ning, because there were very few naval offi take care of these manors?—Yes, I believe there are. And what do they do with the game?—I have lived from a very little boy in Greenwich Hospital, and I never saw any of the game that any of the officers have ever had, a bird ora hare, from the estate. Pray who has the game?-I cannot say, I never heard who had. I suppose the game-keepers themselves know? Yes, I suppose the neighbouring gentlemen of the country have the principal part of it. Have they one game-keeper, or have they more, for a manor? What is the custom? The appointment of them does not lie within my knowledge; I think ten or eleven were appointed some few years ago. Has this Mr. Scott we have been speaking of, been a sea chaplain ?-Not that I know of. [Mr. Maule withdrew.] Captain Baillie called in again. cers. I think that you have said, that the civil officers now, who constitute these boards, are two to one more than the military?—The | inferior officers, including those, out-number the superior officers of the Hospital, two to one. Originally, I think you said, they were obliged to take such officers as they had?--In. the beginning they were forced to take, as I suppose, the steward and the chaplains, and those civil officers, for want of a sufficient number of captains and lieutenants, as there were but few of those officers at first, and, for many years after, only two captains and four lieutenants; and, therefore, in order to make up a number for a council, I suppose the chaplains, &c. were included. Do you recollect at any time before the present, any persons, that were not seafaring men, of the council?-The former stewards and chaplains were seafaring men, and as Please to give an account of who are the such were in the council of the house; and I officers that at present constitute the council humbly conceive, that the council of the Hosof Greenwich Hospital?-The governor pre-pital ought, by the charter, to be composed of sides; the lieutenant governor, the four cap-sea officers only. tains, eight lieutenants, the secretary, the au- I want to explain one thing, that I don't ditor, the two chaplains, the steward, and phy-comprehend from you, that was relative to sician, compose the council of Greenwich Hospital. Inform the House by what form they are appointed?-They are appointed by virtue of a commission from the lords commissioners of the Admiralty, to constitute a council for the better government of the pensioners and servants of the Hospital. Please to inform the Committee what number of these there are that are landmen, that have not been at sea?—The secretary, the auditor, the two chaplains, and the steward, have not, by report, been seafaring men. How long have they been appointed of the council?—The greater part of them have been for some years; the present secretary, I believe, is the first that ever was in the council of Greenwich Hospital; though I don't remember, till lately, that the two chaplains were in the commission, only one I believe. Your lordships will please to observe, that by the number of the council of Greenwich Hospital, the government of the Hospital is in the hands of inferior officers; they out-number the governor and principal persons in that council, two to one. the council; how far do you go back, talking of the council of the house?-Some years before I came into the Hospital; about 17 years ago, there were not so many officers in the council of the house as there are now, there were but four lieutenants, &c. But all seafaring men, I apprehend?-They were, in the beginning, all seafaring men; I cannot speak positively of things before I came into the Hospital. Was the council of the House obliged, by the original commission, to be seafaring men? -I conceive it entirely in that light, and also by the present charter. Whether the present governor of Greenwich Hospital has constantly attended the house council?-By the laws of the Hospital the governor is to hold a council once a week, for the government and discipline of the Hospital. Does he attend it?-He does not preside once a week, but, I believe, he may preside once in a year. Who appoints the clerk of the council?— The appointment lies in the governor. years. Has he any apartment there?-There is a large apartment appropriated for his use, but has never been occupied by him. Does the clerk of the council live in the Can you remember the times of appoint- Hospital?—I have never seen him in the Hosment to the council of these five landmen?-pital but once at dinner, in the course of seven I believe the secretary was appointed of the council by lord Hawke. An additional chaplain by the present first lord of the Admiralty. Which of those men were appointed by the present lord of the Admiralty, and which by lord Hawke, or was the other appointed by lord Hawke, or who?-When I first came into the Hospital, Mr. Tindal was of the council; it became necessary that such officers as they had should be of the council, in the begin Does he attend the council?-He has not once. Does any body else occupy the apartment of this clerk?-No, it is not yet finished. You say the chaplains have been seafaring men, was Dr. Campbell a seafaring man?— I understand he was reckoned a navy chap- Do you know how long he served?—No. the name and reputation of a seafaring man? I believe you omitted one of the officers of the council, the treasurer, I believe, you did not name?