charge of the Exchequer fee-money to the clerk employed in soliciting the money at the Exchequer, there has not been any necessity for the paymaster's having in his hands any part of the public money; whereas, large sums must necessarily be trusted to the custody of the sub-accountants. The salary of the paymaster has always been superior to that of the sub-accountants. When the salaries of the latter, were augmested on the 21st of May, 1800, from four hundred pounds to six hundred and sixty pounds per annum, that of the paymaster was increased from five hundred pounds to eight hundred pounds. With respect to the observation contained in Mr. Trotter's paper, namely, that the amount of money issued from the Exchequer did not depend upon him nor upon the treasurer, it is true that in his application to the lords of the treasury for money, he was under the direct as of the public boards; but it is certainly in the power of a paymaster, by delaying his applications, or not using due diligence in soliciting the money from the Exchequer, to create a necessity for the different boards to make earlier applications, and Consequently to keep greater balances with the treasurer. However this may have been, we know that the disbursements in the navy pay office might have been carried on with smaller balances; in proof of which, we need only notice the sums received from M. Trotter and applied by Lord Melville, those in the hands of Mr. Trotter, and those for many years converted by Mr. Jellicoe to his private concerns, of which we shall speak hereafter. The amount of these sums (and at times they must have been very large) need not have been taken from the Exchequer, for it is evident the payments for the navy services were carried on with out them. We have entered in the ap pendix a general statement of the annual receipts, payments, and balances of the treasurer of the navy, from the year 1786 to 1803, both inclusive; and a general statement of the monthly receipts, payments and balances, for the years 1796 and 18co.

We have likewise inserted an account, furnished by the navy board, of the amount of the treasurer's receipts, the assignments made on him by the different boards, and the amount of the unassigned balance in each year from 1786 to 1800, both inclusive.Upon comparing the above accounts, we observe, that the amount of the assignments ororders upon the treasurer, as might be expected, does not accord with the amount of the sums paid by him within the year, and Consequently, that the balances at the end

of the year by the two accounts do not agree.- -There is also a difference in the amount of the sums stated to be received by the treasurer within the year; but this, we are told, has arisen from the manner in which the treasurer has brought to account sums paid to him by individuals (who have had money impressed to them by the dif ferent board) in order to clear their imprests. -Instead of charging himself with the sums so paid to him, he has recharged himself with the whole sum advanced upon imprest, of which he had previously acquitted himself, and has discharged himself of the sum actually disbursed by the party, by which he in fact charges himself with the balance, but it materially augments in his accounts the total of his receipts within the year. We are of opinion, that all monies should be carried to account in the same manner by the treasurer, and by the persons employed in the public offices to check his accounts, in order that the two accounts may correspond.--[Here follows a statement, drawn up from the above accounts, shewing the amount of the treasurer's unassigned and actual balances on the 31st of December in each year, from 1786 to 1803, and the number of days such balances would have lasted, at the average rate of expendi ture of the succeeding years.] On considering the above statement, it will appear, particularly before the year 1796, that much larger sums were left in the hands of the treasurer than the public service required: on an average, the unassigned balance left in his hands prior to the above period, was equal to thirty-three days expenditure of each succeeding year, and his actual balasce, during the same period, would have been equal to forty-five days expenditure.

-IVe see no reason why the money in the treasurer's charge should at any time be more than equal to ten days probable expenditure, exclusive of the money lodged at the out ports to pay the wages of such ships as may unexpectedly arrive in time of war. ---The practice of the public boards, and particularly of the navy board, in applying for sums under minute heads of service, and of considering such sums as appropriated to those services, instead of being applicable to the general service of each department, tends very much to increase the treasurer's balance unnecessarily. The impolicy and disadvantage of this practice were seen by the commissioners for taking and stating the public accounts of the kingdom, and it was recommended by them, in their third report, that the practice should be abolished.

-No measures have, however, been

Jordships were of opinion, it was expedient the Treasurer of the Navy should be exonerated from accounting for the said sum of 24,8467. 6s. 64d.; and they directed a warrant to be prepared to be submitted to His Majesty for that purpose: Lord Melville was accordingly acquitted of the same by writ of Privy Seal.--The statement to the Lords of the Treasury upon which the writ of Privy Seal was grounded, appears to be incorrect in some material points. His lordship observes, "Being left in this situation" (that is on the death of Mr. Jellicoe)" he "had no alternative, but to save for the

public the wreck of the property Mr. Jel"licoe died possessed of; and an extent

having been issued immediately on his "death, all his effects that were available

