1st Biographical Information on Wolfgang Kapp Wolfgang Kapp was born in New York on July 24, 1858, the son of the lawyer Friedrich Kapp, who had played an important role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1848 and had to emigrate to the United States because of his participation in the Baden uprising. Wolfgang Kapp's mother was Louise Engels and was the daughter of the Major General and Commander of Cologne Engels. The family was originally called d'Ange and immigrated from France to Germany in 1687 after the Edict of Nantes. In 1870 Friedrich Kapp returned to Germany with his family; he lived in Berlin and was a national liberal, later a liberal member of the Reichstag from 1872-1877 and 1881-1884; he also worked as a renowned historian. Friedrich Kapp died in 1884, his son Wolfgang studied in Tübingen and Göttingen. He completed his studies in 1880 with a doctorate. Probably in 1881 Wolfgang Kapp married Margarete Rosenow, the daughter of a landowner in Dülzen (district Preußisch Eylau). After his marriage Kapp seems to have familiarized himself with the administration of a large agricultural business on his father-in-law's estate, because it was not until 1885 that he began his actual professional career as a trainee with the government in Minden. In 1886 he joined the Ministry of Finance, Department II, Administration of Direct Taxes, as a government assistant. From 1890 to 1899 he was district administrator in Guben. In 1890, at the beginning of his time as district administrator, Kapp bought the Rittergut Pilzen estate near the Rosenov estate and thus entered the circle of the East Prussian Great Agrarians. Out of his interest for the interests of agriculture a work of agricultural policy content arose in Guben, which attracted a great deal of attention in the Ministry of Agriculture, so that an appointment as a government council followed in 1900. Kapp was appointed to the I. Dept. Administration of Agricultural and Stud Affairs, Department of Agricultural Workers' Affairs, but during the era of Reich Chancellor von Bülow as Commissioner of the Prussian Ministry of Agriculture he was primarily active in the preparation of the customs tariff of 1902 and in the initiation of the new trade agreements of 1904-1906. Kapp gained his first foreign policy experience in negotiations with representatives of foreign countries. Kapp soon gained a closer relationship with the then Reich Chancellor von Bülow, with whom he shared similar political views. During his time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Kapp seems to have had ambitious plans for his future professional and political career and at least aspired to the position of district president. That his plans went even further can be seen from the recording of a conversation between Kaiser Wilhelm II and the General Field Marshal von der Goltz, in which the possibility of Kapp's successor in the Reich Chancellery was considered. However, this conversation, whose date lies between 1909 and 1911, took place at a time when Kapp had already left the Prussian civil service. The reason for his resignation from the Ministry of Agriculture seems to have been his annoyance at not taking his person into account when appointing district presidents. On 5 April 1906, the East Prussian countryside elected the owner of the Pilzen manor as general landscape director. It is very characteristic of Kapp's personality under what circumstances he became known in East Prussia through a trial he conducted against the landscape. The landscapes of the Prussian provinces were self-governing bodies and as such primarily representations of landowners. But the landscape also served as a representative body for state fiscal policy. Its real task, of course, lay outside the political sphere in granting credit to cooperatives. However, the credit policy has had a decisive influence on the distribution of property and the social structure of the provinces and has thus had political repercussions. Through the incorporation of agricultural banks and fire societies in the 19th century, the landscapes had become efficient organisations at provincial level. Kapp took on the new tasks with his own vehemence. He continued the landscape in the specified direction, primarily by developing the branch network of the Landschaftsbank, by merging the landscape with the East Prussian Feuersozietät, by granting more loans, particularly for small property, and by increasing the landscape funds. His policy was aimed at freeing agriculture, which was in a serious crisis at the beginning of the 20th century, from its dependence on state aid and enabling it to help itself by means of credit policy measures. In the course of these efforts, Kapp tackled three major tasks. First and foremost the question of agricultural debt relief, which the Prussian state initiated in 1906 with the law on the debt limit. Kapp was the first to try to make this framework law effective from the initiative of the parties themselves without further state aid by showing different ways of debt relief. The inclusion of life insurance as a means of reducing debt proved particularly effective. Instead of debt repayment, the premium payment was made to an agricultural life insurance company. This ensured that a certain amount of capital was available for debt reduction in the event of death. The second task resulted from the former. The desire to combine public-law life insurance with debt relief necessitated the creation of a number of public-law life insurance institutions, which were merged into an association chaired by Kapp. These facilities were especially designed to prevent the outflow of premium money from the countryside to the large cities, where it had been used especially for the construction of tenements. However, the outflow of capital was only one danger, the other was the rural exodus that began in the 19th century. He tried to strengthen small agricultural holdings with a colonization and agricultural workers' bill, which was accepted by the General Landtag in 1908. This measure was based on the recognition of the untenability of the institution of instants and deputants, who were in the closest dependence on the lord of the manor and who emigrated from this situation in masses to the large cities, where they strengthened the ranks of the industrial proletariat. The organ for settlement policy should be a landscaped settlement bank. The third task that Kapp set himself was the creation of a public-law national insurance scheme following the public-law life insurance scheme. This measure was primarily directed against the Volksversicherungsanstalt "Volksfürsorge", created by the Social Democrats, and was intended to secure capital for agricultural workers to buy their own farms by means of abbreviated insurance. These plans did not lead to the hoped-for success, but ended in a bitter feud with the private insurance companies, especially the Deutsche Volksversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft. In addition to his functions within the East Prussian landscape, Kapp was also active in various other bodies. In December 1906 he was appointed to the Stock Exchange Committee of the Reichsamt des Innern and in 1912 to the Supervisory Board of Deutsche Bank. The First World War gave Kapp's life and work a whole new direction. Kapp's biography is too little researched to judge how far he had buried his ambitious plans, which apparently pushed him to the top of the