—He is not in the council of the house, I don't recollect that he is. As you have said that you should not have looked upon yourself as a seafaring man, if you had been only six weeks at sea, would you have looked upon yourself more as a seafaring man, if you had been only borne upon the books of a ship?-He cannot, in any degree, be said to be a seafaring man, that has not set his foot on board of a ship, and has not seen salt water. You said Mr. Turner was one of the receivers of lord Derwentwater's rents?-Yes. Is he a seafaring man?—I never heard that he was. Was he ever at sea in his life?-I never heard that he was. What was his profession?—I believe he was an attorney, and commissioner of bankrupts. Can you tell from whence he came?Yes, I know very well, if it is proper for me to say it. I presume I may have an answer to that?— I believe he served the office of mayor of Huntingdon. Was he bred an attorney or not ?—I believe he was bred an attorney. Do you think that a purser of a ship, that has served as a purser some years, or a clerk, might not as well receive these rents as he ?There are certainly pursers, and admirals' secretaries, that are, in my humble judgment, as well qualified to receive the rents as he. Did he ever practise as an attorney?-I believe he did. Was he ever concerned in any elections, that you know of?—I believe he was an agent at Huntingdon. of Dr. Campbell's case or situation; he was one of the chaplains of Greenwich Hospital, when I was appointed a captain there, and I understood that he had been a navy chaplain; whether he had been so merely for qualification or not, I cannot say. Who officiates at the council as clerk?— What is his name?-Daniel Ball. Do you officiate as clerk of the council?—I have. Whom does the council consist of?-The governor, lieutenant-governor, four captains, eight lieutenants, two chaplains, the physician, the secretary, the auditor, and the steward. How are they appointed?-By a commission from the Admiralty. Do you know any of them that have not been at sea?-I don't know in particular, I believe the two chaplains and the steward, I believe the auditor is not a seafaring man, and I believe the secretary is not. You don't know that any of them have been at sea?--I don't know, to my knowledge, that they are called seafaring men. How are you paid, whether as clerk of the council or not?-I was paid, by the governor's clerk, an allowance; he allowed me his table money of 201. a year, 14d. a day, for doing the duty, as I resided in the Hospital. What is the clerk of the council's whole pay?-Fifty pounds a year, and table-money besides. So you do the duty for the table money only?-Yes, for the table money only. [Mr. Ball withdrew.] Capt. Baillie called in again. Inform the committee what you know relative to the prosecutions that have been carried on, at different times, by the Hospital, against the contracting butcher or his servant?-In September, 1771 and 1772, there were almost universal complaints, amongst the pensioners, of the smallness of their mess pieces of meat, and of the bad qualities of it; there were repeated complaints, which I have represented very frequently to my predecessor in office; he adopted a mode of giving any pensioner that complained, a choice piece next day after they had so complained. The complaints increasing, I thought I would set a watch upon the butcher, with the assistance of captain Allwright and lieutenant Kerr; we detected the butcher's servant stealing a large quantity You have been asked, if you knew how of butcher's meat; when he was detected, he long Dr. Campbell had been at sea, you have had no other excuse, than that he was carryanswered, you are not sure, but believe a very ing it back as surplus meat, the property of short time; now I should like to know whe-his master, the contractor. We detected him ther Dr. Campbell was really at sea, as a professional man, before he got this, or only went to sea merely to qualify himself for it?-I really don't know the particular circumstance If, in your opinion, you think a man that has been at sea most part of his life understands lands, woods, and mines?—I think the greatest and best qualification for the steward of the Derwentwater estate, is a man reputed to be an honest, upright man. carrying off 571b. at one time, and 20lb, that was secreted as douceurs for other people in the kitchen; upon this we carried him before a justice of peace, Mr. Charles Brett, of Green was not eatable; lieutenants Kerr and Smith, the rev. Mr. Cooke, and the rev. Mr. Maule, being then on the square, were all called in, who declared it as their opinion, that the veal was very bad and unfit for the pensioners; the lieutenant governor, in consequence thereof, gave it in charge of the cook to keep it safe, that it might be produced this day in council, and afterwards sent boatswain Tyrell to acquaint him of it; but the cook not producing the meat, according to order, was sent for to know the reason of it, when he gave for answer, the contractor's man came for it, told him he was going to the council with it, but instead of that had carried it secretly away; the council were unanimously of opinion, that the butcher had much imposed upon the Hospital in sending such bad meat, and that the clerks did not do their duty in receiving it. They laid