Another mystery from our Balfour Blogger...
Box 22 of the
Balfour papers contains many bundles of correspondence, tightly tied with old
string, unopened for who knows how long.
They are on
the whole dull: most relate to the sorting out of North Lowland Fencible regimental
financial affairs after the death in August 1799 of Colonel Thomas Balfour.
There is clearly much to be sorted and the debate goes back and fore for years
and it is blatantly clear just how much Tom Balfour was in the British Army to
make money: he argues every penny of bread money, of uniform costs, of
lodgings; he is slow to pay his bills; he is quick to claim bounty on recruits.
And he may even be the man who can lay claim to recruiting the youngest Ensign
in the British Army…………….
Ray Fereday
in The Orkney Balfours 1747 – 99 p156 tells of the purchase of commissions in
1794 for the 14 year old John Edward Balfour, son of Colonel Tom Balfour, by
his wealthy uncle, John regardless of the fact that Edward was still a school
boy at Harrow. Previously he had held the rank of Ensign in his father’s
regiment, the Orkney & Shetland Fencibles. His father saw nothing wrong
with the duplicity, there are many
Ensigns in the service younger than he. (D2 17 Jan 1794, see Fereday Ch 6
footnote 47). An Ensign was the lowest ranking commissioned officer of the
British Army of the day.
One
explanation of the purchases/recruitment is that the Balfours were seeking to
give young Edward a head start in terms of service and seniority, albeit
fictitious, against the day when he actually joined the Army. But perhaps it
was also to lay hands on his pay?
An even more
startling example of the ‘recruitment’ of youthful ensigns emerges from the dustiness
of Box 22, bundle no 9, with the story of Charles De Monti.
I have made
many forays into the North Lowland Fencibles’ records over a number of years
and was curious to see payments to an Ensign Charles De Monti, signed off by
the Regiment’s Paymaster on 31 March 1796. It’s an unusual surname and a new
one to me – someone worth keeping an eye out for and finding out more about. And
why hadn’t I spotted him previously in many other Regimental records?
Next out of
the bundle were 2 receipts, signed Edinburgh February 13th 1796, for
subsistence to Ensign De Monti, and signed X Charles De Monti. The payments were
for the periods 15 November 1794 to 11 September 1795, and 12 September 1795 to
28 February 1796. Interestingly, it was on 15 November 1794 that Tom Balfour was
appointed Colonel of the North Lowland Fencibles.
 |
| Orkney Archive Reference D2/22/9 |
Curiouser and
Curiouser. Why on earth would an Ensign, an officer, albeit the lowest rank of
commissioned officer, be unable to sign his name? Why too would that X be witnessed by 2
witnesses, being H de Monti and Anne B de Monti? Was he ill and unable to sign?
Next document
in the mystery was a letter, also written in Edinburgh, dated February 13th
1796 from H de Monti to Colonel Thomas Balfour. He was now enclosing the two receipts for my Son’s subsistence,
which you were so good as to promise you would order to be paid here after
having received them.
 |
| Orkney Archive reference D2/22/9 |
Some delving
into others of the Balfour and Baikie papers, into Ray Fereday’s most-valuable
book and on-line, produce the following scenario.
Tom Balfour
had three cousins, the daughters of his uncle Thomas Balfour of Huip. Elizabeth
married Robert Nicolson, an Orkney- based trusted man of Tom Balfour’s. Mary
married Robert Baikie of Tankerness. Ann married Hurka de Monti.
Hurka
introduces himself to the Balfour/Baikie men in a letter of September 1792,
explaining that he has come to Orkney to pursue Ann Balfour, who he believes is
not averse to my wishes. He is, he
writes, descended from a younger Brother
of an ancient family of Germany. He served 8 years in Prince Esterhazy’s
Regiment, and left it 4 years previously. He has inherited a small landed
property in Italy from his mother, which is laden with debt and he has paid
many of these debts but yet still I owe
about 8 hundred pounds sterling.
It is an
astonishing document particularly given that Hurka de Monti is a music teacher
in Edinburgh, a profession in which he is forever unlikely to raise £800
(equivalent today £108800) and maintain the means of day to day living. He has
made his way to Orkney, laid bare his financial extremity to men for whom every
shilling is hostage, and asks for Tom Balfour’s cousin/ Robert Baikie’s sister
in law as his wife. And he wins her!
Ann Balfour
married Hurka de Monti on 14th May 1793 according to a document from the Baikie
of Tankerness papers. In a draft affidavit of June 1801, Robert Baikie, Karen
Christie and James Robertson state that Joseph Hurka De Monti and Ann Balfour
were married according to the rite of the
Roman Catholic Church in Edinburgh on 14 May 1793. Her cousin, the
Edinburgh lawyer, and brother of Tom, David Balfour was horrified – but the
imminent marriage had been kept from him. On 15 May 1793 David wrote (D2/11/1) to
tell his mother of the marriage which had he known of it, he would have opposed … to the utmost of my power.
It seems the Orkney men of the family had approved but it is the view of
David’s wife, Marion, on 27 June 1793 that they
will be a miserable pair. I think the chance is he will go off and leave her. (D2/11/1)
 |
| The Affidavit, Orkney Archive reference D24/11/100 |
In February
1794, Ann was pregnant. (Marion
Balfour, D2/8/19). She is pregnant again in February 1795, as round as a ball (Frances Balfour, D2/8/19).
Her first
child is Charles. Given the dates above,
he was born sometime between February and August 1794. On 15 November 1794 he
was at best 9 months old; at worst 3 months.
Charles de
Monti was unable to sign the receipt for his pay because he was unable to
write, or even yet to speak or walk! His parents have been helped out by Tom
Balfour, or, rather, the British taxpayer, in a breathtakingly, audacious
manipulation of Regimental funds.
Hurka De
Monti makes a few further appearances in the Balfour records, writing to
Frances, widow of Tom Balfour. Ann Balfour de Monti, his wife, does not
reappear and it may be that her marriage was not long-lasting, not because he
left her but because she did not live long. Perhaps the affidavit in the Baikie
papers, dated 1801, was drawn up on Ann’s death to confirm De Monti’s claims on
her estate? David Balfour had made sure, after the marriage which so angered
him, that any Balfour money was for her and her children, not for her husband.
Somewhere in the Balfour and Baikie papers, or maybe with someone who reads
this blog, we’ll establish what happened to Ann, but whatever …. she could claim to be the mother of a
remarkable prodigy, the baby recruited to protect Britain from the French.