Reich government, or postponed them only for a better opportunity. Although Kapp had been a member of the German Conservative Party since at least 1906, he did not take the path of an existing party to make a political career. This path probably did not correspond to his personality, described as authoritarian, ambitious and independent. He made the great leap into high politics through his sensational conflict with Reich Chancellor von Bethmann Hollweg. In his memo of 26 May 1916 "Die nationalen Kreise und der Reichs-Kanzler", which he sent to 300 public figures, including Bethmann Hollweg himself, he sharply criticised what he considered to be the weak policy of the Reich Chancellor, to whom he v. a. accused him of his alleged pacting with social democracy, his reluctance to America and his rejection of the unrestricted submarine war demanded by extremely militaristic circles, but also of a false war economic policy. The sharp reaction of Bethmann Hollweg, who spoke in a Reichstag session of "pirates of public opinion", among others, who abused "with the flag of the national parties", Kapp perceived as a personal affront to which he reacted with a demand for a duel. On the contrary, Kapp had to take an official reprimand and his re-election as General Landscape Director, which had taken place in March 1916 on a rotational basis, was refused confirmation by the Prussian State Ministry. Since his friends held on to Kapp in the East Prussian landscape, he was re-elected in 1917. This time - since Bethmann Hollweg had been overthrown in the meantime - he was able to take up his post as general landscape director again. At first, the events of 1916 led him even more into politics. Here he expressed solidarity with a circle of extremely reactionary and aggressive military forces around General Ludendorff and Grand Admiral von Tirpitz, who pursued a ruthless internal perseverance policy that tightened up all the forces of the people and a policy of unrestrained annexation and total warfare towards the outside world. Emperor Wilhelm II, who in principle sympathized with this extreme direction, had to refrain from supporting this group out of various considerations of public opinion and the negative attitude of the party majorities in the Reichstag. Kapp and his comrades-in-arms assumed in their political ambitions the complete certainty of the German final victory. They closed their eyes to the already looming possibility of defeat for Germany, especially after America entered the war. The war and peace goals they represented, especially the annexation plans at the expense of Russia and Poland, which were later only surpassed by Hitler, were marked by uncontrolled wishful thinking that in no way corresponded to objective reality. His extreme attitude drove Kapp into a blind hatred against any social and democratic movement; his fierce opposition against social democracy was mainly based on the legend of the dagger thrust against the imperialist Germany struggling to win. This military and National Socialist sharpening, for which Kapp found moral and financial support in certain circles of military leadership, but also among a number of university professors, writers, local politicians, agriculturalists, industrialists and bankers, culminated in the founding of the German National Party, which took place on 2 September 1917 (the "Sedan Day") in the Yorksaal of the East Prussian landscape. Although Kapp was clearly the spiritus rector of this "collection party", two other persons were pushed into the foreground, intended for the eyes of the public: These were the Grand Admiral von Tirpitz as 1st chairman and Duke Johann Albrecht von Mecklenburg as honorary chairman of this party. The German Fatherland Party did not seek seats in the Reichstag, but saw itself as a pool of national forces to bring about Germany's final victory. The statute provided for the immediate dissolution of the party once its purpose had been achieved. In addition to mobilising all forces to achieve military victory, Kapp's founding of the party also had another purpose that was not made so public. Tirpitz, then 68 years old, was to be launched as a "strong man" to replace the "weak" chancellors Bethmann Hollweg and Michaelis. It was obvious that in this case Kapp would join the leadership of the imperial government as advisor to the politically ultimately inexperienced Grand Admiral. The November Revolution of 1918 and the immediate surrender of Germany put an abrupt end to these lofty plans. But Kapp and his friends did not admit defeat. Although the German Fatherland Party was dissolved in December 1918, it was immediately replaced by a new party, the German National People's Party, which developed into a bourgeois mass party during the Weimar Republic, but no longer under Kapp's leadership. After the fall of the Hohenzollern monarchy, Kapp immediately opposed the revolution and the Weimar Republic. He could not or did not want to accept the social and political conditions that had arisen in the meantime; his goal was clearly the restoration of pre-war conditions. The sources, which were only incomplete at that time, do not show when the idea of a coup d'état was born and how the conspiracy developed in all its branches. A close associate of Kapp's, Reichswehrhauptmann Pabst, had already attempted a failed coup in July 1919. Together with Kapp, Pabst created the "National Unification" as a pool of all counter-revolutionary forces and associations. This Reich organisation was to coordinate the preparations for the coup in Prussia and Bavaria, while Kapp was to develop East Prussia into the decisive base of counterrevolution. From here, with the help of the Freikorps operating in the Baltic States, the Reichswehr and the East Prussian Heimatbund, whose chairman was Kapp, the survey was to be carried to Berlin with the immediate aim of preventing the signing of the Versailles Treaty. The approval of the Versailles Treaty by the parliamentary majority has created a new situation. Now Ludendorff, one of the co-conspirators, proposed to carry out the coup directly in Berlin, whereby the Baltic people, who were disguised as work detachments on the large Eastern Elbe goods, were to take over the military support. Meanwhile, the conspirators, headed by Kapp and Reichswehr General Lüttwitz, tried to gain the mass base absolutely necessary for the execution of the coup d'état through a broad-based nationalist smear campaign. The company was already at risk before it could even begin. Kapp had demanded that his military allies inform him at least 14 days before the strike so that he could make the necessary political preparations. That the coup d'état had just begun on 13 March 1920 depended not so much on carefully considered planning, but on coincidences that were not predictable. One of the reasons for the premature strike was the dissolution of the Freikorps, especially the Ehrhardt Brigade, decided by the Reich government. This revealed the fact that, in the absence of a party of their own, the conspirators were unable to avoid relying on the loose organization of the resident defence forces, which to a certain extent were also influenced by social democracy. The whole weakness of the company was evident in the question on which forces the new government should actually be based. While the military saw an arrangement with the strongest party, social democracy, as unavoidable, Kapp categorically rejected pacting with social