alter the opinion he had formed, when he was prevented by a severe illness from attending further to the business of the of fice. The Right Honourable Charles Bathurst, who succeeded Lord Harrowby, put a final stop to the practice of drawing the money out of the Bank, and lodging it in the hands of a private banker, in the summer of 1802, from a conviction that such practice was inconsistent with the spirit of the act for the regulation of the office of the treasurer of the navy, and that the conveniencies which were suggested to result from it in facilitating the transaction of business, were not of weight sufficient to justify the continuance of such an irregularity. The sub-accountants were likewise directed to lodge their balances in the Bank. Mr. Bathurst states, that no representations were made to him of inconveniencies resulting from this change of system; and Mr. Trotter himself allows, that no material inconvenience did arise. Mr. Trotter, a few days before he quitted office, proposed to the Rt. Hon. George Tierney, the then treasurer, that instead of drafts being given to the sub-accountants on the Bank, payable to them or bearer, the paymaster should, from time to time, direct such sums as might be necessary to be transferred from the treasurer's account at the Bank to the accounts of the sub-accountants. This proposal, which, if adhered to, would be an effectual bar to his successors receiving money into their own hands by their drafts on the Bank, was adopted by Mr. Tierney; and we learn. from Mr. Latham, who acted as his paymaster, that no inconvénience was experienced from this mode of transfer, nor was lie aware of any facility or advantage from the intervention of a private banker.As it is the strongest refutation of the reasoning urged for a departure from the regulations established by the act of parlia ment, that these regulations have been

service for which it is drawn, and that without this specification the draft shall not be deemed a voucher to the Bank for the payment; and it has been stated to us, that this form has been strictly adhered to, and that no money has been drawn from the Bank without specifying a particular head of service. Such drafts might be in all cases sufficient authority to the Bank; but when used by the paymaster to draw mo. ney into his own possession, and for other purposes than the services specified, it has been a palpable evasion of the act.——As we could not obtain information from Mr.. Trotter as to the manner in which the public money had been disposed of, between the time of its being drawn from the Bank and the time of its being applied to the pub lic service, we called upon Mr. Thomas Wilson, the chief clerk in the bill and remittance department of the navy pay of fice, a branch lately established, but who has been generally employed as an assistant to the paymaster, and by whom one of the accounts rendered to us of the disposition of the treasurer's balances were signed.--The evidence given by Mr. Wilson is of an extraordinary nature; he avowed having derived an advantage from the use or employment of money issued for the payment of Exchequer fees, the charge of which was transferred to him by Mr. Trotter in the year 1800; but he objected to answering every question put to him as to the disposition of the public balances, or the advantage derived by the paymaster therefrom, or even to giving any explanation of the official account of the treasurer's ba. lances, although signed by himself; and pleaded his being protected by the fifth clause of the act by which this commission is constituted, although he declared that he had not derived any profit, advantage, or benefit whatever from or in consequence of the public money having been applied to private use by any person or persons. Such conduct in a person in office appear ed to us by no means creditable; and, if it were generally adopted, it might be the means of rendering ineffectual all such commissions of inquiry as that under which we act. Having no other means of ob

which the public money had been applied to private use, and the extent to which it had been carried, but by resorting to Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co, we examined Edmund Antrobus, Esq. the principal acting partner in that house. From him we learn ed that Mr. Trotter, during the time he was paymaster, had five accounts with this

horse, of the following descriptions; viz. [Here the titles of the accounts are described.j -Mr. Antrobus shewed great disinclination to giving us any information with respect to Mr. Trotter's account without his consent; alledging, that the money received by Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. at the Bank, on Mr. Trotter's drafts, had been carried to accounts in his name as an individual, and not in his public capacity of paymaster of the navy; but after Mr. Antrobus had taken the opinion of the cosusel as to the authority vested in this board to require him to disclose the transactions of Mr. Trotter with his house, as far as the public money was concerned, he submitted to answer the questions that were put to him on those points.By the evidence of Mr. Antrobus it appears, that publie money received by Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. from the Bank, on Mr. Trotter's drafts, had been invested in Exchequer and Navy Bills, len on the security of stock, and employed by Mr. Trotter in discounting private bills; and that considerable purchases of Bank and East India stock were made by Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co on account of Mr. Tratter. We therefore issued our precept to Meats. Thomas, Coutts and Co for the accounts of Mr. Alexander Trotter, containing any entries of sums received by his drafts on the Bank, giving them an option either to produce their books, or to furnish us with copies of the accounts.—They preferred the former mode, and accordingly laid before us the books containing,-Mr. Trotter's account, as paymaster of the navy, from its commencement to the time of its being closed ; the account, in his own name, from the 24th of June, 1791, to the 17th of July, 1802;; and, his separate account, from the 27th of February, 1789 to the 27th of May, 1790;of which accounts we caused copies to be taken. They withheld the parts of the two last accounts prior and subsequent to the periods mentioned, and his private ac count as not containing any entries of sums received by Mr. Trotter's drafts on the Bank. This reason for keeping back thus much of the accounts was verified by Mr. William Chapman, their clerk, who examined the accounts for that purpose, and produced to us a list of the drafts given by Mr. Trotter on the Bank, which had been carried to his credit in the accounts, distinguished as his own account, and his separate account.-The money received by Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. by the drafts of Mr. Trotter on the Bank, appears we have been money issued for navy ser

