Scottish History Society. cn.

Publications of the Scottish History Society (Volume 32) online

. (page 45 of 59)
Online LibraryScottish History Society. cnPublications of the Scottish History Society (Volume 32) → online text (page 45 of 59)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

of Captain Wight are under discussion, who was banished
by your Honourable Mightinesses, and to request very humbly
that it may please you to appoint the said Captain Wight
again to his former command, and to pardon the misconduct




of which he has been guilty ; as I doubt not that your Honour-
able Mightinesses will henceforth be greatly satisfied with
him ; and this, as being his colonel, I could not refrain from
requesting all the more, because the good lady, his wife, has
recently lost her father, Colonel Balfour, who served this
country so long and so faithfully ; and if her husband remains
in banishment she would be utterly ruined ; but I hope that
this will be prevented by your Noble Mightinesses.

Accordingly I again request that, all these things being
taken into consideration, it may please your Honourable
Mightinesses to restore the said Captain Wight to his former
position, and commending myself very humbly to the good
favour of your Noble Mightinesses, I remain, as I have always
been, your Noble Mightinesses'' obedient and faithful servant,

(Signed) Cha. Mono an.

Bergen op den Zoom, 5th February 1639.
esoiutions j u iy 5. — With reference to the petition of Lieutenant-

p states-

enerai. Colonel Balfour, their High Mightinesses resolved to obtain

the advice of the Council of State.

High Mightinesses, — With reference to the accompanying
petition of Lieutenant-Colonel Balfour, to receive out of the
pay of his colonel, Baron d'Amont, such amount, as will make
the petitioner's pay equal to a colonel's, for the time that he,
during the year 1638, discharged the duties of colonel, in the
absence of the above-mentioned Baron d'Amont, quoting as a
precedent for doing so your High Mightinesses' resolution of
February 9th, 1633, in a similar case, with regard to Lieu-
tenant-Colonel Coutis, we would give the same advice (under
correction) as we did at that time in the aforesaid case of the
above-mentioned Lieutenant-Colonel Coutis, viz.:

That the petitioner's request is reasonable. And inasmuch
as he, during the year 1638, on account of the absence of
Baron d'Amont, had to undergo the trouble and fatigue which
would have fallen to the colonel, had he been present, that
therefore it would be unfair that another should draw the
salary, and that the petitioner, who did the work, should go


Submitting however to your High Mightinesses, etc.
By order of the Council of State,


At the Hague, 9th July 1639.

July 18. — There was read to the meeting the advice of Resolutions

of States*

the Council of State, dated the 9th instant, with reference to Genera i.
the petition presented to their High Mightinesses on the 5th
instant, in the name and on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel
Balfour, to receive such an amount out of the pay due to
his colonel, Baron d'Amont, as will make his (the petitioner's)
pay equal to a colonel's, for the period during which he, in the
year 1638, discharged the duties of colonel in the absence of
the above-named Baron d'Amont. Decision was deferred.

November 10. — With reference to the petition of Hester
Seldnytzky, widow of Sergeant-Major Hamilton, to have a life
pension of six hundred guilders annually, it was resolved, after
discussion, to ask the advice of the Council of State.

December 24. — The advice was read of the Council of
State, dated the 9th instant, with reference to the petition
presented to their High Mightinesses on the 10th November
last by the widow of Sergeant-Major Hamilton, to receive six
hundred guilders annually as pension ; the said advice being
to the effect that the petitioner had in the year 1636 from
their High Mightinesses four hundred guilders, in the year
1637 six hundred guilders, in the year 1638 seven hundred
guilders. And as their High Mightinesses know what con-
siderations have moved her to apply, the said Council leaves
said petition to the discretion of their High Mightinesses.
Whereupon, after discussion, the matter was postponed.

1640, January 3. — To the widow of Major Hamilton is
again granted for this and the last time, owing to peculiar
circumstances, the sum of three hundred guilders, for which an
order on Receiver-General Doubleth is to be despatched to her.

January 27. — A petition was read to the meeting,
presented in the name and on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel
Balfour, requesting for the reasons mentioned therein that he
shall receive as much of his colonel's pay as their High Mighti-


nesses allowed on February 9th, 1633, to his predecessor in
office, for the time that he (the petitioner) filled his colonel's
post in the field during the latter's absence, and bore the
expenses. After discussion thereanent, it was resolved to find
out what has been done previously in similar cases with regard
to others.