democracy. He wanted to put the Social Democrat-led government as a whole into protective custody. But now the government was warned; for its part, it issued protective arrest warrants against the heads of the conspirators and left Berlin on March 12. In the early morning of March 13, the Navy Brigade Ehrhardt marched into Berlin without encountering armed resistance, as would have been the duty of the Reichswehr. Kapp proclaimed himself Chancellor of the Reich and began with the reorganisation of the government. The order of the new rulers to arrest the escaped imperial government and to remove the state government if they did not stand on the side of the putschists was only partially executed by the local commanders. The proclamation of the general strike on 13 March and the reports arriving from the most important cities and industrial centres about joint actions of the working class prompted the indirect supporters of Kapp, the large industrialists and the Reichswehr generals, to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Kapp had to see the hopelessness of his company. Eyewitnesses reported that Kapp had spent almost 3 days of his time as Chancellor of the Reich "with gossip". On March 15, the "adventure" was over. Kapp apparently stayed hidden with friends near Berlin for some time after the failed coup and then flew to Sweden in a provided plane. Here he initially lived under different false names in different places, at last in a pension in Robäck, but was soon recognized and temporarily taken into custody. The Swedish government granted asylum to the refugee, but he had to commit himself to refrain from all political activities. When the high treason trial against the heads of the March company in Leipzig began, Kapp was moved by the question of his position in court. At first, he justified his non-appearance with the incompetence of the Ebert government and with the constitution, which in his opinion did not exist. Kapp said that there was no high treason in the legal sense against the "high treason" of social democracy. When in December 1921 one of the co-conspirators, the former district president of Jagow, was sentenced to a fortress sentence by the Imperial Court, Kapp changed his mind. Still in Sweden he worked out a justification for the process ahead of him, in which he denied any guilt in both an objective and a subjective sense. On the contrary, he intended to appear before the court with a charge against the then government. It didn't come to that anymore. Kapp had already fallen ill in Sweden. At the beginning of 1922 he returned to Germany and was remanded in custody. On 24 April 1922, he underwent surgery in Leipzig to remove a malignant tumour from the left eye. Kapp died on 12 June 1922; he was buried on 22 June at the village churchyard in Klein Dexen near his estate Pilzen. 2. inventory history The inventory, which had been formed in its essential parts by Kapp himself, was transferred by the family to the Prussian Secret State Archives as a deposit in 1935. Here the archivist Dr. Weise started already in the year of submission with the archival processing, which could not be completed, however. In the course of the repatriation of the holdings of the Secret State Archives, which had been removed during the Second World War, the Kapp estate was transferred to the Central State Archives, Merseburg Office. In 1951, Irmela Weiland, a trainee, classified and listed the stock here. As a result of the processing a find-book was created, which was until the new processing in the year 1984 the kurrente find-auxiliary. 1984 the stock was to be prepared for the backup filming. It turned out that the processing carried out in 1951 did not meet today's archival requirements, so that a general revision was considered necessary. The graduate archivists Renate Endler and Dr. Elisabeth Schwarze rearranged and simply listed the holdings according to the principles of order and indexing for the state archives of the German Democratic Republic, Potsdam 1964. The found file units were essentially retained, in individual cases they were dissolved and new indexing units were formed. In addition, 0.50 m of unprocessed documents were incorporated into the estate. The old regulatory scheme, which was essentially broken down chronologically, was replaced by a new regulatory scheme based on Kapp's areas of activity. In the course of the revision, the portfolio was re-signed. The relationship between the old and the new signatures was established through a concordance. The new find book replaces the previously valid find book from 1951. The stock is to be quoted: GStA PK, VI. HA Family Archives and Bequests, Nl Wolfgang Kapp, No... 3) Some remarks on the content of the holdings The Kapp estate contains 7.50 running metres of archival material from the period from 1885 to 1922, including some earlier and later individual pieces. The holdings mainly contain documents from Kapp's official and political activities, to a lesser extent also correspondence within the family and documents from the administration of the Knights' Manor Pilzen. The density of transmission to the individual sections of Kapp's professional and political development is quite different. While his activities with the Minden government, in the Prussian Ministry of Finance and as district administrator in Guben are relatively poorly documented, there is a rather dense tradition about his activities as director of the general landscape and as chairman of the German Fatherland Party. The documentation on the preparation and implementation of the coup shows gaps which can be explained, among other things, by the fact that important agreements were only reached orally at the stage of preparing the coup. Moreover, Kapp, who had to flee hastily to Sweden after the coup d'état failed, was no longer able to give this part of his estate the same care as the former one. Overall, however, it is a legacy of great political importance and significance. Merseburg, 2. 10.1984 signed Dr. Elisabeth Schwarze Diplomarchivar Compiled and slightly shortened: Berlin, April 1997 (Ute Dietsch) The clean copy of the find book was made by Britta Baumgarten. Note After the reunification of the two German states, the Merseburg office was closed, the archival records and thus also the Kapp estate were returned to the Secret State Archives in Berlin (1993). From the inventory maps, this reference book was created after maps that no longer existed were replaced (post-distortion of files). XIII Bibliography (selection) Bauer, Max : March 13, 1920 Berlin 1920 Bernstein, Richard : Der Kapp-Putsch und seine Lehren. Berlin 1920 Brammer, Karl : Five days of military dictatorship. Berlin 1920 Documents on the Counterrevolution using official material: The same: Constitutional Foundations and High Treason. According to stenographic reports and official documents of the Jagow trial. Berlin 1922 Erger, Johannes : The Kapp-Lüttwitz Putsch. Düsseldorf 1967 Falkenhausen, Fri. from : Wolfgang Kapp. In: Conservative Monthly July/August 1922 Kern, Fritz : Das Kappsche Abenteuer. Impressions and findings. Leipzig/Berlin 1920 Könnemann, Erwin : Residents' Weirs and Time Volunteer Associations. Berlin 1971 Noske, Gustav : From Kiel to Kapp. Berlin 1920 Rothfels, Hans : Article "Wolfgang Kapp" in: Deutsches biogra- phisches Jahrbuch Bd 4 (1922) Berlin/Leipzig 1929, correspondence. 132-143 (Here also a drawing of the works Kapps) Schemann, Ludwig : Wolfgang Kapp and the March company. A word of atonement. Munich/Berlin 1937 Taube, Max : Causes and course of the coup of 13 March 1920 and his teachings for the working class and the middle classes. Munich 1920 Wauer, W. : Behind the scenes of the Kapp government. Berlin 1920 Wortmann, K. Geschichte der Deutschen Vaterlandspartei In: Hallische Forschungen zur neueren Geschichte. Volume 3, Hall 1926 Contents I. Introduction Page II 1 Biographical Information on Wolfgang Kapp Page II 2 History of the Collection Page X 3 Some Remarks on the Content of the Collection Page XI 4 Literature in Selection Page XIII II Structure of the Collection Page XIV III Collection Page XVII (Order Numbers, Title, Duration Page 1-106)) XVII III. holdings (order numbers, file title, duration) Description of holdings: Lebenssdaten: 1858 - 1921 Finds: database; find book, 1 vol.
