cahn

if i actually get around to doing this in any kind of reasonable timeframe, someone not me (hint: you) will have to add subtitles :)

I figured. If we get to the point where we have a performance we want to upload, I will take one for the team and figure out the technical parts!

Okay, revised version which fits the meter better. I sometimes had to sacrifice the rhymes, but I tried to keep couplets rhyming, at least. I also tried to copy the theme and even wording where possible.

Francis Stephen of Lorraine
George the 3rd has gone insane
Independence
Incognito, Duke of Marlborough
Whiff of grapeshot, Wolfgang Mozart
Cameralism, Reign of Terror
Sturm und Drang, Romanticism
Liberum veto

Adam Smith, pamphlet
Antoinette without a head
Plenty here to read
Pamela, Voltaire's Candide
Victory with Washington
Painting Emma Hamilton
Rococo, phlogiston
Johnson writes a lexicon

We did not start the fire
It was always burning as the world was turning
We did not start the fire
No, we did not light it, but we tried to fight it

Lady Mary, Potemkin
Charles the 12th and Bonnie Prince
Colonies, slave trade
Eugene on campaign
Rousseau, Diderot
Casanova, Crusoe
Edward Gibbon
Rothschild fortune made

Hussars horseback
Johann Sebastian Bach
Siege of Dresden, Rights of Man
Telemachus, Caps and Hats
Grand Tour, Corsica
Prussian muskets, Oglethorpe
Louverture, Pompadour
Battle of Poltava!

We did not start the fire
It was always burning as the world was turning
We did not start the fire
No, we did not light it, but we tried to fight it

Spanish Bourbons, Poniatowski
Struensee, Stanislaus Leszczynski
Savoy changing sides
Painfully the Sun King dies
Amber Room, Wollstonecraft
Gulliver, Maurice de Saxe
Treatise by Montesquieu
Several Russian palace coups

Guillotine, Vienna
French Encyclopedia
Tsarevitch Alexei
Émilie du Châtelet
Potsdam, Petersburg
Turk ships at Chesma burn
Great Frost, too cold
Panic, it's the Redcoats!

We did not start the fire
It was always burning as the world was turning
We did not start the fire
No, we did not light it, but we tried to fight it

Salonistes, satirists
French is spoken everywhere
Famous wits, Old Fritz
Saxony invasion
Franklin's Philadelphia
Giant soldier–mania
Meissen, Versailles
Executing Jacobites
That's Tsar Peter building ships
Scientific Pompeii digs
Black plague, go away
What else do I dare to say?

We did not start the fire
It was always burning as the world was turning
We did not start the fire
No, we did not light it, but we tried to fight it

Porcelain, Bonaparte
Hapless Damiens torn apart
Silkworms, Hochkirch,
Second round: Falkirk
Bleeding counts as medicine
Orlovs oust a sovereign
Washout of the Medici
British navy rules the sea

Pragmatic Sanction
Fake memoirs are fiction
Minden, Maxen
Habsburgs, Brandenburg
Joseph clawing back reforms
Once-great Poland is no more
Curse all these succession wars
I can't take it anymore!

We did not start the fire
It was always burning as the world was turning
We did not start the fire
But when we are gone, it shall still burn on and on and on

We did not start the fire
It was always burning as the world was turning
We did not start the fire
No we did not light it, but we tried to fight it

"Pamela" is next to "Voltaire's Candide" for reasons best known to salon. :D Likewise, I think Fritz would appreciate rhyming and alliterating with "famous wits."

I lip-synced the results while listening to the bardcore version, and there are only a few deviations from meter, and I think all can be handled by stretching out a syllable or pronouncing all syllables with equal weight. This version is definitely easier to sing along to than my first draft.

It also slants American, obviously, where Selena slanted Prussian. I tried to minimize overlap between our songs, but I did borrow "porcelain" (good thinking!).

Yes this is much better!

Not only does it fit the meter better, but I'm pleased I managed to work in some catchier lines like:

Rousseau, Diderot,
Casanova, Crusoe

I'd rather have "Defoe" than "Crusoe", but "Crusoe" near-rhymes with "Rousseau" (or at least they can be rhymed better when singing than speaking) and alliterates with "Casanova", so "Crusoe" it is!

What about "Another Russian palace coup"?

I had tried it, but it didn't fit "Seven papal regicides," having an extra syllable. You see, my whole MO was, "I have no idea how to create an earworm, but these people obviously do, so copy what they did as CLOSELY as possible!!"

