A. To messengers and others employed in transacting that part of the business of the pay office.~~. To whom did the messenger and others employed to receive the money, in the ins ances where the drafts were not given to the sub-accountants, pay over such money? 4 To myself, to the best of my recollection.- -Q For what purpose was the money so paid over to you? A. To keep in my own hands until it should be required to be re-issued Q Why sums did you usually so keep in your hands? 4. That I cannot recollect.- -Q. Did you derive any advantage from the money which you so kept in your own hands? A. (obj et to that question on the same grounds I have done betore.

Q When the practice of drawing the money out of the Bank and lodging it in the hands of private bankers first obtained, was it done with the knowledge and approbation of the treasurer of the navy? A. It was.-Q. In what manner was that approbation conveyed to you? A. Verbally, in consequence of a conversation which I had with the treasurer at that time, in which I represented to him that I thought it would better expedite the public service, and add to the security of the trea surer, by leaving the drafts in the bankers hands to be placed to the credit of the accounts of the sub-accountants, by which the treasurer would avoid a considerable risk in the necessity which at that time existed of sending into the Bank checques, which were necessarily drawn payable to the bearer, by the hands of common messengets, who were at that time employed in carrying in such checques and almost daily in bringing out large sums of specie, which they received at the Bank in pavment of those checques; and in adopting this mode, I conceived the bankers became responsible for the amount of the dratts so lodged in their hands.-Q. If the checques had been delivered to the cash eis of the navy and victualling, and the deputy paymaster, as the money became necessary for their several departments, would not the responsibility have rested with such sub-accountants, and not with the treasurer of the navy? A. I apprehend it would, in so far as their private fortunes could indemnify the treasurer of the navy in case of any accident befalling the drafts so put into their hands; but as I apprehend the treasurer must ultimately have been responsible for such a lo-s, I looked upon it as my duty to advise him as I have stated. -Q. Had any loss been sustained by the former practice in the receipt of the money?. I never heard that there had been any loss occasioned by any such aci. dent.-Q. Have the treasurers of the navy ever been called upon to make good the losses which may have been sustained by the failure of their sub-accountants? A. I do not remember that they ever have been.-Q. Were the same persous employed to convey the money from the private bankers as had previously been employed to obtain it from the Bank? A. Frequently, but as the distance was so much less to the house of Messrs. Coutts and Co. than it had been to the Bank, the cashier of the navy has been in the habit of sending his principal clerk for the specie which he required to carry on the public payments.-. -Q. Did the additional security which you proposed to the treasurer of the navy, consist only in carrying the specie from the house of Messrs. Coutts and Co. to the PayOffice, instead of from the Bank?

A. I ap

prehend it likewise consisted in providing against the loss which would have attended the circumstance of a messenger either embezzling or losing

any of the drafts, which being made payable to beare, I have been told by the cashiers of the Bink, must and would undoubtedly have been paid to any stranger presenting the same. Would there not be the same risk of loss and embezzlement by sending tor the money from the private bankers as from the Bank? A. The same danger would exist in so far as respects the sum of money sent for by the office, but the risk was obviated of losing the whole amount of the checque, by the paymaster's filling up the draft upon the Bank at the bankers, and leaving it in their hands, and a small part only of the draft was required in specie to carry on the payments, as the cashier of the navy was in the habit of making his principal payments by drafts on his own account, at the banker's. which being delivered to parties in payment of their bills, became their property.- 2. Was the practice of drawing the money out of the Bank and lodging it in the hands of private bankers, pursued with the knowledge and approbation of the succeeding treasurers? A. It was. (b.) In what manner where they informed of it? 4. I do know by what means they were informed of this mode of carrying on that part of the business of their office; but I am sensible that both of the succeeding treasurers were not unacquainted with the circumstance.-Q. From what circumstances do you know that both the succeeding treasurers were informed of it? A. From having had con versation with them respectively on the subject. --Q. What is the date of Mr. Bragge's order for putting a stop to that practice? A. I do not remember.-Q. Was it a written or a verbal order? A. The orders were verbal.-Q. By whose order were the cashiers of the navy and victualling, and the deputy paymaster of the navy, directed to open accounts with Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. A. I do not know that they had any orders respecting such circumstance, although I may have expressed my wishes to them that they should keep their balances at the house of Messrs. Coutts and Co.-Q. Did the drawing of the money out of the Bank, and lodging it in the hands of Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. offer any facility or advantage to the public service, which might or could not be obtained by continuing the money at the Bank, until wanted for the public service? A. I do not immediately apprehend any further advantage that could be obtained than those which I have already described. Q Was the money received from the Bank at the house of Messrs, Coutts and Co. for the services of the subaccountants, placed immediately to their respective accounts, or first to your name, and only made over to their accounts by d:aft, as occasion required? A. Both modes were practised.Do you know of any person or persons (the pay master of the navy out of the question) who have derived an advantage, from drawing the money out of the Bank and lodging it in the hands of private bankers, or from applying to private use the money issued out of the xchequer for the service of the navy, since the year 1784? A. (c.) No, I do not, to the best of my knowledge.-Q, Are the applications made to you by the sub-accountants for money in writing?. No; the practice is to apply for it verbally.A. Are accounts opened at the Bank in the names of the cashiers of the navy and victualling, and the deputy paymaster, or with their respective branches? A. Yes, there are accounts opened for them in their respective names.——— Q. What is the usual