it before the board of directors, for them to give such orders as might prevent the like imposition in future." wich, and he committed him; we, the officers, were bound over to prosecute. This complaint I laid before the board of directors, in order that we might be indemnified in the expence of the prosecution. The man was bailed, though a felon, cold water was thrown on this prosecution in the Hospital; and the solicitor, Mr. Everest, told me that there was no proof against him, that he would be acquitted, and he would lay a wager of it; this alarmed myself and other officers; we went to sir John Fielding, who said words of that kind were very improper to be made use of by the solicitor who was ordered to prosecute him; he said he would issue out a warrant to re-apprehend him, but the butcher's servant was even too dextrous for sir John Fielding, he made his escape; but sir John said, if we would go down to Maidstone, he would put us in a way to catch him at a public house there, where he was sure he would go in order to know whether the bills of indictment would be found against him, in that case he would be off; if the bills were not found, he would come forth. Accordingly we took a warrant, from sir John Fielding, down to Maidstone; and we apprehended Mr. Emanuel Tucker, at the house sir John recommended to us, lodged him in gaol, and that afternoon two bills of indictment were found against him; he was tried the next morning, convicted, and ordered to be transported for seven years. After this, the complaints of the pensioners in regard to the size of the meat ceased; the pieces were of their proper weight, 4lb. in each mess piece, but the meat continued bad indeed, insomuch that soon afterwards there were complaints from the physician, the surgeon, and the dispenser of Greenwich Hospital, in furnishing bad and putrid veal for the sick. I beg leave to refer to the minutes of the council to prove the sort of veal that was served to the sick men in the infirmary. Mr. Ball has these accounts. (The Minutes of the Council referred to.) "April 4, 1774, at a council, &c. present, lieutenant-governor Baillie, captain Maplesden, lieutenant Gordon, lieutenant Moyle, lieutenant Besson, lieutenant Kerr, lieutenant Lefebre, lieutenant Neville, lieutenant Smith, the rev. Mr. Cooke, rev. Mr. Maule, and Dr. Hossack. The cook of the infirmary having represented to the dispenser, that the veal provided for the sick on Sunday last was very bad, and Mr. Pocock having inspected the same, was of that opinion, and ordered it to be carried to the physician, who finding it unfit to eat, ordered it to be carried to the butcher; he refused to take it back, saying, it had been received by the clerk of the cheque's clerk and steward's clerk, and left it in the kitchen, which he lieutenant governor being made acquainted with,came into the kitchen; seeing the veal bad, not fit to eat, called in captain Maplesden, &c. to inspect the same, who declared it VOL. XXI. Captain Baillie will go on.--There are other minutes of the council concerning that veal, which may be too tedious perhaps for the House to hear, the minutes of the 8th, of the 11th and 15th day of April, all to the same purport, which not being taken proper notice of by the board of directors, as appears by all those minutes, if your lordships chuse any of these minutes to be read, it may be entering into too tedious a detail for your lordships; but finding no redress on behalf of the pensioners on account of that complaint, and several others, I determined to complain no more to the board of directors, in respect of the quality of the pensioners' provisions; I therefore thought I would set a watch upon the master, as well as upon the man. The butcher was, however, sent for by the board of directors in consequence of that minute, and reprimanded by the governor: the governor was pleased to tell him he should not supply Greenwich Hospital any longer than that contract; Mr. Mellish, the contractor, replied, he would serve Greenwich Hospital, and that when that contract was out, he would have another. Were you present when Mr. Mellish said he would serve Greenwich Hospital?—I was present, and he added, that no fault was ever found with his meat, till that troublesome fellow, the lieutenant-governor, got into office; and Mr. Hicks sneered, and said, Egad he sticks close to the lieutenant-governor; upon this I resolved to complain no more to the board of directors, in respect to the quality of the meat; but would set a watch upon the contractor himself, as well as upon his servant; and upon the 12th of June, I received information from the butcher's own servants, that he had, for a considerable time, killed bulls and bull stags for the pensioners. I carried those witnesses to London, where they were examined by Mr. Justice Pell, (I have the original depositions in my pocket) where they deposed, that they had, for a considerable K time past, slaughtered bulls, which were cut up for the use of the pensioners, brought down to Greenwich Hospital, and served up at their tables. I represented this to sir Charles Hardy, the governor, desiring he would lay the depositions before the board of directors, that the contractor might be prosecuted; they were laid before the board of directors, and he was prosecuted; but the prosecution was carried on in such a desultory manner, that it was a whole year before it was brought to an issue. I set off at first with six witnesses, most of them the butcher's own servants, at last they dwindled away to only two, the prosecution was so tedious; and long before it came to issue, one man I was obliged to secrete in the country, where he was not known, or else, I believe, I should have lost that man also, and have had no evidence at all. Did these six witnesses make affidavits?