February 9. — As, according to their High Mightinesses''
decision, placed on January 27th last on the margin of the
petition of Lieutenant-Colonel Balfour, referring to the course
of action in previous cases, and the resolutions taken in con-
sequence in regard to lieutenant-colonels, who in the absence
of their respective colonels from the field filled their places,
and bore the expenses usually entailed by such positions, have
been taken into consideration, and as the Baron of Amont,
colonel of the said Balfour, was absent from the field for a part
of the year 1638, and for the whole year 1639, it was resolved,
after foregoing discussion, that as Lieutenant-Colonel Balfour
discharged, in the years aforesaid, the duties of his said colonel
during the latter's absence, that therefore to recompense him,
his pay for that time be raised to a colonel's pay of three
hundred guilders per month, at the new rate and on the new
footing, and the said increase is to be deducted from the pay
due to said absent colonel during the time that the army was
in the field.

January 27. — [Decision about] the further request of
Hester Sednytsky, widow of Sergeant-Major Hamilton, to
have a yearly pension, was postponed.

January 30 — Idem. February 15. — Idem. February 18.
— Idem.

June 1. — The further petition of Hester Seldnytzky, widow
of Sergeant-Major Hamilton, having been read to the meeting,
it was resolved, after discussion, owing to reasons brought
forward by the petitioner, to grant her hereby a gratuity of
three hundred guilders for the past, in addition to what she
has received ; and further, other six hundred guilders for the
future ; for which an order is to be despatched to her.

1640, January 30. — The petition of Mrs. Maria von Loon,
widow of the late Colonel Sir John Hacquet, was, after dis-
cussion, placed in the hands of the Council of State for advice.

February 3. — There was read the advice of the Council of


State, drawn up on the 2nd instant, with reference to the
petition of the widow of Colonel Hacquet, presented to their
High Mightinesses on the 30th January last, to be granted a
pension. The said advice being in effect that the said Council
can see no reasons why this widow deserves less favour and
consideration than the widows of other colonels ; and accord-
ingly the said Council thinks that she ought to be treated as
the widows of other colonels have been treated ; but that some
assistance having been given to her before this, therefore,
instead of fifteen hundred guilders, which the widows of the
Colonels . . . each received in three years, this petitioner is
to be granted the sum of one thousand guilders, to be paid in
four years. After discussion thereanent, decision was deferred.

April 28. — With reference to the petition of Gertrude
Walsdorf, daughter of Captain Walsdorf, [and] widow of
Colonel Sir Archibald Douglas, to receive pecuniary assistance,
it was resolved, after discussion, to get the advice of the
Council of State.

May 4. — The petition of Gertrude Walsdorff, widow of
Colonel Douglas, to be granted a life-pension for herself and
her children, was, after discussion, placed in the hands of the
Council of State to dispose of it.

May 31. — With reference to the petition of the widow of
Colonel Douglas to be treated like other colonels' widows, it
was resolved to obtain the advice of the Council of State.

June 6. — There was read to the meeting the advice of the
Council of State, drawn up on the 1st instant, with reference
to the petition presented to their High Mightinesses on May
31st last, by the widow of Colonel Douglas, to receive an
annual pension. Decision was deferred.

June 15. — The foregoing petition of the widow of Colonel
Douglas, having again been brought up before the meeting,
was refused.

June 19. — The further memorial presented to their High
Mightinesses by the widow of Colonel Douglas was read,
requesting, on account of the good services rendered by her late
husband to the country, an annual pension. After discussion
thereanent, it was resolved to refer the petitioner's request to
the Council of State to be disposed of. Petitions to

1644. — We, Franco van Heuvel and Peter van Chemselroy, state.


sheriffs of the city of Helmont, hereby attest and certify as
truth and verity, that before us above-mentioned sheriffs
appeared Aert Jansz van Hoff and Anthony Willem Princen,
the lately retired burgomasters, together with Jan Joost Raess
and Baltis Henrix, the present joint burgomasters of the town
of Helmond ; and, in the matter of the requisition of the
district of Peelant, they declared and affirmed on oath, which
the witnesses took on their assumption of the office of Burgo-
master, that it was the truth that when the two first-mentioned
witnesses were burgomasters of this town in the year 1644,
they were summoned by special messengers of cavalry Captain
Hey, passing through the said town of Helmont from his
quarters, the said captain lying in garrison within the town of
Maestricht, and lodging and foraging at Geldrop at the time,
and they [viz. the mayors] were forced to compliment him in
that way for the amount of thirty patacoons [a Spanish coin,
two and a half florins], less a quarter. And the two last wit-
nesses have declared solemnly and on oath, as the others,
that they, on the 10th of November last, have granted and
honoured, etc.