That said, it works by itself, being iambic, and does rhyme better with "Montesquieu", so if you think it sounds better, go for it! (The singer gets a say in what sounds better. ;))

I am visiting family right now and don't have the stuff I need to experiment with the music, so no progress right now from my end.

This is good, because I'm still tweaking! (I wanted to tell you not to spend too much time practicing pronunciation on mine and to start with Selena's, because I had a feeling my second draft was going to be substantially different than my first, and it was!)

Reach out to me when you're ready to start practicing, and we can settle on a finalized version. This is going to be fun!

(Though I do sometimes feel like that Conan satire of GRRM doing being willing to do literally anything else besides finish the next book. Mildred: will do literally anything rather than finish writing about Peter Keith and Fredersdorf!)

You may recall that I didn't feel I had a good enough grasp on the subject of Pfeiffer's culpability in the matter of Kiekemal to publish on it, and so I started tracking down some documentary sources.

I have come to report that it is *immensely* more complicated than we realized, and it's a good thing I went to the sources.

So first we need a brief refresher on how the Kiekemal fiasco went down according to Emmi Wegfraß. As summarized by Selena (post in rheinsberg):

The commission in charge of investigating the entire affair delivered their report to Fritz on March 31st 1756, declaring that Pfeiffer was guilty, which results in Fritz ordering Pfeiffer's possessions were to be liquidated to compensate for the damage. She also quotes a cabinet order from June 4th 1756 by Fritz in which it says "Pfeiffer has executed the commission entrusted to him badly and derelict of duty and brought everything in great confusion". She then claims that Pfeiffer spent four years under arrest while the commission was investigating, then in 1758 when the "Berliner Kriminal Senat" sent a confirming judgment he got condemned to a further two years imprisonment, and then banished from Prussia.

In somewhat more detail:

- the mulberry trees and silk spinning houses which Pfeiffer was supposed to plant and build, respectively, haven't yet been done or finished

- on November 23rd, 1754, Colonel von Ingersleben (tea cup guy or a relation?) reports to the King that Pfeiffer has mishandled the situation and has personally enriched himself

- on November 25th, 1754, Pfeiffer gets arrested under this charge; a commission is supposed to investigate the actual state of things at Kiekemal

- On March 31st, 1756, the investigating commission sends its concluding report to Fritz. Now here Emmy Wegfraß writes: "Johann Pfeiffer must admit he has taken 8061 Reichstaler 3 Groschen from the King's money" - which I found confusing since the money for the original investment into Kiekemal hadn't come from the state, as she herself said, but presumably this refers to Pfeiffer taking that much salary and writing off expenses - and broken broken his oath not to buy any of the colonist's stuff (when his cousin bought lands next to the Müggelsee) .

Having sifted through the 2000 pages of the Berliner Kriminal Senat's judgment, this is what I've found:

1) Wegfraß is correct that Pfeiffer was arrested in 1754. I have the November 30, 1754 report to Fritz summarizing Pfeiffer's recent arrest, and I have read it and it does say that.

2) Wegfraß is correct that the original investigating commission sent its concluding report to Fritz and argued that Pfeiffer was guilty as hell.

3) Wegfraß is correct that Pfeiffer was still in prison 1758. The Kriminal Senat report, written in 1758, says he's been in prison for 4 years to date.

4) Wegfraß is correct that the Berliner Kriminal Senat found Pfeiffer guilty of 32 counts of negligence and embezzlement and recommended a sentence of 2 more years of prison, as well as removing him from his position, plus paying back the money they found him guilty of embezzling (either that, or demonstrate more successfully where the money went).

5) I haven't found anything about Pfeiffer being banished, but given the guilty verdict, Fritz may well have banished him from the country after the 2-year supplementary sentence was over. I don't have the document with the final sentence, and the Berliner Kriminal Senat does conclude that they leave the ultimate decision to Fritz.

6) Where what I found diverges from what Wegfraß says is that none of the 32 counts Pfeiffer's found guilty of have anything to do with Kiekemal.

Some background on the Berliner Kriminal Senat report: It's 2000 pages long because it contains a lot of charges. The original investigation by the commission, led by a Vice Director Fiedler, who appears to have it out for Pfeiffer, went over every colony Pfeiffer was responsible for with a fine-toothed comb, and nitpicked every detail to death. The original commission report covered hundreds of "Why did you do this?" "Why did you do that?" questions. Then Pfeiffer wrote a defense responding to these questions, which I assume was also very long. Then the poor members of the Kriminal Senat had to go over both documents line by line in a compare-and-contrast contrast, and write up their own judgment on each individual point.