— No, only three; I thought it would not be so proper to take them all to be sworn before I came into a court of justice; so I took three only to be examined before the magistrate, the prosecution was carried on, the butcher was convicted, but I should have told your lordships, whilst he was under prosecution, the directors thought proper to renew the contract with the same man, though there lay before them information upon oath, that he had cheated the Hospital; L'objected to that contract, but it was to no purpose.· What court of directors was that? call for the minutes of that court, to see who were present? I don't know the number of the directors, but it will appear by the minutes, it. was in June 1775; I believe the depositions were laid before the board of directors; the contract was renewed in the March following; in the mean time I will inform your lordships, that while he was under this prosecution, a second contract was renewed with the same man, after he was convicted of fraud. (Mr. Ibbetson produced the book of the Minutes of the Directors) "A minute of the board of directors of the 14th of June 1775; present, sir Charles Hardy, captain Baillie, captain Hood, Mr. Fonnereau, Mr. Pett, Mr. Steward, Mr. Cust, Mr. Mr. Hicks, sir Peter Dennis, Mr. Barker, Mr. Marsh, Mr. James, the rev. Mr. Cooke, captain Campbell, and Mr. Palgrave. The governor laid before the board a paper, which had been brought to him by the lieutenant-governor, containing the affidavit of James Hattersley and John Boycot, two persons late in the service of the butcher, and Alexander Moore, cook, first mate, setting forth, that the Hospital has, for some time past, been served with the flesh of bulls and bull-stags, instead of that of oxen, agreeable to the contract. Ordered, that the solicitor lay the said affidavits and the butcher's contract before Mr. Newnham, and take his opinion in what manner it is proper to proceed against the contractor." Capt. Baillie. In March following the contract was renewed again. Mr. Ibbetson. There is something which followed this, the solicitor, on the 14th of June, the very day the affidavits were brought, it was desired to take an opinion in what manner the butcher could be prosecuted. At the very next meeting, which was the 24th of that month, the solicitor delivered to the board Mr. Newnham's opinion upon the case, laid before him in consequence of the resolution of the last board, &c. Whereby he recommends, that both the present and former contractor should be prosecuted on their respective bonds, for not having complied with their contracts; ordered, that the solicitor do cause prosecutions to be immediately commenced against them, agreeable to the said opinion. Are there any other orders of the board relative to this business, between the order and the renewing of the contract?-No. On the 13th of March, 1776, present sir Charles Hardy, captain Baillie, captain Hood, Mr. Fonnereau, Mr. Pett, Mr. Steward, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Barker, Mr. Wells, Mr. James, the reverend Mr. Cooke, captain Campbell, Mr. Wells, and sir Richard Bickerton, proposals were given in for supplying the Hospital with meat; and Mr. Mellish the present collector, offering to do it at 17. 12s. per hundred weight, his proposal was found considerably the lowest, and was accepted. Ordered that the solicitor prepare a contract between the Hospital and Mr. Mellish accordingly. Are those contracts determined by ballot or a division? In what manner is it settled?— The method of contracting with Greenwich Hospital is, advertisements are always published, and people that are inclined to serve the Hospital, give their tenders in writing, those tenders are sent in sealed to the board, and the general practice has been, that before they are opened, the people are called in; they write their names on the outside, and are asked, whether those are the lowest proposals; if they say yes, they are desired to withdraw, and then it is opened; that has been the constant practice; I don't say, whether it has always been the practice, for it has been thought a useless thing latterly to call them in, after once they have sent in their proposals sealed, then the lowest proposer is the man who has it; I never remember any division about it. You were present at this court, were you? -I was present at the one in 1776. Do you recollect that any objection was made to renewing the contract with the person who was then under a prosecution by that very board?--I don't recollect in 1776, if any was made in 1777, I cannot say, because I was not present then. Whether after the contract was made once to Mr. Mellish, was there any proof given of Mr. Mellish's having served the Hospital with any meat that was improper, or was there any fault found with his performance of the prosecution commenced in June, 1775, it was not brought to issue till June, 1776; after that it appeared, that Mr. Mellish had, prior to this contract, supplied the Hospital with bull-beef for a considerable time. remaining part of the contract, after this gentleman was turned out?