. Only Colonel Lillingstone, three captains, two lieutenants, and one ensign accompanied the expedition (CSPD 1695, pp. 305–6).Google Scholar

page 382 note 8. See Appendix.

page 382 note 9. See Appendix.

page 382 note 10. Lieutenant-Colonel Theophilus Rabinières.

page 382 note 11. Holcroft Blood. See Appendix.

page 382 note 12. See Appendix.

page 383 note 13. The ‘Jamaica Regiment’ was the new regiment being formed at Plymouth to serve in the West Indies under Lillingstone (see footnote 7).

page 383 note 14. These abstracts are not included amongst the letters and have not been traced.

page 383 note 15. The deputy commissaries of the musters.

page 383 note 16. There were twelve transport ships (Morgan, , ‘The British West Indies during King William's War’, p. 401).Google Scholar

page 384 note 17. Service in the West Indies was unpopular amongst both officers and men on account of the high mortality rates. It was rare for an expedition to the Caribbean not to incur ‘disorders’ during its preparations and embarkation (Childs, , British Army of William III, p. 126).Google Scholar

page 384 note 18. See Appendix.

page 385 note 19. This was money to cover Cutts's expenses during his tour of inspection. Cutts was usually short of money and died in debt to the officers of his regiment (The Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, ed. Snyder, Henry (Oxford, 1975), i. 284n.).Google Scholar

page 385 note 20. Identification uncertain. This was probably Brigadier-General Robert, 3rd Baron Lucas, the governor of the Tower of London.

page 385 note 21. See Appendix.

page 385 note 22. The sum of £300 for Cutts's expenses had been suggested by Colonel Joseph Dudley, a client of Blathwayt's and Cutts's lieutenant-governor on the Isle of Wight. See Appendix and the postscript to Letter No. 6.

page 385 note 23. See Letter No. 22. In his role as governor of the Isle of Wight, Cutts suggested that the strategic points of Portsmouth, Spithead, the Solent, and Southampton, were better defended from the mainland than from the Isle of Wight. This strategic appreciation was based more on the need to preserve Cutts's electoral influence on the island than on disinterested military considerations. The Isle of Wight had been greatly ‘oppressed’ by military billets in 1688 and 1689, and Cutts did not want to jeopardize his own and the government's electoral interest in the forthcoming bye-election at Yarmouth (2 April 1695) by packing the island with unpopular red-coats (Coleby, Andrew, ‘Military-Civil Relations on the Solent, 1651–1689’, Historical Journal, xxix. (1986), pp. 959–61Google Scholar; Coleby, Andrew, Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire, 1649–1689 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 179–91, 231–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Returns of Members of Parliament (London, 1878), pp. 568, 576).Google Scholar

page 386 note 24. A reference to desertion. Cutts thought it as easy, if not easier, for troops to desert from the island as from the mainland.

page 387 note 25. See Letter No.4 and footnote 22.

page 387 note 26. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 387 note 27. See Appendix.

page 387 note 28. This refers to the unsuccessful attempt to attack Brest on 8 June 1694 (Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 207–39).Google Scholar

page 387 note 29. Regiments received a new set of clothes every two years (Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 167–71).Google Scholar

page 387 note 30. Those regiments which served in Ireland between 1689 and 1691 had sometimes recruited native Irish roman catholics into their ranks, contrary to army regulations and the Test Acts. In one or two regiments, English roman catholics continued to serve even though all catholics had been supposedly purged from the army during the first half of 1689 (Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 12–13, 114–15).Google Scholar

page 387 note 31. See Appendix.

page 388 note 32. See Appendix.

page 388 note 33. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 389 note 34. See Appendix.

page 389 note 35. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 389 note 36. See Appendix.

page 389 note 37. Officer absenteeism was a constant problem in the British army at this time (Childs, John, The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution (Manchester, 1980), pp.37–40).Google Scholar

page 390 note 38. This list is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 390 note 39. The colonelcy of Cutts's battalion had been assumed by Colonel William Seymour on 3 Oct. 1694 when Cutts had been promoted to the command of the Coldstream Guards following the death of that regiment's colonel, Thomas Talmash, after the attack on Brest on 8 June 1694 (Dalton, iv. 3, 5).