Introduction 1st history of ownership The Detmold stock L 51 Foreign ownership of Lippe is divided into several local subgroups. The connection of these places consists in the fact that they contain different lippic rights (possessions, claims, pledges and bailiwicks) outside the closed territory. On the one hand it is a zone not far from the actual dominion area in the north or north-west (Enger, Bünde, Quernheim and Dünner Mark as well as Ulenburg), on the other hand it is also more distant areas such as the Beyenburg an der Wupper office, the sovereign dominion of Vianen south of Utrecht and the Freckenhorst monastery near Münster. In terms of time, however, the files on the individual groups are far apart, as they contain events from the 15th to the end of the 18th century (apart from copies of older documents supposedly dating back to 1031). Beyenburg was part of the duchy of Jülich-Kleve-Berg, but had served as the widow's seat of Countess Maria von Waldeck, who died in 1593. After this, negotiations and the actual takeover as a pledge by Count Simon VI zur Lippe took place, whereupon the administration by his officials (from 1597), which lasted for a decade, and the quite soon redemption by Jülich (1607) took place. The Lippe administration consisted of three persons, the rent master Wilhelm von Pylsum, who was taken over by Jülich and replaced by Hermann Kirchmann in 1602, another bailiff and the forester. The affairs of the office are reflected above all in the correspondence of the rent master and the bailiff with the count to the Lippe. In addition, account books and lists of receipts and expenditures have been preserved, and the two changes of government each led to an inventory of the rights and goods held there. The fact that the dismissed rent master of Pylsum and Count Simon VI also had a dispute over the years with Lippe has also found its expression in the records. In the village of Bünde, the Lippe rights consisted mainly of market duties, which are documented for some years (1551-1560) as well as external interventions against these rights. The office of Enger had been pledged to Bishop Wilhelm von Paderborn by the noblemen of Lippe in 1409. In the 16th century, the counts of zur Lippe repeatedly attempted to trigger the pledge at the Dukes of Jülich, to whom Enger had meanwhile come. Special activities developed in this respect under Count Simon VI in the years since 1576. The recovery did not succeed because there were disagreements about the exact scope of the pledged office. However, due to the establishment of a commission to delimit and record the Lippic rights there, protocols were drawn up containing an inventory of Enger around 1578. The files of the Quernheim monastery refer to the women's abbey there, the bailiwick of which the Counts of Lippe had held since the 13th century. In the 16th century, the abbesses there made frequent use of them, for example to protect their own people against attacks by representatives of the Minden monastery, but also against the town of Lübbecke and the Counts of Diepholz, and also to safeguard their claims for logging and pig fattening and for possessions and disagreements in the convent. In the end, the monastery became dependent on Minden after the departure of some sisters, against which even a joint action of the Counts of Lippe and the monastery of Osnabrück before the Imperial Chamber Court could not do anything. However, in the 18th century, the Counts of Lippe still had the bailiwick of Osnabrück as a lord over them. The Ulenburg collection is particularly extensive. The Lippe feudal sovereignty over this castle was established in 1470 and resulted from a successful feud between Lippe and the city of Herford against the Lords of Quernheim. Already the period before the later direct exercise of Lippe's power is well documented, because apparently the written estate of the last owner Hilmar von Quernheim was taken over. Hilmar, a Danish colonel in the service of Denmark and a drost of various masters, was involved in numerous legal disputes, such as a dispute with his cousin Jasper von Quernheim over Haus Beck, a property that often appears in the Ulenburg files. Hilmar's conflict over the sovereign rights claimed by the Minden monastery, in which his liege lord Simon VI soon supported him to the Lippe, and which continued after Hilmar's death ( 1581), had more consequences. Now the Ulenburg was claimed as a fief fallen home by Simon VI and after a long dispute with Minden it was finally claimed. When Minden handed the Ulenburg over to Lippe at the end of 1593 after an imperial penal mandate, the conflict was not over, as the condition of the castle was not satisfactory for Count Simon VI. In a continuation process (until 1607) numerous witnesses were questioned by an imperial commission and extensive lists of the income of the Ulenburg were drawn up. Although the Ulenburg reached the von Wrede family via Philipp zur Lippe-Alverdissen as early as the beginning of the 17th century, after their bankruptcy Lippe once again briefly took over the dominion there (around 1708 to 1711). Apparently the documents inventoried at that time were kept and then brought to the archive in Brake. Among them are also the files and numerous books of accounts from the end of the 16th century up to the time of von Wrede and her bankruptcy. From the Ulenburg, after their takeover, the older Lippe rights were administered in the Dünner Mark, such as the timber court there, which was also disputed with the Minden monastery. The relevant files can also be found in the Ulenburg collection. In contrast to the other subcases, the Freckenhorst Act only refers to a specific political process outside Lippe, namely the election of a new abbess. After the death of Abbess Margarete zur Lippe, Count Simon VI attempted to have his daughter Elisabeth elected as his successor, which found support in Freckenhorst but was prevented due to the intervention of the Münster Monastery in favour of a Catholic candidate. Thus it is basically not a "foreign possession" of Lippe. The dominions of Vianen and Ameide as well as the Burgraviate of Utrecht passed from the von Brederode family to the Counts of Dohna (1684). Through her heiress Amalie zu Dohna, the wife of Simon Heinrichs zur Lippe, the Dutch exclave came to Lippe in 1686. On September 3, 1725, however, it was sold to the Dutch General States, but the Vianisches Archiv remained, as far as family matters in the broadest sense were concerned, with the Haus Lippe in accordance with the contract. It contains numerous documents of the last members of the House of Brederode (Johann