—At the first contract, after the affidavits, I mean the contract in 1776, the matter had not been brought to trial, consequently he had not been convicted, and must be looked upon, I apprehend, till such conviction, as an innocent man. Was, or was not this person who was complained of, continued after there had proof been given of his serving the Hospital with bad meat; I think it has come out that he was discontinued?—No, it does not appear that he was discontinued. Was not the contract given to Mr. Mellish? -Yes, he was the person that was prosecuted. Was there any other person that that contract was offered to, I understood you so?No. If there had been any objection made to renewing the contract with this person, by their method of keeping the minutes, that objection would appear?-It certainly would, if it had been an objection made to the board; if any one of the members present, had desired that his dissent might have been entered in the minutes, it certainly would, but it is not usual to take down in minutes, any thing a single member says. Would it have appeared, if it had been determined by a majority?-Certainly it would. Was captain Baillie present at that first meeting? He was. It does not appear that captain Baillie did object?—It does not appear by the minutes. You were present, did he in fact object?—I don't recollect that he did. Can you refer to the advertisement, and the form of it?--I cannot produce the form of the advertisement, we do not keep any copy of them, they are things of course. From your recollection of them, are those advertisements of such a nature as to oblige the court to give it to the lowest bidder?__ No, there is nothing obligatory to the advertisement; it is for such persons as may be inclined to give in their proposals at Salter'shall at such a day, and such a time, and they are to do it agreeable to a form, which they will receive at the proper office at Greenwich Hospital, where, by the advertisement, they are directed for the form.. Is there any thing said in the advertisement, that the lowest bidder's terms will be accepted? Not at all. But it has been the constant practice among the directors to take the lowest?--Yes, ever since I have been there. Q. to Captain Baillie. Did you object at that board of directors?-A. I did positively object to Mr. Mellish's having a renewal of his contract; the answer was, it was a mere matter of suspicion, and that those servants of the butcher who had given evidence, were under prosecution themselves, for stealing the contractor's meat; therefore their evidence ought not to be taken at all, upon that I said no more, the contract was renewed. The How does it appear?-Upon the affidavits of the different persons carried before the magistrate, they had sworn to different contracts; one man to the contract then existing, another to the contract prior to that, and I moved it to the board, that he might be prosecuted for that contract also. Mr. Eden was a principal person that assisted to bring on that prosecution, which continued another whole year. What was the event of the first prosecution?-He was prosecuted only for ten penalties, but I believe a hundred might have been proved in the course of that contract; he was convicted upon ten penalties. Were you at the trial?—I was. You heard the sentence pronounced?--I heard it pronounced by the judge and jury, that he was convicted for ten penalties, they brought the action for 100/. only. You say you objected when the contract was renewed, whilst he was under a prosecution?—Yes. You say somebody objected to your objection, do you recollect who that was?—I remember very well, if it is proper to mention names, which I would rather wish to decline; Mr. Marsh, formerly a commissioner of the victualling, did declare, that he had heard the butcher's men were under prosecution, for stealing the contractor's meat, and that defence was set up for him in the King's-bench, which appeared to be entirely groundless, and without a shadow of foundation; on the second prosecution I was ready in court with five witnesses; he was prosecuted for fifty penalties, for fifty breaches of contract. In what year was that?-1777. This man was convicted in ten penalties, for ten breaches of contract; I suppose there was in the contract a penalty of 101. for each breach of the contract?—Yes. Was there or not a general penalty besides, for the breach of the contract ?—I understood that the penalty of 10l. was merely to oblige him to bring his meat in due time, that the people might have their dinners at the proper hour, and a general bond for the performance of his covenant in 300/. Was the next contract renewed with Mr. Mellish before the second trial or not?-Having been convicted in the ten penalties, after that the contract was renewed with him, then a second prosecution was carried on. Was the second contract renewed with him, before the compounding the second trial?Yes, after he was convicted on the first trial, he compounded the penalties on the next. When was that?-He was prosecuted first in 1775; he was convicted in 1776; and in 1776, there was a fresh prosecution carried on against him, for fifty other breaches of his contract. |