As a side note, the Kriminal Senat did the kind of really good job of citing their sources that you'd expect from a legal document: if I got my hands on Fiedler's and Pfeiffer's respective documents, I think I could track everything down. (Don't worry, I don't plan to.)

And if you read the 2000 pages by the Kriminal Senat, most of it consists of them taking each individual claim and saying, "Pfeiffer's defense on this one is convincing to us." Or, "Fiedler didn't provide enough evidence for us to decide either way." Or, "Pfeiffer messed up, yeah, but in a way that looks like an honest mistake." RARELY, "Pfeiffer is guilty."

At the very end, what you find is that while he gets exonerated of most of the accusations, there are enough left where he appears guilty of malfeasance or negligence that he gets a guilty verdict overall. The Kriminal Senat says they can't account for about 19,000 talers that he's either going to have to prove where it went or else pay it back, and they ultimately recommend 2 more years of imprisonment (saying that the 4 years he's already suffered mitigates their desire to punish him more).

But none of the charges listed at the end for which he's found guilty mention Kiekemal. This is because, in the passage in the main text where Kiekemal's discussed specifically, the Kriminal Senat actually exonerated him on the Kiekemal-related charges! Here's the passage in question:

It is noted in the Acts that Colonel von Drachenberg took over the Kieckemahl establishment on the desolate Mahlsdorff field from the Köpenick magistrate on the basis of inheritance and interest, and committed himself to the construction of a silk-making house for three colonists, for which he was given free building wood free of charge. Not less than some time later, according to a contract concluded with the Chamber on October 19, 1752, in return for free building wood and other benefits, he committed himself to employing six foreign spinning families within the next two years, but the Commission did not find any of these during the on-site inspection, nor a silk-making house or a mulberry plantation, which the Commission also requested.

Now because the Commission took into consideration that Pfeiffer had been entrusted by Your Royal Majesty with the revision of the placement of the colonists, it confronted him in Question 44 about the deficiencies mentioned.

Pfeiffer's excuses are that, first of all, Your Royal Majesty had not ordered him to report on the placement of the colonists taken over by the entrepreneurs of the establishments; nevertheless, in the spring of 1754 he had the Kieckemahl establishment inspected by the Commissary Ockel, and when he saw from his report the lack of the families to be placed, in the erroneous opinion that the entrepreneur had not been given a specific deadline, he indicated to him that the colony would have to be complete in the spring of 1755, or that he would report this to Your Royal Majesty.

Since the commission has not made any inquiries about this supposedly happened, has not made any statements, nor has it been given to Pfeiffer to confirm it, and Pfeiffer could not be held to be at fault if he had either granted the specified deadline or postponed the inspection of the establishments by a few months beyond the specified time due to his overload of business, as the latter would be his fault if the information he has mentioned was not correct, we do not believe that he can be accused of negligence contrary to his duty.

Pfeiffer also stated that he did not know how the entrepreneur in Kieckemahl had engaged in silk production, and that he had never read what had been written about it at the Chamber. However, silk production could also be carried out without the establishment of a mulberry plantation, since the leaves could be purchased elsewhere, and in any case the supervision of the mulberry plantations was never committed to him, but rather they belonged to the department of the Chamber Director von Schmettau.

This last circumstance has never been contradicted, although we believe that it fully justifies Pfeiffer, since it appears that the entrepreneur took over the silk factory in Kieckemahl purely on his own initiative, or without regard to the contract concluded with the magistrate in Köpenick, and consequently it cannot be counted as a condition of the establishment, the fulfillment of which Pfeiffer had to ensure in his capacity as establishment commissioner.

In Streitberg, however, Pfeiffer, in response to question 281, could not deny such negligence or carelessness, but when it was pointed out to him that neither the number of colonists there was complete, nor was a single one of the colonists appointed a spinner or weaver, in accordance with the commitment, although the establishment should have been completed by the end of January 1754, he believed that he had forgotten to revisit this establishment, especially since other entrepreneurs, like the one in Streitberg, had been given a two-year period for establishing the colonies, not a one-year period.

But this very forgetfulness contains a carelessness and negligence, although if it were the only thing that could be rightly accused of Pfeiffer, it would easily be forgiven in view of the variety and size of his official duties.