Wolfert, Wolfert and Hedwig) and their heirs Carl Emil and Amalie from the family of Dohna, including correspondence with the extensive relatives to whom financial obligations also existed due to a Fidei compromise regulation for Vianas. For exactly this reason, the later-born members of the house Lippe (Agnaten) saw themselves injured with the sales of Vianen in their there claims and went before the imperial chamber court. In Wetzlar they finally had success, which is why the ruling Counts zur Lippe had to pay compensation and now tried to sue their own responsible persons. Thus, the Lippe protagonists in the sales negotiations, President Christoph von Piderit and Government Councillor Blume, were confronted with accusations which led to a trial of the Lippe tax against the former president. Due to these later legal disputes, the materials of the internal administration of the Vianen dominion were preserved in order to document their legal and financial condition. Therefore these matters can be traced in detail, especially the payments of the rent masters Peter Inghenhouse (1679 still until at least 1698), Elisa Gordon (parallel to it since approx. 1694 to 1721, before already secretary, later mayor), Wolfert Louis van der Waal (interim 1721), Arnold Henrik Feith (1721-1724), Henrik van Dortmond (1725) as well as the special envoy Simon Henrich Blume (1725/26 respectively 1727/30). In addition, the Drost (Drossart) appeared, first for years Jacques de l¿Homme de la Fare, then from 1710 to 1725 Jean Henry Huguetan (married van Odijk, later Count Güldensteen) and other councillors, who together formed the government council of Vianen established in 1681. All those involved in administration cumulated several posts and, after their departure, often still dealt with their previous affairs, making it difficult to delimit them. This kind of administration seems to have been taken over from the time of von Brederode and during the intermezzo under Carl Emil to Dohna quite uninterruptedly under the Lippe rule, as well as personal continuities and connections (Elisa Gordon was related for instance to the family van Dortmond, this again with Jobst B.). Barckhausen). Nathan van Dortmond, who came from Vianen, even managed to climb the rank of Landgographer in Lippe, while councils from Germany were only active in Vianen in the early and late Lippe period, such as Justus Dietrich Neuhaus, Theodor Fuchs and Simon Henrich Blume. 2. inventory history The first six subgroups of the inventory L 51 were arranged by Johann Ludwig Knoch according to factual aspects, arranged and listed with quite detailed information in his find book. This kind of distortion depended very much on his preferences, which is why invoices and the like or sources about the subjects were kept, but hardly noticed. At the beginning of the files formed by Knoch there are often copies of late medieval documents, which mostly became legally relevant for later events, which only emerge in the further course of the often chronologically sorted compilations. Not only is the overall title of Auswärtiger Besitz somewhat imprecise due to the inclusion of the appointment of an abbess in Freckenhorst, which was decided to Lippe's disadvantage. Also the subdivisions were carried out schematically in such a way that connected processes were formally correctly separated into individual proceedings, but which belong to each other objectively (for instance the case Hilmar von Quernheim against Erich Dux, at least Drosten von Hausberge, as well as against his rule, bishop and cathedral chapter of the monastery Minden). In addition, bundles of remains appear, the distribution of which Knoch had still planned but not realized on different subject groups (L 51 No. 46, 160, similar to Vianen No. 265/66, and on mixed matters, No. 267), or also scattered individual pieces, which belong to a common process (affairs of the Colonel Alexander Günther von Wrede, L 51 No. 43, 55, 62). Some of these have no connection whatsoever with Lippe's external possessions, such as extracts from the minutes of the Reichskammergericht (L 51 No. 160) belonging to various trials. The invoices of the Beyenburg office (L 51 No. 14) also contained a bundle with letters on otherwise unrelated extra-lippic property titles (in Sommersell, Kariensiek and Entrup in the Oldenburg velvet office), which Knoch had still provided with his typical marginal notes at the upper margin and sorted chronologically, but without recording them. The situation is very similar with the invoices for a building that Count Simon VI had erected on Prague Castle Hill from 1608 (No. 120). There are apparently two further subgroups of the foreign property in the state of origin, which were not taken into account in Bnoch's find book and in the classification of the holdings. Furthermore, Knoch had laid out some files about the subjects of the Ulenburg, but had provided them with the remark nullius momenti (without meaning) in his find book and had not listed them more closely. In it, however, there are quite interesting matters from the end of the 17th century (L 51 No. 100 and. 101), such as letters of release, estate inventories of simple people, complaints about beer adultery or registers of persons together with their land and cattle. The seventh subgroup with the files on Vianas was apparently added to inventory L 51 only later. A part of the material came to Detmold only in 1726, to which were added the relevant entrances already present in the residence and the material of the later processes. Although Knoch has still inscribed individual files at the beginning and end of the partial stock (L 51 No. 265-267), its indexing is missing, at least in the preserved find book L 51. When the files on the proceedings of the family at Dohna were sought out again after 1772 because of the intervention of the Prussian King Frederick II, Knoch also became active, as a family tree and some remarks by his hand prove (L 51 No. 191). In the seventh subgroup, Vianen, there are on the one hand the entrances relating to the reign. In addition, there are materials which were brought to Detmold in 1726 when the archive at Batestein Castle in Vianen was divided. These files were apparently reassembled for later investigations and processes, but the L 3 stock, which did not contain only documents, was separated. Later orders of the Vianen substock were only carried out at a shallow depth. In principle, the present order seems on the one hand to go back to the structure of the matter for the Wetzlar Imperial Chamber Court process, which was conducted with the Lippe co-heirs, as also shown by corresponding notes (so to L 51 No. 218, No. 223), but on the other hand it concerns the annexes to the report of the later investigative commissions on the role of the Lippe councillors in the sale of the dominion. All in all, it is a rather colourful mixture of the most varied pieces from the administration of the dominion, which have to do not only with the period under the Counts of Lippe, but also with earlier centuries, above all from the reign of the von Brederode family and from the decades after the sale. The use by the Count of Lippe of the money obtained from the sale of vianas is also documented in detail. In addition, the private documents of Countess Amalie zur Lippe, née Dohna, have also been included in the documents about her inheritance, the dominion of Vianen, even if they had nothing to do with it directly. A part of the