vices, because Mr. Trotter had no private account there, and drew upon the Bank solely as the agent or attorney of the trea surer of the navy.-If official convenience only had, been the object in opening ac counts with Messrs. Thomas Courts and Co. it might have been expected that the pubhic money placed there would have been separated from all private concerns, and kept under clear and distinct heads. Instead of this obvious caution, we do not find that even any open declaration was made, to the House of the nature of the property Entrusted to them; and the whole of the public money received on account of Mr. Trotter by lig drafts on the Bank, was placed to his private accounts, and so mixed with other monies, that the one could not be distinguished from the other; nor could it be discovered, upon the face of the ac counts, from whom several of the sums were received, or to whom paid; and Mr. Trotter himself could not ascertain whether certain advances of money made by him to Lord Melville, were from his public or pri vate balances. The manner of keeping Mr. Trotter's accounts is also assigned by Lord Melville as a reason for his not being able to answer some questions which were put to him, relative to the employment of the public money.It was not in our power, without the assistance of Mr. Trotter, to distinguish whether many of the items in the accounts related to public or private money; and Mr. Trotter, when called upon, refused to give us that assistauce. We have therefore entered in the appendix copies of the accounts, entitled his own account, and his separate account; and an abstract of his account, entitled, his paymaster's account. We have obliterated the names to all entries in the two former accoun's under one hundred pounds, to prevent the unnecessary exposure of private concerns. If this has not been done to the full extent we could have wished, it must be considered, that blending in one account official and private money transactions in the manner before described, has rendered the bringing of them together into public view unavoidable. The inspection of these accounts will afford much fuller information of the manner in which the public money has been applied than any description which it is in our power to give.We have dis

tinguished in the accounts the sums that were received by Messrs. Thomas Cours and Co. by Mr. Trotter's drafts on the Bank,

The part of the account rendered to us, entitled Mr. Trotter's separate account, contains only a few entries of money received

by his drafts on the Bank; but the money so received appears distinctly on the face of the account to have been applied to private purposes. Although the only direct proof which we have been able to obtain of public money having been carried to the credit of Mr. Trotter's account with Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. is, by their having received money upon his drafts on the Bank; yet on an inspection of the accounts it will be seen, that sums of such magnitude not received by Mr. Trotter's drafts on the Bank, have been brought to his credit, as to afford strong presumption that they were part of the public money-deposits of money, not received by drafts on the Bank, to the amount of one hundred thousand pounds and upwards on the same day, and in the course of a few days will be met with frequently. In one instance, namely on the 11th of April, 1795, the sum of one million, not received by draft on the Bank, is placed to his credit. As a further proof of other public money, besides that received directly from the Bank, being included in the account called his own account, we subjoint a comparative statement of the sums received directly from the Bank, and the sums paid from that account to the different sub accountants of the navy pay office, and for services which we conclude to be of a public nature.

Amount of sums received | Amount of sums paid by Messrs. Thomas the account of Mr. Coutts and Co. by the. Trotter with Messrs. drafts of Mr. Trotter Thomas Coutts and Co. on the Bank, and car- entitled His own Acried to the credit of count, to the different his Own account Sub-Accountants of the Navy Pay Office 11,756,8041. 6s. 6d. Amount of the

8,295,420l. 10s. 5d.