Now, looking closely at Wegfraß's language, she never actually (afaict) says that the Kriminal Senat found Pfeiffer guilty in the matter of Kiekemal; she says only that he was found guilty on 32 counts. Which he was...but the whole thrust of her presentation leads you to believe he was found guilty of the Kiekemal-related charges she's been complaining about for the last 20 pages in a book on Kiekemal! I wouldn't be surprised if she thought the Senat was too soft on Pfeiffer, and that anyone who would commit 32 counts of embezzlement and negligence was obviously at fault in Kiekemal too.

But what the Senat actually says is that they agree with Pfeiffer that the Kiekemal entrepreneur was at fault. They seem to be acting like this entrepreneur is Trachenberg, but my understanding from Wegfraß plus the catalog of the Brandenburg archives is that there was a lot of changing of hands between Trachenberg, Fredersdorf, and Frau von Marschall. Frau von Marschall is supposed to have gotten the land in March/June (it's complicated) 1753 from Fredersdorf, who got it from Colonel Trachenberg in July 1752. So if Pfeiffer was conducting an investigation in 1754, you'd think it would be Frau von Marschall who the Kriminal Senat thinks is responsible, but it could have been Colonel Trachenberg, or even Fredersdorf. (The Kriminal Senat document is not really good about naming entrepreneurs.) At any rate, it's not Pfeiffer.

So! Who knew Pfeiffer would be found both guilty and innocent of what Wegfraß claims?

selenak: don't worry, I'm *not* asking you to translate this. I'd just like you to glance over it and confirm my impression that it doesn't mention anything that looks like it's related to Kiekemal or Fredersdorf. And if anything I said in my write-up is an incorrect interpretation of this, please let me know.

The transcription is imperfect, as it was carried out by Transkribus and only partially cleaned up (and modernized) by me; plus the lines on the left-hand pages run over into the inside margins of the book in such a way that a few letters per line didn't make it into the scans the archives sent me, and Transkribus can only transcribe what it sees (and I'm not fluent enough to guarantee that what I supplied is grammatically correct in all cases). But it should be pretty readable overall. You know, apart from the fact that it's in 18th century German legalese and therefore completely UNreadable. :P (This is actually some of the easier stuff...some of the sentences in those 2000 pages go on longer than should be humanly possible!)

Part 1 because of DW character limits:

Nunmehr lässt sich ohne Mühe einsehen, ob der Pfeiffer mit Grunde bezüchtiget werden könne, die zum Baue derer Spinner-Dörfer Friedrichshagen, Gosen, und Marienwerder aus der Etablissements-Casse erhobenen Gelder a 19034 Reichstaler 12 Groschen 6 Denarii zu seienem eigenen Besten gemißbrauchet, oder, wie er es nennt, sich an solchen Königlichen Geldern vergriffen habe.

Der Pfeiffer will solches durchaus nicht an sich kommen lassen, vielmehr glaubend machen, dass der, durch die Hildebrandsche Revision eruirte Defect aus dem Verluste, welchen er bei denen, in Administration übernommenen, ihm aber hiernächst in Entreprise aufgedrungenen Bauten gelitten habe, auch aus dem in Pferden, Utensilien, und Getreide steckendem Kapitale, nicht weinger aus denen defectirten Espions- und Transport-Kosten sich originire.

Wenn man die erwähnten Espions- und Transport-Kosten um derer, oben angeführten Gründe willen weglässt, so bleibt, selbst nach der Pfeifferschen Rechnung, ein Defect von 4381 Reichstaler 11 Groschen 4 Denarii übrig, und zur Ablehnung des Verdachts einer unerlaubten Verwendung solcher Gelder, ganz, oder zum Teil, ware nötig gewesen, dass der Pfeiffer nachgewiesen hätte, wie ein so großes Kapital zur Anschaffung, und Unterhaltung des, zu denen erwähnten Bauten gehaltenen Führwerks wirklich sei verwendet worden, woran es aber ermanglet.