November 28th, 1644.

1645, May 28. — Summary of report presented by the
Advocate-Fiscal of the United Provinces about the complaints
from the borough of Bois-le-Duc about the exactions and
extortions made from them by the soldiers on this side, and
about the examinations of the officers commanding them, with
the depositions and declarations made in presence of the
deputies of your Honourable Mightinesses, at the time, as
follows :

A formal complaint was lodged with the Sheriffs of Aerie
and Beek against William Hay, that the people there had
been forced to pay, by way of taxes, on 17th February 1644,
the sum of seventy-three Rhenish guilders and eight stuivers.

Also, that they brought to him at Erp, on the 6th March
following, one hundred and twenty guilders and ten stuivers.

He, having been questioned on the matter, acknowledged
that he escorted Messrs. Loo and Haersholten about that
time, but declared that he received no money ; that he believed,
however, that in going and returning about fifty or sixty rix-


dollars were given to the officers, without his knowing to
whom, inasmuch as they were not distributed before that time,
but the money, with the grant received for this purpose, was
distributed on the next journey.

The captain of the horse aforesaid came with foot and horse
soldiers to take up quarters at Geldorp from Stiphout [the
distance], being one and a half miles, and remained for twenty-
four hours on the following day at Erp, where, besides needful
supplies, he exacted from the scanty population, ham knuckles,
hams, and sixty-six Rhenish guilders in money ; and one of
the troopers wounded a resident with a stone, who has since
died of the wound.

In answer to the above, the captain said that he was escort-
ing Messrs. van Nederhorst and Sloet at the time, till the
escort from Breda should take them off his hands at Turnhout ;
and that he had orders from the Count of Solms to bring the
lieutenant of the young Count of Styrom, with the baggage of
the company, over the Aa, which he did, and thus he was
compelled to lodge at Erp because of the long ride ; but that
it could never be proved that he made exactions from any
villages, but that he could well believe that the villages, from
fear of the large body of troops, complimented the officers with
some things, which may have amounted to some one hundred
and fifty or one hundred and sixty rix-dollars, which were
divided, with the former honorarium of February at Maestricht,
into sums of six or eight rix-dollars.

A deposition was also made before the Court of Helmont,
that in the year 1644 the governors were summoned by mes-
sengers from the captain, and that he threatened the town of
Helmont with a siege, when he was in quarters at Geldrop,
with the result that they had to give him a present of thirty
patacoons, less one quarter.

In answer to this, the said captain denied that he made
exactions or extortions, adding that for six years he had never
been in quarters at Helmont ; but he said he did not know if
among the above mentioned complimentary gifts the grant
made by Helmont was included. Having signed the above
declarations under oath.

March 11th, 1645.






With the peace of 1648 one long chapter in the history of
the Netherlands closes. Hitherto the enemy had been Spain ;
in future the chief foe was to be France. Hitherto the position
of the English and Scottish troops in the Low Countries had
been assured by the continued friendliness of the British Court
to the Government of the United Netherlands, and latterly
strengthened by the alliance between the Houses of Orange and
Stuart. For a time their relations with their Dutch pay-
masters were now to be clouded by a state of war between
their native and their adopted countries, and their interests to
be obscured by the temporary misfortunes of the House of
Orange. The war with the English Commonwealth, between
1652 and 1655, left them untouched, for it was waged, not
with a united nation under constitutional government, but
with an English usurping power, which had only reduced
Scotland to quiescence by armed conquest, and to which the
Scottish soldiers in the Netherlands owed no allegiance, while
the country they served was extending its hospitality to their
own sovereign in his exile. Indeed, one of the causes of the
rupture had been an act of discourtesy by one of Cromwell's
ambassadors to the Duke of York.