We conclude that the difference, six million seven hundred and eighty-three thousand three hundred and seventeen pounds two shillings and eleven-pence, was money issued for navy services, drawn from the Bank by Mr. Trotter, and deposited with Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co, after having passed through his own hands, or the hands of some agent employed by hum to receive it by his drafts on the Bank. -As the name of Mr. Mark Sprot appeared frequently in the accounts, as paying into the house of Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. on account of Mr. Trotter, and receiving from thence very large sums, we deemed it necessary to examine him as to the nature of his transactions with the Pay-master of the Navy; but after deposing, that, to the bet of his recollection, he had not received any money from the Bank by Mr. Trotter's drafts, he refused to answer every other question put to him: alledging that he had taken the advice of Counsel, who we se of opinion that he was not bound to answer such questions.Upon the whole, it appears to us to be a clearly established fact, that during his treasurership, the money issued for Navy Services was used to a great amount for the purposes of private emolument: and this cir cumstance leads us to observe, that if a Treasurer of the Navy, after an increase of his salary upon the terms cotained in the warrant under his Majesty's sign manual, derive profit from the use of money issued for Navy Services, he becomes upon principles of equity a debtor to the public, and is accountable for all such profit. Our duty require us to add, that the withdrawing of the publis money from the Bank of England in the manner and for the purposes before related, was, in our judgment, a disobedience to the law as established by the 25th of the present reign, chap. 31.-We cannot dismiss, the consideration of this treasurership without adverting to a paper delivered to us by Mr. Trotter, drawn up in justification of his conduct, and purporting to be a statement of the transactions of his Pay-mastership.→ Actuated by a desire that all persons who might conceive their character called in question by our proceedings, might have an opportunity of justifying themselves, and explaining their conduct, we have never refused to admit any details given with that view by the persons whom we have examin ed, notwithstanding such details may have been irrelevant to the questions proposed by ns. Upon this principle we received from Mr. Trotter the paper in question, which is attached to his evidence of the 25th of July, 1804; but it is fit that we should offer

-

some comments upon it, as well as upon the evidence contained in the Appendix. And this is more especially called for in the case of an examinant, who, to avoid the danger of criminating bimself, refuses explanations required of him, and afterwards offers a jus tification on his own terms. In this paper Mr. Trotter does not deny his having made use of the Public Money withdrawn by him from the Bank; and in his subsequent examination, he intimates that in so doing he had acted under permission, although he says he is not at liberty to state that he has ever been explicitly authorised to do $0. Lord Melville, upon being asked whether he gave permission to the Paymaster to withdraw the money from the Bank and lodge it in the hands of a private Banker, with a view to his deriving any ad. vantage or emolument therefrom, answers, "If it is meant to ask me whether I ever gave any direct authority to the Pay master "to use the money in the manner above* mentioned, I should certainly answer no: "but I have no hesitation in saying, that I "believed and understood he did, and never "prohibited him from doing so; and I be"lieve it was so understood by others at dif. "erent times, when the establishment of the Navy Pay Office was under considera

tion, when certainly no competent provi"sion was made for the person exercising "that trust of great extent and respon-i

bility." Whether the salary of the Pay-master was not increased when the general augmentation of the salaries of the cashiers took place in 1786, because he was not in the direct charge or use of the public money other than the money for Exchequer fees, or because he was not, like the cashiers, in the receipt of fees or gratuities of which they were then deprived, is what we cannot pretend to affirm; but we cannot suppose that the public money was then considered as a perquisite of the Pay-master, which would imply, that the recommendations of the commissioners of accounts, the resolution of the House of Commons, and finally, the Act of Parliament, were totally disregarded, and that an emolument so fraught with evil to the public, which had been lately computed with ⚫the treasurer for an additional salary of more than 2,0001. a year, was, by those entitled to consider of the establishment of the Navy Pay Office, thought proper to devolve on his deputy, the Pay-master.-Mr. Trotter in his paper also states, that he has no doubt, though he cannot prove it, that advantages were enjoyed by his predecessors from the ase of the public money; and that, if the

"exceeding smallness of the salary of Pay"master affords a presumption, that such" "advantages have been considered as forming a part of the remuneration of so anxious and confidential a charge." From all the information we have been able to obtain, it does not appear that Mr. Trotter's predecessors did enjoy any such advantage. It is positively stated by Mr. Harmood, Pay-master to Mr. Barré, that he did not; nor did he conceive the use of the public money to form any part of the emolument of his office. And it is stated by lord Bayning, that he did not know, nor did he believe, that Mr. Douglas, while he acted as his Pay-master, derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of the public money, except the money issued for the payment of Exchequer fees. As a further answer to the observation, that the use of the public money was considered as a perquisite of the paymaster, when the augmentation of salaries in the navy pay office took place in August, 1786, we find that Mr. Trotter, in his examination on the 2d, 9th, and 12th of October in that year, before the commissioners appointed to inquire into the fees, gratuites, perquisites, and emoluments received in the several public offices, contained in the appendix to their fourth report, deposes," That he has at present some