Eben um deswillen, und weil nicht zu glauben stehet, dass der Unterscheid zwischen denen Kosten einer Administration, und der Summewelche dem Pfeiffer, zu Folge des Hildebrandschen Gutachtens, passiret, viele Tausend Thäler betragen könne, getrauen wir aus nicht, den Pfeiffer von dem Vorwurfe dass er einen Teil derer Königlichen Gelder quaestionis zu seinen eigenen Nutzen mit gebrauchet habe, freizusprechen, um so weniger, je weniger wir nachgewiesen finden, dass der Pfeiffer denenenigen, welchen die Auszahlung bei denen Bauten derer oftgedachten Spinner-Dörfer anvertrauet gewesen ist, aus seinen eigenen Mitteln so viel gezahlet habe, als die Verbesserungen in dem Friedrichshagenschen Schultzen-Gerichte, und des Pfeiffer Eigentume betragen.

Solchemnach lieget, und bleibet Vermöge unsers vorstehenden alleruntertänigsten Vortrags, dem Pfeiffer wirklich zur Schuld:

1. Dass er dem Entreprenneur zu Maulberwalde die, dem Etablissement Eichenfelde, auf dessen Conditiones das Etablissement Maulbeerwalde ist erbeten, und concediret worden, nicht beigelegten Ober-Gerichte, und dem Entreprenneur zu Wahlendorff die, von demselben in dem Engagements-Protocollo nicht ausbedungene Jagd auf einer Koppel verschrieben,

2. Dass er in denen, zur Kammer eingesendeten Bau-Holtz-Anschlägen von denen Etablissements Dagow, und Burow die Unrichtigkeit, dass in dem einen zu einen Kolonisten-Hause, und in dem andere zu zwei Häusern von zwei Wohnungen über die Gebühr Bau-Holtz ist gerechnet worden, aus Unachtsamkeit übersehen, wiewohl Acta, besagen, dass der Entreprenneur von Burow mehr, als zwei Häuser über den Etablissements-Plan aufgeführet, und noch einen Nachschuß von Holtze zu erhalten Hofnung habe, mithin das erwähnte Versehen in Ansehung dieses Etablissements ganz, und gar nicht von einer schädlichen Folge gewesen ist.

3. Dass er von denen, zum Bau derer Spinner-Dörfer Friedrichshagen, Gosen, und Marienwerder Allergnädigst accordirten, und aus der Etablissements Casse nach, und nach erhobenen Geldern 4387 Reichstaler 11 Groschen 4 Denarii dazu verwendet zu sein nicht hat nachweisen können, und er daher solche Summe zwar nicht zu unterschlagen gemeinet gewesen ist, doch unterdessen, bis die Notdurft bei dem gedachten Baue deren Erstattung erheischet haben mochte, zu seinen eigenen Privat-Nutzen gebrauchet hat,

4. Dass er von denen, zum Behuf derer Spinner-Dörfer, aus unentgeltlich überlassenen Holtze gebrandten Steinen für denjenigen Preiß, für welchen sie zu denen gedachten Dörfern sind geliefert worden, 13000 Stück zu seinem eigenen Baue indem, so genannten Süßen Grunde, und 12000 bis 14000 Stück zu dem Friedrichshagenschen Schultzen-Gerichte verbrauchet, desgleichen, ohne Vorwissender Kammer, eine Quantitaet an dem Entreprenneur auf dem Erckner zu überlassen befohlen, nicht minder ein Quartal der Pacht von Hartmannsdorff, ungeachtet er solches bis zur Auffindung eines Entreprenneurs zu seinem eigenen, und des gewesenen Krieges-Rats Lietz mann Nutzen hat administriren wollen, dennoch Vorschuß-Weise aus der Etablissements-Casse assigniret,

5. Dass er den Rest derer Schadoschen Inventarien-Gelder a 15 Reichstaler 4 Groschen 4 Denarii nicht abgeliefert, noch denen dasigen Kolonisten von eben solchen Inventarien-Geldern, den erwähnten Rest nicht mit gerechnet, die Bezalung des Besatz-Schweines eher denn bei der jetzigen Untersuchung geleistet,

6. Dass er, um Stroh, und Lehm zu ersparen, zum Dach-decken des, bei dem Friedrichshagenschen Schultzen-Gerichte aufgeführten Cagelöhnershauses Splitt, und zur Ausschürtzung derer Wände des Krug-Stalles Holtz aus der Königlichen Forst genommen, nicht minder seinen Acker beider, so genannten Bockschen Ziegelei auf Kosten der Königlichen Heide umzäumen lasen, sonst auch so wohl zu Friedrichshagen, als auch zu Sachsenhausen zur Menagirung des Holtzes bei denen nötigen Zäunen die erforderlichen Veranstaltungen nicht gemacht,