mode of directing the money to be transferred at the Bank to the names of the different sub-accountants? d. By an order to that purpose upon the cashiers of the Bank. [Signed by Alexander Trotter and by the five Commissioners. – -Alterations

and additions made by desire of this examinant, the 14th June, 1804, to the answers given by him on the 11th instant. (a) I should apprehend it was about the year 1786. -(b) To the question, "Was the practice of drawing the money out of "the Bank, and lodging it in the hands of private "bankers, pursued with the knowledge and ap"probation of the succeeding treasurers?" answered, "It was." But I beg more particularly to explain, that although the practice was certainly known to the succeeding treasurers, I can only say, with respect to their approbation of it, that I never had any commands to desist from it until I received Mr. Bragge's commands to that purpose.--(c.) To the question, " Do you

know of any person or persons (the paymaster "of the navy out of the question) who have de"rived any advantage from drawing the money "out of the Bank and lodging it in the hands of "private bankers, or from applying to private use "the money issued out of the Exchequer for the "service of the navy, since the year 1784 ?" To which I have answered-" No, I do not, to the "best of my knowledge." I have required a more explicit explanation of the question, and, upon such explanations having been made to me, I object to the question on the same grounds on which I objected to a former question asked on the 11th instant. [Signed as before.]

June 14, 1804.

Q. What is the explanation which you have received, and which leads you to object to the question-Do you know of any person or persons "(the paymaster of the navy out of the question) "who have derived any advantage from drawing "the money out of the Bank and lodging it in the

hands of private bankers, or from applying to "private use the money issued out of the Ex

chequer for the service of the navy, since the year 1784?" A. You have now explained to me, that you did not mean to ask me whether any person or persons, other than the paymaster of the navy, had drawn money from the Bank which had been issued out of the Exchequer for the service of the navy, and had lodged it in the hands of private bankers, which I conceived the question purported when it was read to me on the Iith instant.- 2. Do you know of any person or persons (the paymaster of the navy out of the question) who have derived any advantage from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services? A. I object to answer that question. 2. Why do you object to answer that question, as it does not relate to yourself, but for other persons? A. It so far relates to myself, that it is possible I might be implicated in the answer.-Q. Do you object to answer the preceding question because it may criminate, or tend to criminate you, or to expose you to any pains or penalties. I do, in so far as it may expose irregularities in the mode of my transacting the business of the pay office, which, in many instances, were unavoidable, during the long period in which it was under my management.Q. The question to which you have objected does not relate to irregularities in the mode of your transacting the business of the pay office, but calls upon you to state, Whether person or persons (e

of the question)

you know any he navy out

advantage

from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services; you are desired to give a direct answer to that question, or to state whether you object to it because it may criminate, or tend to criminate you, or to expose you to any pains or penalues? 4. Conceiving that irregularities in the management of public money may tend to expose me to pains aud penalties, 1 object to the above question, believing that my answer may tend to discover such irregularities-Q. Do you know of any person or persons (the paymaster of the navy out of the question) who have deired any advantage from monies or bills not issued out of the Exchequer, but which have otherwise come into the hands of the treasurer of the uavy, or any other person on his account, being applicable to naval services? 4. The monies arising from sources of this description have been so much blended with monies issued from the Exchequer, that I am under the necessity of offering the same objection to make any answer to this question.-2. Have any of the treasurers of the navy derived any advantage from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services, since 1st January, 1786, when you be came paymaster? A. As I have already stated that I do not recollect any instances where others have drawn upon the Bank for monies issued for naval services than myself, I therefore object to this question.-Q. Did Mr. Tierney, while he was treasurer of the navy derive any advantage from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services? A. I cannot tellQ. Have you any reason to believe that Mr. Tierney, while he was treasurer of the navy, did derive anyadvantage from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other mo nies or bills applicable to naval services? A. No. --Q Did Mr. Bragge, while he was treasurer of the navy, derive any advantage from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services? 4. 1 do not know that he did.-Q Have you any reason to believe that he did? A. I have not.-Q. Did Mr. Ryder, now Lord Harrowby, while he was treasurer of the navy, derive any advantage from monies or bilis issued out of the Exchequer to: naval services, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services! A. I do not know that he did.--Q. Have you any reason to believe that he did? A. I have not.