correspondence about and from Vianas was unfortunately arranged schematically (obviously not by Knoch) by sender. Thus the original factual connections were partly torn apart, which are now scattered over the directory units L 51 No. 268 to 285. The Vianen sub-collection also contained a collection of remnants, including copies of medieval documents, beginning with the foundation of the Abdinghof monastery [1031], and other documents, some of which are completely unrelated or only in connection with the collection, such as the possession of the Count of Geldern in the vicinity of Vianen or refer to ancestors of the Brederode family (such as Knight Arnold von Herlaer). Their inscription speaks for itself, for instance (L 51 No. 267): Quodlibet of collected individual pieces of file, of which the persecution, to which they belong, can perhaps still be found, or (ibid.) old news, of which perhaps still some use can be made. The collected printed matter (L 51 No. 255) and diaries, including the records of the secretary of Hedwig von Brederode for 1679 and 1680, but also an anonymous description of a sea voyage to America (1776), are more related to Vianas. The first evaluation of the inventory was carried out according to the state of the distortion. Since Count Simon VI. zur Lippe played a particularly important role in many of the parts of L 51, August Falkmann often referred to it in his work about this ruler in a way that owes much to the Bone Regests. Besides Falkmann, Otto Preuß also took a closer look at the materials for Ulenburg for the first time, while this pioneering achievement for Beyenburg was performed by Werhan. Peter van Meurs, who was involved in the drawing of the Vianic inventory L 3 in The Hague until 1909, probably also evaluated parts of L 51 VII for his work on the heritage of the House of Brederode. The inventory consists of 286 units in now 85 cartons; the oldest (transcribed) document in it allegedly originates from 1031, the most recent from 1796. The inventory took place from 17 October to 15 December 2004. On the one hand, the aim was to proceed in a more analytical and summarizing manner in order to better emphasize the characteristics of the nudes; on the other hand, the materials not yet considered by Knoch, the later rearrangements and additions, and the almost completely unexplored subcontent of vianas were to be recorded in an equivalent manner or, for lack of other finding aids, even deeper. It should be noted that in particular the documents on Vianas are written not only in German, but also in French, Dutch, Latin and rarely in English, which could not be listed here individually due to the frequent change of languages (often within documents). A unit listed in a previous record could not be described in detail as it appears to have been missing since 1999 (L 51 No 286). Technical defects forced the repeated processing of the indices. An old signature index was not created, since the bones were sometimes assigned signatures inconsistently or its units were divided again by later rearrangements and insertions. However, the exact concordance can be seen in the Bone Findbuch, in which the new signatures were entered. For conservation reasons, most of the posters were taken from the files, some of which belong to related matters, such as a replica of a sham letter from a trial of Hilmar von Quernheim, proclamations of laws of the dominion of Vianen and the neighbouring Dutch territories, but also those concerning other matters, such as a signed order of soldiers of the imperial commander-in-chief Wallenstein from the Thirty Years' War. Some of these posters were used as file covers. The withdrawal notes could not initially be printed for the distortion units. Since the holdings concern Lippe's foreign possessions and claims, materials on these can also be found in other archives, above all those of the neighbouring Reich estates, such as the Duchy of Jülich (HStA Düsseldorf) for Beyenburg, Enger and Bünde. There are also sources on Ulenburg and Haus Beck in other archives. For the trials of Hilmar von Quernheim and Count zur Lippe by the Imperial Chamber of Justice there is a counter tradition mainly in the State Archives of Münster (RKG Q 113-116, ibid. L 629/630), as well as in the formerly inseparable Wetzlar holdings (now the Federal Archives) and in numerous other archives. The files of Haus Beck are deposited in the Stadtarchiv Löhne, while the corresponding materials have reached the Stadtarchiv Bielefeld at Ulenburg. There is also further tradition of the enfeoffment of the Quernheimers with the Ulenburg. For the reign of Vianen and Ameide the materials in Detmold go back to the Middle Ages, since here the older documents of the Lords of Brederode can be found, mostly in L 3 (some also in L 51 No.214, 229, 265; in addition prints or regests of older documents of the House of Brederode, ibid. No. 210 and 243, respectively), a stock which for the later period possesses parallel files to L 51 and also extends into the period after the sale. Of course there is additional delivery in the Netherlands. For the spread of materials from Sommersell and neighbouring places, L 89 A No. 231-233 should also be used. The extensive material collections and party files on the Reichskammergerichtsprozessen über Vianen and the sporadically appearing RKG files in L 51, which do not belong to the actual subject matters of this collection, could be assigned on the basis of the already existing index. Already in 1785 files sent back from Wetzlar to the Reichskammergerichtsprozeß about the sale of Vianen have reached the inventory L 95 I. The quote is as follows: L 51 No. (order number) Detmold, December 2004 Dr. Otfried Krafft
The BORCKEschen possessions in the right Rhine part of the duchy of KLEVE consisted of the 4 knight's seats HUETH, ROSAU, OFFENBERG and WENGE together with the subductors BIENEN and PRAEST-DORNICK. The Chamber President and Privy Council, the later Minister of the Budget, Friedrich Wilhelm v. BORCKE, had acquired the houses HUETH and ROSAU from the WYLICH-LOTTUM bankruptcy in 1736 and the RECKEschen Herrschaften OFFENBERG-PRAEST-DORNICK in 1744/45. Since the archives of the previous owners were taken over in whole or in part, the collection consists of 3 main groups: The RECKEsche Archives (I and II), a part of the WYLICH-LOTTUMsche Archives (III and IV) and the BORCKEsche Archives (IV and V) I and II. The Rhenish possessions of the family v.d. RECKE came mainly from the family v. WYLICH zu WENGE, which had died out in 1636 in the male tribe. The heirs were the sister of the last v. W. GERBERGA ( 1637) and her sons 2. Ehe KONRAD und DIETRICH v.d. RECKE. The property included the houses WENGE (at DORNICK) and NEUENHOFEN (in KREFELD-BOCKUM) as well as estates and pastures in the county of 's HEERENBERG. KONRAD v.d. RECKE, later president of the chamber in KLEVE, received these maternal estates during the division. In the year 1670 he acquired the noble house OFFENBERG in exchange for the WYLICHsche house to EMMERICH and pushed through 1677 that this was detached from the rule BIENEN and raised with a part of the peasantry BERGE to the sub rule. In 1678 he also received jurisdiction over PRAEST and DORNICK. The archive accordingly consists of the archive of the family v. WYLICH (I) and the extensive estate of the KONRAD v.d. RECKE ( 1713) (II). The WYLICH Archive also contains the archives of the families NEUENHOFEN-OSSENBROICH (referred to as NEUENHOFEN in the documents section), WISSEL, LOWENBERG and GOHR. III The WYLICH-LOTTUM archive was probably divided after the death of Field Marshal KARL PHILIPP v. W. in 1719, since almost all files are missing here about the house GRONDSTEIN, which was passed on to the 2nd son, and there are also gaps in the holdings of documents. But the valuable official acts of GODART, CHRISTOFFEL, OTTO and CHRISTOFFEL, of which the 3 first officials were in GENNEP (1455-1546), the last two held the office of HETTER (1542-1590), remained on HUETH (now KLEVE-MARK XI d GENNEP and HETTER); furthermore also the estates of Baron JOHANN SIGISMUND ( 1677) with the files of the office HEMERS (now KLEVE-MARK XI d) and of the Field Marshal General KARL PHILIPP. 