7. Dass er dem Entreprenneur zu Maulberwalde Statt 14 Zwei-Hüfner, worauf selbiges Anfangs eingerichtet worden, und nach Proportion derer zu Eichenfelde angesetzten Kolonisten billeg einzurichten gewesen ist, 8 drei-Hüfner, und 6 Büdner anzusetzen verstattet,

8. Dass er dem von Grevenitz dem Jüngern, auf Ansuchen dessen Vaters, des gewesenen Land-Rats vonGrevenitz die, eventualiter selbst anerkannte, und zu erfüllen erbötig gewesene Schuldigkeit, auf der, von denen Barons von Putlitz käuflich an sich gebrachten Feldmark Silmersdorff einige Bauer zu etabliren, aus bloßer Gunst erlassen, auch dem Entreprenneur von Freienbrinck vor Regulirung der Conditionen des Etablissements die Anmassung desselben, wenigstens connivendo, gestattet,

9. Dass er dem Entreprenneur zu Johannisthal die übernommene Obliegenheit, Familien, welche hauptsächlich von der Gärtnerei, und Kuh-Melckerei Profession machen sollten, anzusetzen dahin, dass die anzusetzenden Familien kleine Wirte sein könnten, die sich unter andern auch mit dem Garten-Bau, und der Vieh-Zucht beschäftigen, in der Erb-Verschreibung gemildert,

10. Dass er die in Neu-Lübbenau ihm in Stand zu bringen, und demnächst, gegen Erstattung seines Vorschußes an andere zu überlassen Allerhöchst accordirten beiden Gärtnereien in eine eintzige zusammengezogen, und solche einem Einländer ohne denselben, dem Plane des Etablissements, und der erwähnten Allerhöchsten Concession gemaß, zur dereinstigen Abtretung an ausländische Gärtners zu verbinden, überlassen,

11. Dass er zu Philippsthal, und Freienthal, zum Teil auch zu Sachsenhausen die angesetzten Spinner nicht so geschwind, als es hätte geschehen können, und geschehen sollen, mit SpinnRädern versehen lassen;

12. Dass er wegen des Gewichts, und Preises des, in dem Kruge zu Friedrichshagen verkauften Brots nichts festgesetzet, vielmehr durch die dem dasigen Krüger auferlegte Notwendigkeit, alles Getreide nur allein von ihm zu nehmen, wie es scheint, mehr seinen eigenen Vorteil, als die wohlfeile Sustentation derer Spinner beabsichtet;

13. Dass er das Etablissement Streitberg, welches Ausgangs Januari 1754 hat im Stande sein sollen, zu revidiren unterlassen, und dadurch, dass die Kolonie weder vollzählig, noch gehörig qualificiret von der Commission ist befunden worden, verursachet,

14. Dass er bei dem Etablissement Seilershoff um die Nachrichten wegen der Hütung in der Wento-Heide sich nicht bekümmert, und daher dem erwähnten Etablissement die Hütung in der ganzen Wento-Heide, in welcher einige Dorfschaften gewisse an; sehnliche Hütungs-Districte bereits gehabehaben, verschrieben,

15. Dass er auf das Wort des gewesenen Land-Rats von Graevenitz, und des von Rohr zu Gershagen die, dem Flecken Meienburg auf der wüsten Feldmark Warnsdorff zuständige Hütungs-Gerechtigkeit für wenig bedentend, und bisher nicht exerciret angenommen, und aus solchem Grunde die Cessirung derselben, ohne die Sache mit dem Flecken Meienburg ordentlich abzumachen, dem Entreprenneur von Warnsdorff versichert,

16. Dass er dem Schloß-Hauptmann, Grafen von Kamecke, die, dem Adel in der Priegnitz Allerhöchst concedirte, und durchgängig verstattete Freiheit, die Anzahl derer anzusetzenden Familien selbst zu bestimmen, eingeschränkt, oder vielmehr nicht gelassen,

17. Dass er dem Entreprenneur zu Repente ohne einer erheblichen Ursache, und, wie es scheienet, aus einer Art von Rache wegender, unmittelbar bei Euer Königliche Majestät geschehenen Erbittung des gemeldeten Etablissements, die, nach der Regel, allen Entreprenneurs zugewendeten Beneficia verwengert, und schwehr gemacht,

18. Dass er in einem alleruntertänigsten Immediat-Berichte von der darum angegebenen Zahl derer bereits wirklich angezogenen, und etablirten Familien in der Priegnitz, dass er solche bei der angestellten Revision richtig befunden habe, wieder die Wahrheit vorgegeben,