page 390 note 40. See Appendix.

page 390 note 41. See Appendix.

page 390 note 42. Colonel Joseph Dudley. See Appendix and footnote 22.

page 391 note 43. See Appendix.

page 391 note 44. See Appendix.

page 391 note 45. William Blathwayt's survey of all available quarters in England and Wales in 1686—‘An Abstract of a Particular Account of all the Inns, Ale Houses, etc. in England, with their Stable-Room and Bedding. In the Year, 1686’, (PRO, WO 30/48)—had credited the Isle of Wight with 237 beds and 159 stalls for horses.

page 391 note 46. By the terms of the Disbanding Act of 1679 (31 Charles II, c. I) and the series of Mutiny Acts after 1689, it was illegal to billet soldiers upon private householders unless the occupier gave his or her consent.

page 392 note 47. See Appendix.

page 392 note 48. See Appendix.

page 392 note 49. See Appendix.

page 392 note 50. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 393 note 51. Colonel John Gibson's experiment of a regimental hospital, funded by stoppages from the soldiers' pay, appears to have been unique in the British Isles. Not until the establishment of a permanent infirmary for sick soldiers at St Auden's Arch, Dublin, in 1700 was there provision of hospital facilities for the army in the British Isles. Even in Flanders, the British military hospitals were entrusted to private contractors (Steele, Robert, A Bibliography of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns, 1485–1714 (Oxford, 1910), ii. 176Google Scholar; BL, Add. MSS. 38,699, f. 23; BL, Add. MSS. 38,700, f. 213).

page 393 note 52. See Appendix.

page 393 note 53. HMC, Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS., pp. 81–2Google Scholar; HMC, Buccleuch (Montagu) MSS., ii. 170–337Google Scholar; Private and Original Correspondence of Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, ed. Coxe, William (London, 1821), pp. 221, 233, 238–42Google Scholar. See Letter No. 2.

page 394 note 54. The carrying capacity of the transports was 800 men less than the estimate given by the Commissioners for Transportation.

page 394 note 55. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 394 note 56. See Appendix.

page 394 note 57. See Appendix. The first three months of 1695 witnessed a series of financial scandals involving regimental commanders and their agents (Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 46–51, 141–6).Google Scholar

page 395 note 58. See Appendix.

page 395 note 59. See Appendix.

page 395 note 60. William Stewart. See Appendix.

page 395 note 61. ‘Clearing’ was the issue of the balance of pay due to both officers and men (Guy, A. J., Oeconomy and Discipline: Officership and Administration in the British Army, 1714–63 (Manchester, 1985), pp. 58–9).Google Scholar

page 396 note 62. Letter No. 13.

page 397 note 63. See Appendix. A bye-election was due at Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, after the sitting member, Sir John Trevor, had been expelled from the House of Commons for taking bribes in return for abusing his office as Speaker to expedite the passage of bills through the House. The election took place on 2 April 1695 and resulted in victory for Henry Holmes; Holmes was also successful at Yarmouth in the general election on I November 1695 (Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy, and Politics, pp. 149–50Google Scholar; Returns of Members of Parliament (London, 1878), pp. 568, 576Google Scholar; The House of Commons, 1715–1754, ed. Sedgewick, Romney (London, 1970), ii. 145–6).Google Scholar

page 397 note 64. See Appendix.

page 397 note 65. See Appendix. The damage referred to occurred when the troops for the expedition to Brest had been encampled around Portsmouth both before and after the abortive assault.

page 397 note 66. See Appendix.

page 398 note 67. See Appendix.

page 398 note 68. Charles Talbot, Ist Duke of Shrewsbury (1660–1718), secretary of state.

page 398 note 69. HMC, Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS., p. 83Google Scholar, Blathwayt to Cutts, 19 & 20 March 1695; BL, Add. MSS. 38,700, ff. 78–9.

page 399 note 70. See Appendix.

page 399 note 71. See Appendix.