---

-Q. Did Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville, while he was treasurer of the navy, derive any advantage from monies or bills issued cut of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services? A. The length of peried during which I acted under Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville, had been productive of so many different occurrences which occasioned deviations from the usual node of carrying on the business of the Pay Office, that irregularities may have occurred, whether necessary or not for the service of the government, of which he was a member, must be best known to himself; but at any rate, as whatever monies may have been drawn from the Bank for such services must have been drawn by myself, I feel myself so far impli cated in such irregular transaction, as to induce me to object to giving an answer to this question. -- What were the deviations which occurred in the usual mode of carrying on the business of the Pay Office, during the time that Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville, was treasurer, to which you

have alluded in your preceding answer? 4. It is impossible to remember the whole of such deviations.-Q. Do you recollect any of them, and state these that you do recollect? A. In the confidential situation in which I acted under Lord Melville, his lordship communicated to me many circumstances which I do not consider myself at liberty to relate; others he did not explain himself to me upon; I only juge of his having at one time employed a cousiderable sum in the secret service of government, as it was returned to me by Mr. Long for the purpose of putting it again into the Bank; but as I feel in making explanations of this nature I may go further than it is proper for me to do, I beg once more to decline all further answer to this question upon the ground which I have already stated.-Q. When Was the sum so advanced, what was the amount and when was it returned? A. I have already stared my reasons for begging to decline answering any further interrogat r.es on this subject.

Q. Did the differences, or any part thereo, which appear by the official account rendered on the 2d February, 1803, between the sums with which the treasurer of the navy ston! charged, exclusive of the sams advanced to his sub accountants on 31st December in each year, from 1700 to 1852i0clusive, and the sums standing in his name at the Bank at those periods, arise from moncy applicable to naval services being advanced by you to the treasurer, or to any person on his account, or to drafts on the Bank having been given by you to the treasuaer, or to any person on his account? AI beg, upon the same grounds on which I have before done, to decline making any answer to further interrogatories upon the subject of extra-othcial transactions with Lord Melville.-2. Have you any reason to believe that Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville, during the time he was treasurer of the navy, derived any advantage from monies or bills issued from the Fxchequer for naval services, or wh ch were otherw se received as applicable to naval services? A. I object as before. [Signed by Alex. Tratter and the five Commissioners.] WRITTEN PAPER DELIVERED IN BY MR. TROTTER ON THE 25TH OF JULY, 1804.

As many of the questions you have thought proper to ask me appear to me to be intended to enable you to judge, whether, in consequence of my having been supposed to derive advantages from the use of money in my hands, the public have ever suffered any loss, or experienced any inconvenience by delay or interruption in the payments which have been made under my direction, I must beg leave to state the following circumstances:- In the first place, I desire to state, in the most explicit terms, that the amount of money issued from the Exchequer, or otherwise, paid to the treasurer of the navy, did not depend upon me, nor upon the treasurer, whom I represented : (With the exception, as I have stated in a former part of my evidence, of the money destined to pay exchequer fees, which is issued in sus of 3,000l. at a time, at the request of the paymaster, when the sum in hand is reduced below 3,000!.; but the management of this small fund has, since