66

advantage from balances remaining in his "hands, which were impressed to the pre"sent treasurer for the purpose of paying "Exchequer fees, and some other contingencies; but the amount of such advantages he cannot possibly ascertain. He is " also allowed stationary of all sorts for his own use, but does not recollect any fee, gratuity, or other allowance or perquisite "whatever, which he enjoys as paymaster "of the navy."--If Mr. Trotter was in the practice of deriving advantage from the use of money applicable to navy services at the time of making this deposition, which was only two months after the increase of the salaries in the navy pay office, the men. tion of so considerable a source of emolument could not have been omitted.-The commissioners before whom this deposition was made, certainly did not collect from it, that the use of money applicable to navy ser. vices was a perquisite of the paymaster; for in detailing his income, after mentioning his salary, and bis allowances of coach-hire, coals, candles, and stationary, they state, "he at

present derives some advantage from the "balance of money remaining in his hands "for the purpose of paying Exchequer fees, "and some other contingencies, but has no fee gratuity, or other em lamentwhatever,"

And they recommend that his salary should be increased from five hundred to eight hundred pounds per annum, to be in lieu of all contingencies or allowances what-o-ver; and that he should not be permitted to de"rive any advantage whatever from public 66 money remaining in his hands; but that "the money issued to pay Exchequer fees,

&c. should be paid into the Bank, and "drawn from thence for the public service "in like manner as all other money for na"val services now is."- -The salary, pro posed by those commissioners, was of course deemed by them a full equivalent for the labour and responsibility of the situation When the business of the navy pay office was under the consideration of the select committee of the House of Commons on fi nance, in 1797, they required an account of the increase or diminution which had taken place since the year 1782, in the amount of salaries and emoluments in the navy pay of fice. The account furnished is contained in the appendix to their seventeenth report. The increase of the emolument of odd pence received by the clerks is mentioned; but no notice is taken of the advantage derived by the paymaster from the use of the money is sued for the service of the navy; although it must have arisen since the year 1782, as the paymaster at that time did not derive any emolument therefrom. Hence it must ap pear, that the use of the public money was not considered, even in 1797, as an avowed emolument of the paymaster.- Mr. Trotter states in his paper, that in drawing money from the Bank in gross, and retaining it in his own hands, or lodging it with his private banker, he does not consider that he has departed from the letter or spirit of the act for the better regulation of the office of treasurer of the navy: he says, it was directed by that act, 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 is wanted; and be further states, that these directions have accordingly been invariably followed. We have already shewn in what manner the directions for the heads of service being mentioned in the drafts have been evaded; and in reciting the act, he has not noticed the clause which directs that the mopies issued to the Bank on account of the treasurer, shall not be paid out of the Bank, unless for navy services. It surely cannot be advanced, that the money drawn by the paymaster for private use was paid out of the Bank for navy services.--One of the reasons given by the paymaster for keeping

balances in his own hands is the having of money in readiness to advance to the sub-accountants, when the demands upon them were greater than were foreseen; and in his evidence of the 19th of October, he states, that he has made advances to them in cash and bank notes; bat this circumstance is contradicted by the sub-accountants; and it will hardly be contended, that money standing in the name of the treasurer at the Bink is not as much within his power as in the house of a private banker. In order, however, to judge of the necessity of the case, we thought proper to inquire, whether, as it was stated to us by the paymaster, the ca hiers received daily advances of money equal to one or two days expenditore. We therefore required an account of their balances ont the 31st of December in each year, a d of the days in each succeeding year when those balances were exhausted. By the following statement, drawn out from thess accounts, it will appear, that previously to 1801, their balances were generally equalto between a week and a fortnight's expendi rare. [Here follows the table.]—As we see no reason why the advances should not be made to the sub-accountants from day to day, the balances left in their hands prior to the year 1803, appear to us to have been considerably more than the public service required.We think it proper, however, to observe, that the cashier of the victuslling, since his salary was raised, in 1786) from one hundred and fitty pounds to four hundred pounds per annum, does not appear to have derived any advantage from the use of the public money, nor the pre sent deputy paymaster, nor the cashier of allotments, since their appointment in 1795.

-The cashier of the navy, who was appointed in 1792, appears to have been in the practice of vesting certain sums, which he says were small, in navy bills'; but he has not done so latterly. The money wanted for the department of the cashier of the navy is at present drawn from the Bank by one of his clerks. We think the several duties of the sub-accountants should be performed by them in person, and this part of the duty in particular.Mr. Trotter, in his paper, lays much stress upon the smallness of his salary, in comparison to the re sponsibility of his situation. The office of paymaster is certainly an important one, and considerable confidence must be reposed in him; but if he regulates his conduct strict ly by the provisions of the act of parliament, his actual responsibility is much less that that of the sub-accountants. Since the time that the paymaster transferred the