38 documents which had been alienated from the holdings either in 1719 or during the sale of the estate in 1736 were transferred from the Geh. Staatsarchiv in 1862. They have now been reunited with the stock, having previously formed their own stock of GRONDSTEIN dominion. The properties of the family in the HETTER may come in part from the families HEKEREN and LOEL. In 1645 the house HUETH with BIENEN, BERGE and ANROP was elevated to sub rule. The dominion of GRIBBENVORST-LOTTUM, which originated from the estate of ALEID v. BARSD0NK ( after 1420), had to be asserted in a year-long process with v. MARWICK. GRONDSTEIN came into the possession of OTTO v.WYLICH (married to ELISABETH v. GRONDSTEIN) by inheritance in 1535. (Cf. the old find book: Herrschaft GRONDSTEIN; now file no. 1401) The dominion WEHL was purchased in 1671 and the house ROSAU in 1690 (see also Dep Wylich-Lottum). The files of the HUETH Lehnhof were combined into a special group, since a divorce of the WYLICHschen and BORCKEschen parts was not possible here. V. The BORCKE family owned the house HUETH until their extinction in 1872. From the extensive estates of the budget minister FRIEDRICH WILHELM v. B., the Klevische estates and the v. STEDER fiefs had passed to his son, the general commissioner and later Prussian envoy ADRIAN HEINRICH during the division of the estate in 1769. Under his son FRIEDRICH HEINRICH ( 1825), the decay of the family fortune began. The inherited debts, the loss of sovereign rights including the income flowing from them, the poor economic situation of the real estate after the wars of liberation, but especially the unfortunate outcome of an inheritance process with the stepbrother v. VATTEL. Neufchatel 1819 brought the family into a difficult economic situation. After the death of the count it was probably only the steward SONORÈ as well as the guardians who had to be thanked that the possessions did not come under the hammer. When the estate was divided in 1843, the oldest son Count HEINRICH BORCKE acquired the house HUETH, the remaining farms were passed on to the mother and siblings. From his successor, Freiherr v. WITTENHORST- SONSFELD, the Prussian Archive Administration acquired in 1872 the so-called Old Archive (I - IV) and the estates of the Minister FRIEDRICH WILHELM and the envoy ADRIAN HEINRICH v. BORCKE (files E 1 III 48 et seq.). By order of the Archivdirektion of 5 June 1873, the extensive and valuable estates of both BORCKE as well as parts of the estates of KONRAD v.d.RECKE and Generalfeldmarschall v. WYLICH-LOTTUM had to be transferred to the Geheime Staatsarchiv in Berlin. Following the implementation of the principle of origin (provenance principle), the official files of the budget minister were distributed to the state archives of Düsseldorf, Münster and Marburg in 1889, and the RECKEschen and WYLICH files were also returned to the state archives of Düsseldorf (service files A 7 g 1 88 A.V. 1884/33). The BORCKE estates remained in Berlin (cf. the indexes at the end of the Findbuch, for the Klevische Kammerakten at present the holdings BORCKE-HUETH). When the remainder of the HUETH archive was acquired in 1935, the division of 1889 had to be made the basis. Accordingly, the pieces belonging to the estates of the BORCKE family and the files on the Eastern Elbe possessions to Berlin, individual official files were handed over to the state archives of Münster and Marburg (see the indexes at the end of the find book). The administrative records of the 18th and 19th centuries remained in Düsseldorf, as far as they referred to HUETH and the HALBERSTÄDT fiefdoms, as well as the extensive estate of Count FRIEDRICH HEINRICH BORCKE, who had mainly been active in Grand-Ducal mining services. The youth letters FRIEDRICHS des GROSSEN to the budget minister v. B., which were excluded from sale in 1873, have since been lost (1 letter b. Stromberg, Haus Elverlingsen b. Altena/W., other letters b. Gravert, Gestüt Midlinghoven near Düsseldorf-Hubbelrath; 1921 still available, see Krudewig, Niederrhein. Homeland. 1, 1921, No. 14). The order of the files acquired in 1935 was taken as an occasion to redraw the previously acquired holdings. For practical reasons, the chronological order of the documents was maintained, especially as it was not always possible to assign individual pieces to a particular group. A small collection of documents and files, which had been alienated from the archive by the rector Bröring zu Rees, reached the state archives in 1936 together with his collection and was reunited with the main collection. Düsseldorf, 24 October 1936 signed. Oediger documents Explanation of the designations of origin Bilandt: Documents of the family v. BYLANDT which came to the family WYLICH-LOTTUM (III) by the marriage of JUTTA v.B. with GADERT v. WYLICH; Botzelaer: Membership of the documents preserved only in copies uncertain. Gohr: Estate of ADOLF v. GOHR and his son ADELHARD, passed to the family v. WYLICH (I) in 1605. Hecera: Archive of the family of H. (cf. about them ILGEN, Duchy Kleve I); Probably part of the WYLICH-LOTTUM archives (III). Horns = hair: House HORNE in the office HAMM, originally owned by the family HARMAN (HARME or HARMELEN), later by the marriage of GERBERGA v. HARMAN, née v. WYLICH, with KONRAD v.d. Recke to the family v.d. Recke (see files 1303). Loel: Probably part of the WYLICH-LOTTUM archives (III). Löwenberg: Documents of the family LEWENBERG, after 1485 passed to the family v. WYLICH (I) (through the marriage of HILLE L. with JOHANN v. WYLICH in 1466). Neuenhofen: Archive of the house NEUENHOFEN zu Krefeld-Bockum (owner of NEUENHOFEN and OSSENBROICH) by GERBERIG v. OSSENBROICH 1550 to the family WYLICH (I); history of the family Wylich-Lottum s. Liese, The classic Aachen II 88ff (VI B 354 20) Recke: see II. Wylich: see I. Wylich-Lottum: see III. Wissel: Part of the archive, the v. W. family, probably belonging to the WYLICH archive (GERTRUD v. WISSEL married GODART v. WYLICH in his first marriage). The actual family archive Ossenbruch is located at Brünninghausen i. W. (Freiherr von Romberg) (cf. Rep. 4 III) (now Landesarchiv NRW Abteilung Westfalen ?; cf. handwritten margin note StA Münster in the analogous Altfindbuch 110.12.1, Bl. IX) Depositum Hueth II (from Wittenhorst-Sonsfeld) From the archival holdings at Hueth Castle (documents and records of the castle owners of Wylich-Lottum, von Wylich-Wenge, von der Recke, von Borcke and, lastly, von Wittenhorst-Sonsfeld) was discovered in 1872 by the Prussians. Archive administration acquired the so-called old archive with the estates of the minister Friedrich Wilhelm and the envoy Adrian Heinrich von Borcke. The latter as well as parts of the old archive were transferred to the