466

were turned into money, and paid in dimi"nution of the debt."--The freehold warehouse and wharf at Gosport, together with the freehold messuage at Portsmouth Common, returned to the extent issued into Hampshire, were not then, nor, as we have before observed, are they yet sold; and we conceive, they could hardly have been forgotten, as Mr. Trotter, on behalf of Lord Melville, received from Mr. Samuel Jellicoe, on the 21st of May, a few days prior to the date of the writ of Privy Seal, the sum of 8461. 8s. 8d., eight years and three quarters rent for the warehouse and wharf due Lady-day 1800, besides 1,7501., being the instalments then due on account of Mr. Samuel Jellicoe's debt to his father, making together, the sum of 2,5961. 8s. 8d.—--On reference to the schedule of Mr. Jellicoe's 'effects, drawn up by Mr. Black the accountant, we also find debts to a considerable amount stated to be good, which have not been recovered. A sum of 551. 11s. 6d. appeared to be due to him from Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. as the balance of an account which he had opened with them, at the desire of Mr. Trotter. This sum has since been received, and 521. 4s. 6d. part of it, were applied in paying the fees on the writ of Privy Seal. The remainder is still unaccounted for this circumstance is mentioned merely to shew how negligently every part of this business has been conducted.

:

His lordship further observes, "a statement "of the sums in the hands of the chief « clerk" (that is, Mr. Jellicoe)" from the "time of his" (Lord Melville's)" coming

into office, is subjoined, from which it will appear, that even allowing no weight "to Mr. Jellicoe's rank, respectability, and supposed fortune, the confidence placed in him, as to extent, was not beyond what « other treasurers had placed in less expensive

"times; and as from the whole circum stances of the case it must appear, that "the most severe measures would not have contributed more to the public good, he trusts, that previous to leaving office, be "will be enabled finally to close his ac

count, and to pay over his balance in "terms of the act of parliament, after de "ducting therefrom so much of the balance "due from Mr. Jellicoe at the time of his "death as now remains unpaid; and that "Mr. Dundas and his successors in the of "fice of treasurer of the navy, may be dis "charged from all further account of such "balance: the Crown still reserving the

power to take the most effectual measures "for recovering under the extent against "Mr. Jellicoe's effects or securities the re"mainder of the balance."--The statement referred to by Loid Melville is confined to the sums in the hauds of Mr. Jellicoe, during the period of his lordship's t s treasurer. ship, and therefore can afford no comparison of the extent of the confidence placed in Mr. Jellicoe by his lordship, and the extent of the confidence placed in him by former treasurers; therefore we have not entered this statement in the Appendix ; but in order to afford such a comparison, we have entered in the Appendix an account, shewing the sums with which Mr. Jellicoe stood charged at the end of each month, during the several treasurerships of Mr. Barré, Lord Melville, and Lord Bayning; an account, shewing the amount of his charge in each month on account of the treasurer for the time being, from April, 1782, to August, 1789; and also an account of his aggregate charge on account of the treasurer for the time being, and the extreasurers for the same period, so far as the same cau be made up On reference to the account of the sums with which Mr. Jellicoe stood charged on account of the treasurers for the time being, it will be seen that in the year 1782, a time of war, and 1783, when the fleet was paid off, the average of Mr. Jellicoe's monthly charge was only 6,7761. 13s; whereas in the years 1788 and 1789, a period of peace, the average of his monthly charge was 38,999. 17s. 7d. We therefore cannot agree with his lordship, that the confidence placed in Mr. Jellicoe was not beyond what other treasurers had placed in him in less expensive times; nor can we subscribe to the opinion, that measures could not have been adopted which would have contributed more to the public good; as on the 30th of June, 1788, when his lordship's attention was directed, as appears by his letter of the 10th of July,

to the increase of Mr. Jellicoe's balance, his aggregate charge on account of the treasurer and the ex-treasurers, was only 25,7521, 10. 9d; whereas at the time of his deccase, he stood charged with 37,5121. 185. 8d., exclusive of the sum of 2,163). 11s. 6}d., afterwards paid to persons having demands on Lord Melville's act of parliament new account, for which Mr Jellicoe had taken credit.We have before shewn, that all the sums recoverable from Mr. Jellicoe's estate were not received prior to Lord Melville's obtaining the writ of Privy Seal. Since that time no steps have been taken for recovering the remainder of the debt, if the small balance of Mr. Jellicoe's account at Messrs. Courts's be excepted. Mr. Trotter ob-erves," Upon Lord Melville's being ac"quitted of. any responsibility attached to "Mr. Jellicoe's deficiency, I no longer con"sidered myself under the necessity of atfending to any part of that unfortunate "business."—And Mr. White, the solicitor, states, that he has neither been discharged, or has received orders to proceed; that he continued to act in the business unta 1792 or 1793, but has taken no steps since that time.. However a public accountant may be exonerated from personal responsibility, his duty to the public is not fulfilled whilst any diminution of the loss of which he has been acquitted, can be effected by his exertion. In the preseut case, for the recovery of part of the debt, namely, the accruing rent and instalments due from Mr. Samuel Jellicoe on ac· count of his debt to his father, it appears that an agent of government is only wanting to receive it.That the public interest may be no longer neglected, we think that the statement of Mr. Jellicoe's affairs, drawn up by Mr. Black the accountant, with the other papers relating to his property, should be put into the hands of a solicitor, to recover for the public all that can now be had from Mr. Jellicoe's estate. We apprehend much less will be recovered than might have been, if due diligence had been exerted immediately after Mr. Jellicoe's decease, not only from the death of the parties, but from the circumstance of Mr. Jellicoe's private ledger having been lost, which Mr. Black states appeared to have been kept with great exactness.In future, we would recommend, that before any Treasurer of the Navy, or other public accountant, be discharged from accounting for deficiencies in his office, a statement of the loss or deficiency, the circumstances attending it, and means taken to recover the same, be sworn to by such accountant before one