page 399 note 72. Blathwayt was anxious that any possible delay in the embarkation and sailing of the four battalions for Cadiz should not be the fault of the army, his own department of state.

page 399 note 73. See Appendix.

page 400 note 74. See Letter No. 17.

page 400 note 75. This memorandum is not included amongst these letters and has not been traced.

page 401 note 76. No captain was appointed to command Hussey's company during his period of suspension, temporary command falling to the lieutenant. Hussey's case was not heard by the king until after Cutts had returned to London. The lieutenant-colonel appears to have cleared his name and resumed his duties (HMC, Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS., p. 85Google Scholar, Blathwayt to Cutts, 26 March 1695).

page 401 note 77. Letter No. 18.

page 401 note 78. This copy is not included amongst these letters but the holograph has been printed in, HMC, Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS., pp. 83–5Google Scholar, Cutts to William Stewart, 23 March 1695.

page 402 note 79. See Appendix.

page 402 note 80. Presumably either Cape St Vincent or Cape Trafalgar. Edward Russell's battlefleet had wintered at Cadiz and the four battalions joined him there in mid-April 1695 (Shrewsbury Correspondence, pp. 231, 233).Google Scholar

page 402 note 81. Cutts clearly expected the corporation to support his candidate at the Yarmouth bye-election. Cutts's predecessor as governor, Sir Robert Holmes, had enjoyed the nomination to one of the two parliamentary seats at Yarmouth. See Letter No. 17. (Colby, , Central Government and the Localities, p. 229).Google Scholar

page 402 note 82. See footnote 48.

page 402 note 83. Cutts was unsuccessful. His failure to have Robert Wolseley elected may have resulted from the preparations for a general election which the whigs had been making since early 1694, even though parliament was not dissolved until 12 October 1695. Cutts's previous references to the electoral intrigues of the Marquis of Winchester and Henry Holmes (see Letter No. 10 and footnote 47), suggest that the whig interest was well advanced at Yarmouth whereas the court was thoroughly unprepared. Sir Robert Holmes had conceded one of the Yarmouth seats to a whig, Fitton Gerard, son of the Earl of Macclesfield, in the election to the Convention. ‘The long run-up to the 1695 election distinguished it from that of 1690’ (Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy, and Politics, pp. 156–7Google Scholar; Coleby, , Central Government and the Localities, p. 229).Google Scholar

page 402 note 84. Clearly, Cutts hoped that he had accumulated enough evidence of corruption and electoral malpractice to unseat Holmes, should he prove successful, upon a petition.

page 403 note 85. See Appendix.

page 403 note 86. Probably Captain William Burgh (Dalton, iv. 94).

page 403 note 87. This abstract is not included amongst the letters and has not been traced.

page 404 note 88. See above, p. 542, n. 57, and Appendix.

page 404 note 89. Masham. See Appendix.

page 404 note 90. Probably Brigadier-General Sir David Colyear.

page 404 note 91. See Appendix.

page 404 note 92. See Appendix.

page 405 note 93. This was Cutts's indignant rejoinder to Blathwayt's letter of 26 March 1695 (HMC, Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS., p. 85Google Scholar) in which he mentioned a rumour current in London, ‘that your Lordship has ordered two companies from Portsmouth to come and quarter at Yarmouth during the election, where none or no such proportion of men used to be at another time. I hope, my Lord, it is quite otherwise, for that it is a constant rule and his Majesty's express pleasure that all soldiers do ever remove from a place where there is to be an election, as it is absolutely necessary in this case, where the least intimation of such quartering would set the House of Commons in a flame, and make void any election your Lordship should countenance.’ See above, p. 385, n. 23.

page 406 note 94. See Appendix.

page 406 note 95. Mrs Seaton was probably the widow of Captain Patrick Seaton of the Royal Fusiliers (Dalton, iv. 75).

page 406 note 96. Only 99 officers' widows were admitted to pensions payable from the annual military establishment in 1697 (Dalton, iii. 403–4; iv. 289–90; Childs, , British Army of William III, pp. 156–7).Google Scholar