Geh. Staatsarchiv in Berlin in 1873 by order of the Archivdirektion. The official files were distributed in 1889 to the state archives of Düsseldorf, Münster and Marburg according to the principle of provenance. In 1935 the remainder of the archive of the Hueth dominion was acquired and divided on the basis of 1889. The files acquired in 1872 and 1935 and transferred to the Düsseldorf State Archives were recorded together in the 1936 Findbuch der Herrschaft Hueth (C 135) by the later director of the Düsseldorf State Archives, Dr. Oediger. What remained in the possession of the barons of Wittenhorst-Sonsfeld on Hueth were parts of the family archive of the counts of Borcke and the family archive of the barons of Wittenhorst-Sonsfeld. The Wittenhorst Archive was listed in 1933 by the Landesarchivrat Dr. Kisky in the Findbuch Wittenhorst und Borcke (Hueth) (H 4 XIV); the remaining holdings were inspected and arranged by the Landesarchiv, but could no longer be carried out before the war. This last part of the archive was brought from the damaged archive rooms to the cellars of the Catholic elementary school in Rees by the archive advisory office. When the cellars had to be cleared in 1958, the archive was deposited with the Düsseldorf State Archives (Depositalvertrag vom 27.11.1958; Acc. No. 88/1958; Tageb. No. 3801-H XVII). The deposit consisted of 3 boxes with files, mainly of the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a box with partly decayed books, a herbarium and various maps. It was placed in Room V. On 16.12. 59 Klaus Frh. von Wittenhorst-Sonsfeld received power of attorney from his brother to remove parts of these records. Dr. Lahrkamp began to record the rest of the completely rearranged and confused files. This work was completed July-September 1962 by the undersigned. The review revealed that more than half of the holdings are still parts of the von Borcke archive, with a focus on 1800 (Count Adrian Heinrich von Borcke, died 1791, Count Friedrich Heinrich, died 1825). The collection also contains individual pieces from the archives of von Borckeschen and Wittenhorst's relatives (Sommer, Bünte, von Goltstein zu Beeck). In order not to pre-empt the owner of the inventory, no money was collected, although a large part of the files are of little value, but only the unworthy pieces were sorted out and placed in a separate envelope. Düsseldorf, September 10, 1962 Dr. Niemeyer Disposals from Hueth, files II 1) Dr. Frhr. v. Wittenhorst, the following archival documents have been handed over: 23.1.60: 13 file titles - 6.2.60: 1 file concerning the church of Haldern; 1 file concerning income, property and debts of Sonsfeld (5 sheets); 5 files back - 13.2.60: appointment of Fr. W. v. Wittenhorst to the dike count 1678 June 28 (document); file concerning capital of the heirs of Sonsfeld 1805 ff. -18311 letter from 1837 family v. Wittenhorst concerning - 26.3.60: Various land register and cadastral register excerpts (8)1 file about Wittenhorst's inheritance dispute from the year 1833 and earlier - 2.4.60: 3 pieces from Salm-Salm - from Wittenhorst 1717; 1 file Eickelbaumschlag zu Haffen 1664-1721; patent from 1845 - 9.4.60: File no. 15 of 27.1.1572 (2 parchments); file concerning a prebend of Soest, no. 962 of 1835; 2 letters of the mayor Vrasselt of 1894 and 1896 2) On 19.6.1963 the following files were handed over to the Geheime Staatsarchiv, Berlin-Dahlem: Nachlaß Friedrich Wilh. v. Borcke Nr. 40) Praebende of the Minister of State Friedrich Wilhelm v. Borcke at the cathedral chapter of Havelberg (with lists of the minores and electi), 1703-1783 - No. 63) Receipts for Chamber President v. Borcke u. Kriegsminister v. Borcke (stamp duty for the purchase of Gut Falkenberg/Mittelmark by Gut Falkenberg/Mittelmark, contributions to the Feld war chest for Lieutenant v. Borcke before 17.1.1760), 1732, 1751-1763 - No. 77) Catalogues and correspondence about the purchase of Gut Falkenberg/Mittelmark by v. Borcke Kupferstichen, 1750-1756 - No. 137) lists of copper engravings and engravers together with correspondence, 1751-1756 - No. 76) letters and invoices of the dealer Trible about jewels, paintings, copper engravings, nippes for v. Borcke, 1756-1762 - No. 119) Correspondence of the Minister v. Borcke, 1763-1769 - No. 233) Letters of the Marshal v. Poland to Dresden, 1769 - No. 36) Measures of the Klevische government concerning the investigation of the state of mind of the Minister Friedrich Wilhelm v. Borcke and administration of the Borcke estates; proceedings against Amalia Rieck, economist on Hueth, for embezzlement, 1768-1769 - No. 53) Files concerning the sale of Borcke's household effects to Mademoiselle Rieken, 1764-1768 - No. 106) Files to the lawsuit against Amalia Rieck (in), 1765-1771 - No. 225) Accounting of Kampen about financial transactions of the Budget Minister v. Borcke, receipt of 1673, 1673-1757 - No. 222) Accounts & receipts for Budget Minister v. Borcke, (1739), 1747-1760 - No. 116) Craftsmen & Supplier receipts for v. Borcke, 1761-1767 - No. 102) Correspondence, accounts and receipts concerning Kuxen, 1764-1768 - No. 153) Auction account v. Borcke'scher Mobilien, 1764 - No. 173) Settlement of process costs v. Borcke approx. von Sonsfeld, 1766 Estate of Adrian Heinrich v. Borcke No. 235) Letters of Nettelbusch from Minden concerning the appeal of the cathedral capital of Kessel against the cathedral capital of Nottel, 1771 - No. 156) Judicatural calculation in the case of the separated Geh. Borck oa. the Geh. Legationsrat v. Borck, 1774 - No. 174) Inheritance collection by A.H. v. Borcke for Christian Klein (1773) and Markus Israel (1772), 1772-1773 - No. 4) Bills for the Geheimrat Baron v. Borcke zu Berlin, as well as auction catalogue of 1764, 1764-1781 - No. 94) Evidence of the debts paid by Adrian Heinrich v. Borcke for his brother Carl August v. B., 1767-1769 - No. 223) Invoices, receipts and purchase offers for Geh. Rat von Borcke, 1770-1789 - No. 149) Clausthaler Gruben-Extrakt, Abrechnung, Kux-Preise, 1773-1782 - No. 172) Dekret des kursächs. General War Court in cases A.H. v. Borcke ca. Rudolph von Bünau together with correspondence relating to the trial Marie v. Borcke oa. Johann Friedrich Gürtler, 1775 - No. 207) Trial v. Borckesche Bediente Anna Dorothea Louise Richter, 1776 - No. 168) Trial von Borcke ca. Erben von Jever, Catjenove u. Schuylenburg, 1783-1790 Amtsakteakte Nr. 254) Requests by textile manufacturers for approval by v. Borcke, 1777 - no. 142) General Designation of the goods and their value purchased by merchants in the Principality of Halberstadt from the velvet and silk factories in Berlin, Potsdam, Frankfurt and Köpenick (1775-1776); passport for factory director Schlegel (1777); claims of widow Schiemenz against the fleeing silk manufacturer Gebhardt (1777); files concerning the following cases Silk stocking factory of the protective Jew Levin Moses Levi 1778, 1775-1778 - No. 205) Proposals to make salmiac a local product in the royal Prussian states and to improve the saltpetre system by Wilhelm Gottfried Pleueqnet and Jacob Andreas Weber with letters of recommendation (J.G. Hehl and v. Reck), 1777 - No. 128) General extract of the Kurmärkischen wool and yarn magazines, 1777-1778 - No. 23) Report of the Prussian War and Domain Chamber of Kleve concerning the Krefeld silk goods at the Frankfurt fair (with supplement: Magistrat zu Krefeld wegen Importschwierigkeiten, Moers 21. Januar 1778), 1778 - No. 150) Input of the Vitriol-Fabrik Schwartz