The wars of 1665-1667 and 1672-1674 had, however, a very
different influence. They stopped the supply of officers and
men from Scotland, and while the senior officers of the regi-
ments, and others whose families were among those longest
identified with the Brigade, and had probably practically
settled in Holland, retained their positions, the junior officers
and men gradually became Dutch, or a mixture of Continental
nationalities. The supremacy of the De Witt party in Hol-
land, and the eclipse of the power and dignity of the Stadt-
holdership, owing to the early death of William n., the minority
of his son, and the price to be paid for peace with Cromwell,



was injurious to the maintenance of a disciplined force, the
true value of which had been realised by the great commanders,
Prince Maurice and Prince Frederick Henry, and was again to
be established by Prince William Henry, but with foreign
invasion and with a Prince of Orange once more appearing as
the rescuer of his country, the Scots Brigade was reorganised,
and an English Brigade was re-formed, which were at a critical
juncture to enable the Prince who restored them to change
the current of the history of Europe, and gain for himself the
monarchy of Britain.

Upon the conclusion of the peace, the States-General on the
motion of Holland resolved to reduce their army to a large
extent in order to save expense. The dissatisfaction of Prince
William of Orange led to an open rupture between him and
the city of Amsterdam, an attempt to seize which miscarried
by the merest mischance. A sudden illness carried off the
Prince while the resentments caused by his action were fresh,
and although his son was born seven days after his death, the
States resolved not to dispose of the offices of Stadtholder,
Captain, and Admiral-General. The party of the De Witts,
which represented that of Olden-Barneveld, the old antagonist
of Prince Maurice, were restored to their offices, and although
the English war which shortly broke out was favourable to the
interest of the House of Orange, yet on peace being concluded
in 1654, Cromwell insisted as a condition that the Estates
should agree to exclude the Prince, grandson of King Charles i.,
and his descendants from the Stadtholdership, and from all
governorships and higher military or naval commands. ' The
people of the provinces in general and the whole army were so
much incensed that they would not join in the rejoicings made
on occasion of the peace, and most of the soldiers refused to
drink the wine that was distributed amongst them. 11

In 1649 the field officier of the three Scots regiments were :

th, ij u t> ir •> f Colonel James Erskine.
The old or H. Balfour s _. . „ . . _ _ . _

j o- -i*r x> i \ Lieut. -Colonel James Balfour,
and Sir Wm. Brogs, ^ r

vSergeant-Major Walter Murray.

T i T> i 1 1 • rColonel John Kirkpatrick.

Lord Buccleuch s regi- T . _ . . _ , r TT .

ment H604^ J Lieut.-Colonel John Henderson.

' [Sergeant-Major Thos. Livingstone.

1 ' Historical Account.'


The Earl of Buccleuch's ^Colonel William Drummond.
or Lord Almond , si Lieut. -Colonel Walter Scott,
regiment (1628), I Sergeant- Major David Colyear.

James Erskine died in 1655. John Kirkpatrick survived
through all the vicissitudes of the period, and, raised to the
rank of major-general, retained the command of his regiment
till 1683. William Drummond, who had, in virtue of his
marriage with his cousin, Lady Jean Ker, become Earl of
Roxburgh, and had apparently been absent without his place
having been filled up, petitioned for re-appointment in his
previous capacity in 1652, but in December the States of
Holland resolved to appoint Walter Scott as colonel, with
lieutenant-colonel's pay, and in 1655, by a resolution of the
States of Holland (March 24th, 1655), the three regiments
were reduced to two, and the command of the one, which thus
fell to be disposed of, was given to Walter Scott, formerly lieu-
tenant-colonel of Drummond , s, with Walter Murray, formerly
sergeant-major of James Erskine's, as his lieutenant-colonel,
and George Keir as his serjeant-major.

In 1659 some of the Scottish troops took part in the ex-
pedition to the Baltic, sent by the Dutch to the aid of
Denmark against the King of Sweden, and bore their part in
the complete rout of the Swedes on the island of Fuhnen,
after ' a most obstinate and bloody fight, wherein the Dutch
Foot did wonders.'