the year 1800, been entrusted to, the care of the officer appointed to manage the business at the Exchequer.) That it was not in my power to increase or diminish the sum under my care by one farthing, such amount being determined exclusively by the Navy, Victualling, Sick and Hart, and Transport Boards, who respectively fix the amount from their own views of its necessity.In the next place, I state with equal precision, that of a sum exceeding one hundred and thirty four millions, which, under the regulation of the act (25th Geo II. cap. 31) directing the money to be issued to the Bank, was put under my direction, commencing with my appointment to the office in 1786, and ending with my resignation of the office of paymaster last year, not one penny (except a sum of 6051. which I have stated to the Navy Board as an official error) remains in my possession, or in that of any of my principals; nor in the payment of all that sum has there ever been the least delay or loss (Note. I consider the loss which gavernment sustained by the failure of Mr. Jellico to have actually taken place prior to 1782, as apppears by a declaration of his embarrassments at that period dated in that year.) or interruption, every demand having been satisfied, and the balance which remained having been paid over to my successor.With regard to the mode in which this has been done, I feel myself equally free of blame. In the year 1785 an act (25 Geo. III. cap. 31) of parliame passed, directing, that all issues to the treasurer of the navy from the Exchequer should be placed to his credit at the Bank of England, and be drawn from thence by drafts, specifying the heads of service for which it was wanted. · These directions have accordingly been variably followed; but to make every individual payment of each department of an extensive office by such drafts could never be the intention of the act, nor were such payments ever attempted to be so made either by me or by my predecessor or successor in office; accordingly, sums were drawn by me from the Bank in gross to form funds for the satisfaction of such payments, of the amount of which, I, as representing the treasurer, was left exclusively to judge. While the office continued in Broad Street, and was consequently near the Bank, such balances under my care were comparatively less. When it was removed to Somerset Place and both the risk of carriage and the inconvenienceof sending for uppies became greater, the sums under my care were of course augmented, and then, as well as for security and accuracy, as to facilitate my

--

payments, I had reccurse to the assistance 01 a private banker for which I had previously the express approbation of the treasurer then in office, and which I do not consider as the least departure from ile letter or spirit of the above act - As the aggregate of balances under the charge of the treasurer of the navy will, upon a review, appear very large, it must be recollected, that he acts as banker to four great public departments, (The Navy Board, Victualling Board, Sick and Hurt Board, and Transport Board,) who pass their accounts separately, and have no connexion with each other, and who from experience, find the mode of keeping the several heads of service distinct the most convenient; but whether the aggregate be great or small I repeat, was no care of mine. My duty was to have a sufficiency of these funds, at every moment, in such a shape as to satisfy every authorised demand, and in the execution of this duty, I claim merit in having so fulfilled it, that every claimant was not only paid without hesitation or interruption, but in the way most con venient to himself.--The end of public satisfaction having been thus attained, and admitted by those who have had connexions with the office, by the Boards who have controled it, and by the officers and clerks who have acted under me, I cannot conceive it will be imputed to me as a fault, that in the management of sums which, in case of any accident having happened, were of a magnitude to have overwhelmed me, I have consulted my own safety and that of the public, in lesser arrangements, by keeping considerable sums in my own hands and in those of a private banker, which lessened the frequent risk attending the carrying the drafts to the Bank, and obtained me greater facilities in checking my accounts. negative is put upon my making such arrangement by the only act (25 Geo. III. cap. 31.) that bears upon the subject, and to these, perhaps, is principally owing the exemption from any error or delay in the whole of my public duty.--But it is now unnecessary to dwell upon the merits of the mode I followed in the former part of my paymastership, as, in the latter part of it, the mode now adopted was introduced; and from that period till the present moment, no money has been in my hands for the purpose of preparatory supply of funds to the cashiers and masters.It is no doubt generally presumed, that advantages are derived from the use of public money by those in whose hands it lies, I have myself, no doubt,

No

pay

though I cannot prove it, that such advan ages were enjoyed by my predecessors. It is evident, from what I have stated, that they might have been enjoyed by them with hoi our and with safety to the public; and the exceeding smallness of the salary of paymaster, when compared with the im mense extent of the trust and responsibility reposed in him, and with the complete de votion of his whole time to the service of the public, affords a presumption that such advantages have been considered as forming a part of the remuneration of so anxious and confidential a charge at the same time, I by no means preterd to assert, that the use of such advantages can be shown to be any where distinctly recognized and sanctioned by law. -—— Under these circumstances alone it is, that being kept in ignorance of the views with which this inve-tigation is conducted, I feel myself bound, in consideration of my own personal safety, to make no admission whatever upon the subject. After this explanation, I beg leave to bring the whole subject into a short and connected statement, and to illustrate it with the figures which relate to the transactions of my paymastership.I affirm, 1st, That I have never had it in my power, from the nature of my appointment, to augment the balances of the treasurer of the navy, or to create unnecessary balances in his hands.-2d. That no payments, in reduction of his balances, can be made by the treasurer of the navy, but under the direction of the Boards,- -3d. That every payment, which the Boards have directed the treasurer to make, during the period of my being in office, has actually been made by him with out the smallest interruption, hesitation, or delay, and that the balance remaining in my hands was left with the treasurer at the time I left the office.--4th. That there had been imprested into the hands of the treasurer of the navy, and into the Bank, upon his account, between the 31st of De cember, 1785, and the 31st of July, 1803, of 134,169,2531. 14s. 1d. That accounts have been delivered into the several Boards, shewing disburse ments for the same period, amounting to 133,606,9841. 12. 1030. Balance