19. Dass er in einem andern dergleichen Berichte vom 17ten Dezember 1753, und der beigefügten Tabelle die Zahl derer in der Priegnitz respective angesetzten, und noch anzusetzenden Kolonisten bei denen Bauern viel zu hoch, und bei denen Büdnern viel zu gering angegeben,

20. Dass er in einem bereits vollzogen gewesenen Transacte ohne Vorwissen der Kammer etwas, welches jedoch in dem Behandlungs-Protocollo schon enthalten, und allerVermutung nach, entweder aus einem Versehen, oder als etwas, das sich von selbst verstünde, und daher einer besondern Erwähnung nicht bedürfe, dem Transacte nicht miteingeflossen ist, nachmahls einschalten lassen,

21. Dass er eine ihm von der Kammer, in einer ihm vornehmlich angehaenden, der Kammer aber damals nach dieser Beschaffenheit nicht bekannt gewesene Sache, wegen der Köpenickschen Maul-BeerPlantage aufgetragene Commission übernommen, und, wiewohl durch gangig ganz unparteiisch, berichtet, dass er, jedoch, wie es scheenet, ohne einer gefährlichen Absicht, unter fremden Nahmen das Schultzen-Gericht in Friedrichshagen, und das Etablissement Marienthal übernommen, auch das Vorwerk Hartmannsdorff bis zur Auffindung eines annehmlichen Entreprenneurs, und nachmahls, als sich ein En treprenneur gefunden, durch denselben, bis er die Land-Wirtschaft erlernet haben, würde, auf seine eigene, und des cassirten Krieges-Rats Lietzmann Rechnung administriren lassen, auch einen Negotiorum Gestorem solchen Entreprenneurs bei der Behandlung derer Conditionen des Etablissements vorgestellet, dass er den Conducteur Reiche zu einem Atteste des nachfolgenden unwahren Inhalts, als wären gewisse Auszahlungen wegen einer Arbeit am Gosenschen Damme in seiner Gegenwart geschehen, zum Behufder, von dieser Arbeit abzulegenden Rechnung vermocht, dass er ohne Vörwissen, und Willen der Kammer denen Kolonisten zu Neu-Lubbenau das Holtz auf dem Rode-Flecke zur Erbauung derer nötigen Scheunen, und Ställe überlassen,

25. Dass er ohne vorhrgesuchter, und erhaltener Approbation der Kammer, mithin zu voreilig, und wieder die Ordnung, einigen Leuten etwas Land zumessen, und einzäunen lassen, dass er auf gleiche Art die dem Schultzen zu Marienwerder beigelegte Entreprise eingerichtet; und übergeben, dass er ohne Vorwissen, und Einwilligung respecte der Kammer, und des Consistorii Förster- und Pfarr-Dienst-Pertinentien bei einigen Etablissements vertauschet, dass er nicht überall bei dem Ausstechen der Ausmessung, und der Grenz-Regulirung die Forst-Bediente, und Beamte zugezogen,

29. Dass er das zu dem Bau derer Spinner-Dörfer Friedrichshagen, und Gosen verbrauchte Holtz nicht ordentlich durch die Förster anschlagen lassen 30 dass er zu der richtigen Verwendung des, für die Spinner erbetenen, und Allerhöchst accordirten Magazin-Getreides die beste Anstalt nicht gemacht, sondern solches zum Teil mit seinen eigenen Getreide vermenget,

31. Dass er zum Behuf der Brauerei in Marienthal zwei Winspel Maltz, weil er dergleichen in Euer Königliche Majestät Landen dasiger Gegend nicht bekommen können, aus denm Blecklenburgschen kommen lassen; und

32. Dass er in Absicht auf das, ihm allerhöchst anvertraute Etablissements-Wesen, und in Beziehung auf dasselbe a) von dem Entreprenneur zu Hermsdorf junge Wein-Stöcke, und junge Pflaumen-Bäume, b) von dem Förster Schlick 50 Reichstaler c) von dem Schultzen zu Bantzendorff 50 Reichstaler, und d) von dem gewesenen Land-Rate von Graevenitz, jedoch, so viel constiret, aus einem erst nach der Zeit der erlassenen Ansetzung einiger Bauern auf Silmersdorf geschehenen Versprechen, ein Jaar Kutsch-Pferde, als ein Geschenk angenommen hat.