In 1660, 1 ' on recommendation made by the King of Great
Britain in person, when by their High Mightinesses received
en corps] the two Scottish regiments were brought back to
their previous formation, and Lieutenant-Colonel Henderson
was appointed colonel of the third regiment, with Louis
Erskine as his lieutenant-colonel, and Allan Coutts as sergeant-
major. Louis Erskine succeeded to the command in 1662,
and at the time of the war with England in 1665, the field
officers stood thus (in order of seniority of regiments and not
of colonels, the colonels'' seniority generally determining the
order of the regiments in the Dutch documents).

1. Walter Scott, colonel; George Lauder, lieut.-colonel ;
Alexander Bruce, major.

1 Resolutions of Holland, 28th May.


2. John Kirkpatrick, colonel; Thomas Livingstone, lieut.-

colonel; John Kirkpatrick, jun., major.

3. Louis Erskine, colonel; Allan Coutts, lieut.-colonel ;

Henry Graham, major.
Up to that time the regiments had remained thoroughly
Scottish in character, and the lists of 1665 consist wholly of
distinctive Scottish names. The States had, after the Peace
of Munster, made a great reduction of the land forces, but
principally by diminishing the strength of the regiments, not
by disbanding them. ' The three Scots regiments, and Dum-
barton's Scottish regiment (now the Royal [Scots]), then in the
service of France, were a great resource for the adherents of
the Royal family during the usurpation of Cromwell."' 1 In
the spring of 1665, however, the war with Great Britain forced
upon the consideration of the authorities the question of the
footing of the four English and three Scots regiments in their
service. They resolved to disband them, to form four Dutch
or ' national ' regiments from them, and to re-appoint the most
efficient and trustworthy officers, on condition of their taking
an unqualified oath of fidelity to the States. The result was
that the three Scots regiments were converted into nominally
Dutch regiments, that one nominally Dutch regiment replaced
the four English regiments, 2 that a few of the English officers
received posts in the Scottish regiments, and that no distinc-
tion was allowed between them and the native Dutch troops,
' the Holland March , being ordered to be beaten, the officers
forbidden to wear any but Orange sashes and Dutch badges,

1 ' Historical Account.'

2 The Dutch papers do not wholly bear out the version of what occurred on
this occasion given in an article on 'the Rise of the Buffs,' in Macmillan's
Magazine of September 1896. It would rather appear that enough Englishmen
to officer one regiment and to fill vacant commissions in the three Scots
remained in Holland, while the majority of the English officers (the resolution
being to reduce the four regiments to one) returned to England. For them
4 the Holland regiment,' afterwards the Buffs (the Third) was raised exactly in the
same manner as the Ninety-fourth (Scots Brigade) was raised in 1795, and officered
by the Scottish officers who left the Dutch service in the eighteenth century.

In estimating the comparative patriotism of the two nations, it should be
remembered that the officers of the Scottish regiments at that time were in
several cases members of families which had been settled in Holland for two or
three generations.


and the colours being ordered to have the arms of Holland in
the corner. Gradually the comppsition of the regiments con-
formed to their circumstances ; and in 1673, in Scott's regiment,
there can only be found the three field officers and three cap-
tains of Scottish surnames ; in Kirkpatrick's only three field
officers and one captain ; and in Erskine's only the three field
officers. In Scott's two or three, and in Erskine's two captains
were Englishmen, but all the rest of the captains of the three
regiments were foreigners. In the following year Lieutenant-
Colonel Allan Coutts is left as the sole representative of its
original nationality in the third regiment, whose Scottish
colonel, Louis Erskine, has been succeeded by Jacques de
Fariaux, Heer van Maulde, a gallant officer, under whom it
seems to have fought well at the siege of Maestricht, where
in an important horn-work it faced the charge of the British
troops that fought side by side with the French under the
Duke of Monmouth.

At the time of the Restoration the fortunes of the House
of Orange had begun to improve. The States- General had
received Charles n. at the Hague, and conducted him with
impressive ceremony to the fleet in which he embarked for
England, and shortly thereafter the States of Zeeland declared
the young Prince of Orange the legal heir of all his prede-
cessor's dignities in their province as soon as he should attain
the age of eighteen. When, in 1668, he attained that age, he
was publicly proclaimed at Middelburg as President of the
Province, although the States-General had in the previous
year, under the influence of the De Witts, still all-powerful
in Holland, passed the Perpetual Edict abolishing the Stadt-

Online LibraryScottish History Society. cnPublications of the Scottish History Society (Volume 32) → online text (page 45 of 59)