the sum

562,2491. 2s. id. 5th. That no loss has accrued upon the numerous payments attending such disbursements, excepting in the sum of 462l. 158. 6d, being the amount of sums due to seamen whose wages had been fraudulently obtained by others personating them, and trifling sums arising from errors in the calculation of seamen's wages.6th. That, as I have

already stated, I left the aforesaid ba lance, 562,2401. 25. d. of the current account of the treasurer of the navy, when I retired from ollice upon the said 3 st day of July, 1203. The whole of the above statements can be checked and verified by a reference to the public accounts of the office, which, pes sessing internal evidence of the facts, I do not think it would have been necessary for gentlemen acting under the present commission to have looked for ulterior evidence of the management of money which has not even been alleged to be deficient, at the painful expense of an exposure of my private concerns, obtained through the means of my most confidential friends; and, I trust, that no hesitation which I may have shewn upon the former part of my evidence may be considered as an admission of having acted improperly, but entirely as proceeding from the caution that every man ought to observe under circumstances which might eventually expose him to pains and penalties not apprehended in the course of business, but a consequence certainly necessary to be guarded against at this time, from my ignorance of the motive which has led to an investigation of my pub. lie conduct so strict and unexpected, extending even to evidence drawn from my banker of my private transactions, which I do not consider to be authorised by your act of parliament 43 Gen. III. cap. 16): and I take this opportunity of protesting against any information, thus obtained upon transactions not connected with any of the public departments specified in the above act, and more especially from persons imperfectiv aformed, who can only speak on belief or conjecture as to their nature.

OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

FOREGOING REPORT AND EVIDENCE.

Holding in veneration the good old rule, that nothing ought to be said of the conduct of any persons, while that condner is under investigation, in this work great care was taken not to aid in the circulation of the rumours disadvantageous to the above named persons, during the inquiry carried on, respecting their conduct, by the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry. Their partisans (for such it seems there yet are) would fain have all the world continue their silence, even now, not perceiving, or, at least, not appearing to perceive, that the inquiry is finished, and the verdict given in; and, they have not, I presume, to learn, that, in this stage of a trial, no public writer thinks it his duty

a

to abstain from offering to the public, such remarks as occur to him as being proper to be made upon any part of the facts that may have been brought to light. Nevertheless, considering the high station filled by the first of these persons, and, more especially considering, how desirable it is that nothing of a party spirit should discover itself in the discussion of what ought to be considered as a great question of state, it was my intention to have merely laid before my readers as great a portion of the TENTH REPORT, together with the accompanying documents, as I could have found room for, and to have made not a single observation thereon, till the matter had been finally settled by the parliament. But, from this intention I have been forced, absolutely driven, by the imprudent (it may be called criminal) zeal of those profligate writers, who have not only apologised for, but who have attempted to justify, that conduct which the Naval Commissioners have so decidedly and so just'y reprobated. Justice, therefore, to those Commissioners, who have been labouring with so much zeal and ability in the public service, justice to my own sentiments with regard to such conduct as that imputed to the persons accused, demand of me to break that silence which it was my design strictly to adhere to The writers, to whom I have alluded, have made their appearance in the ORACLE, the CURIER, and the SUN. In the last of these prints (23d instant) it is, in no very equivocal terms, insinuated, that the Commissioners have, as to the TENTH REFORT,acted under an undue bias, and that they have not been impartial. It is better to take the very words. "But how stands Lord "Melville? What is proved against him? Nay, of what even is he accused? The facts, as reported by the Commissioners, must be separated from the insinuations "which may be thrown out, whether by "them or by others. We rely upon the fi"delity of their report; but their inferences "are worth no more than those of other men. We do not even accuse them of " undue hias; but, certainly, if in common "with the rest of the world, they have their partialities, we may say, without unfai

64

66

ness, they are not in Lord Melville's fa"vour."- -It is true, that the Commissioners are not directly charged-here with having made a partial and false report to the House of Commons; but, is not this the charge clearly intended to be conveyed? And, would it be permitted; ought it to be permitted; for charges of this sort to be thrown out against any persons acting in a capacity like that of these Commissioners? Yet, the very same paragraph, which opens with the,'