Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1880-12-29
THE HESSIAN HIRELINGS,
What King George of England Paid for His Hes
sian Troops---Men Sold for SIS Apiece.
lDresden Corr. N. Y. Times.l

sian Troops---m en- Sold for SIS Apiece.
[Dresden Corr. N. Y Timesl
The treaty first concluded was that
with the Duke of Brunswick. It is
dated the 9th of January, 1916. The
duke yields to his Britanic majesty a
corps OF 1864 infantry men, and 336 un-
mounted dragons. This corps is to be
completely equipped at the expense of
the duke, except as to horses for the
light cavalry. They are to march from
Brunswick in two divisions in February
and March, and The king is to take meas
ures to prevent desertion while they pass
through his electoral dominions OF Han
over on their way to the sea. The king
Is to pay and feed them on the same scale
as his own soldiers, and the duke Gen.
cages to let his corps enjoy all the
emoluments of pay that his Britanic
majesty allows them" that is to say, not
to pay them on lower scale and pocket
the difference. The British govern
ment, however, did not trust him. From
the time OF the arrival of the troops in
America their pay was sent direct to
them there, and did not pass through
his most serene ducal highness' hands.
| This precaution was adopted with all the
| German mercenaries but those of Hesse-
Cassel, whose Landgrave succeeded in
getting the handling of the money. The
Brunswick soldiers were to be cared for
in the British hospitals, and the wounded
not in condition to serve were to be
transported into Europe at the expense
OF the king, and landed In port on the
Elbe or the Wesser. The duke agreed
| TO furnish the recruits that should be an
nually necessary for the corps, to discl-
| pline and equip them, but ii it should
happen that any of the regiments, bat
tal1ons, or companies Of the corps should
suffer loss altogether extraordinary,
either IN battle, siege, or by an un-
| common contagious malady, or by the
, loss OF any transport vessel in the voy-
age to America, his Britanic majesty
was to make good the loss OF the officer
or soldier, and to bear the expense of the
necessary recruits to re-establish the
! corps that should have suffered this ex-
traordinary loss.
The king of England agreed to pay
to his most serene h1ghness, under the
title OF levy money, for every soldier the
amount of 30 crowns banco, equal to CT
| 4s. AID. He was to grant, moreover, an
annual subsidy amounting to Ell, SIT
It's. I'D. from the day of tho signature
of the treaty SO long as the troops should
| enjoy his pay, aud double that amount
wiz, 923, 035 las. 3D. for two years
after the return of the troops into his
most serene highness' domin1ons In
consideration of the haste with which the
troops were equippedhis majesty granted
two months pay previous to their march,
and undertook all expenses from the time
OF their leaving their quarters. One
more provision of this treaty deserves
especial notice, as it has excited the well
warranted indignation of all who have
execrated these bargains for the sale of
human blood. 1t runs: According to
! custom, three wounded men shall be
reckoned as one killed; q man killed
shall be paid for at the rate of levy
money" This clanse, which docs not
appear in the subsequent treaty with
Hesse Cassel, stands in the Brunswick
treaty In the same article with, and i'm
mediately before, the provision for MAX
| ing good any extraordinary less from
battle, pestilence o. shipwrecks. It may
be taken to mean that the king of Eng
land undertook to bear the expense of a
recruit to fill the place of Brunswick
soldier actually killed in battle, but that
the duke must replace at his own cost
one who deserted from the ranks or died
of sickness, unless in case of on Gun
common contagious malady." But if
this be the Interpretation, what is the
meaning of the "three wounded men. >
At a y rate, the fact remaius that the
duke of Brunswick contracted to receive
a sum amounting to about, $35 for every
one of his soldiers who should be killed
IN battle, and $11. &c for every Que who
should be manned. 1t is probably now
impossible to discover how much Eng
land actually paid out on this account
The payments were not entered under
their proper heading in the bills sent to
parliament from the war office. Knapp
suggests that the cabinet did not care to
meet the criticism which this item in the
accounts would have raised.
The treaty with Hesse Cassel. dated
Jan. Is, 1776, differs from that with
Brunswick principally as being more IA
vorable to the German court. In the
first place, the king of Great Britain
was made to engage in defensive ali-
ance with the Landgrave of Hesse Cas-
sci. This condition eptailed serious re-
sponsibillties upon England, and was
much criticised in parliament. The
Hessian troops were to be kept together
under their own general unless reasons
Of war should require them to be separa-
ted. Their sick were to remain in the
care OF their surgeons and other persons
for the purpose under the Hessian gen
I erals, and everything was to be allowed
them which the king allowed to his own
troops. The Landgrave of Hesse Cassel
was to furnish $4,000 men under the
treaty, completely equipped, and with
artillery if desired. He was to be paid
levy money at the same rate as the Duke
of Brunswick, WIS.,, 80 crowns banco, or
EFT As, AID for every man. His subsidy,
however, was larger in proportion,
amounting to $50, 1000 crowns banco, or
GlOo, 28l 5s per aunum, to be continued
for one year after the actual return of
the troops to Hesse The Landgrave
subsequently, furnished various smaller