of the Barons of His Majesty's Court of Ex chequer, and that such statement, so verified, do accompany any memorial presented to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, pray ing relief.The impolicy of allowing individuals to make use of the public money cannot be too often adverted to, or too for• cibly impressed on the minds of those who have the regulation of public offices. It will necessarily follow, that those who enjoy such emolument will get into their hands, and retain as much as possible of the public money; ; and it the secure profits do not keep pace with their wishes, they will at the risk of the public, vest it in speculations which promise to be more productive; this is strongly exemplified by the case we have just stated. The salaries of all persons entrusted with public money should be fair and liberal; but, previously to their re ceiving the same, we think they should make oath that they have not derived any advantage, directly or indirectly, from the use or employment of the public money com mitted to their charge. Observing in Mr. Trotter's statement, attached to his evidence of the 25th of July, that the sums of 605). and 5331, remained in his possession, stated to have arisen from official errors, which had been notified to the Navy Board, we enquired into the circumstances of this transaction, that we might ascertain the nature and cause of these errors, and consider of measures for preventing them in future.-In the course of our enquiry we discovered, that this transaction originated in freud, and not in error; several remittance bills, amounting to the sum of 1,1381. having been twice charged as paid in the accounts of the clerk entrusted with that dnty.--[After giving the history of this fraud, the report, as to this head concludes as follows.]As this offence was committed so many years ago, and we understand that the person to whom this part of the report particularly relates, has since conducted himself with propriety and fidelity, we have omitted in the Appendix all circumstances that might immediately lead to the discovery of his name.

We have little further to state respecting these treasurers; as we have already noticed their conduct, so far as relates to preventing the paymaster from drawing the public money from the Bank, and lodging it in the hands of a private banker, for the purpose of elucidating some parts of the detail of Lord Melville's second treasurership.It appears, that none of them derived any profit or emolument from the use of money issued for navy services; and that no part of that money was applied by any of them, to the use of any other public department.--Mr. Trotter acted as paymaster to Lord Harrowby and Mr. Bathurst, aud, for a short time, to Mr. Tierney; he was succeeded by Mr. Latham,who continued in office till Mr. CANNING became treasurer,when Mr.Trotter was again appointed paymaster. It is stated by Mr. Latham, [paymaster to Mr. Tierney] that he did not withdraw from the Bank any money issued for the service of the navy, but transferred the same from the account of the treasurer to the accounts of the respective sub-accountants; and that he did not derive any profit or dvantage from the use or employment of the public money.

[After recommending sundry regulations for preventing abuses in future, the report concludes with stating the following circumstance.]--We think it necessary to observe, that on the 10th and 17th of July last, we issued our precepts to the Treasurer of His Majesty's Navy (Mr. Canning) for certain accounts, which were necessary to our forming a judgment as to the propriety of the extent of the balances of public money left in the hands of the treasurer; and not having, on the 2d of October, received any communication from the treasurer on the subject of these precepts, we wrote to him, and requested that he would be pleased to give directions for our be 'ng furnished with the accounts as soon as possible, and that he would inform us when they might be expected.--in reply, he acquainted us, that the delay in making the returns to our precepts had proceeded from representations made to him of the extreme difficulty and hindrance to the current business of the office, which must attend the making out accounts of so complicated a nature, in forms so wholly unusual and unknown in the practice of the treasurer's department; and that upon these representations, he had thought it his duty to submit the following question to the Attorney and Solicitor General and the counsel to the Admiralty; whether, under the words of the act, he was compellable to furnish the accounts called for in the unusual forms prescribed

by the fecepts, or whether he should not fully satisfy the act by producing to us any or all the accounts of the office in the shape in which they then existed?--He at the same time transmitted to us the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, and the counsel to the Admiralty; which we subjoin." We are of opinion, that the "Treasurer of the Navy will satisfy the "words of the act of the 43d George III.

cap. 16. by producing to the Commis sioners of Naval Enquiry, the accounts "of his office in the shape in which they " now exist; and that if the labour and "the time it would require to make them "out in the manner called for by the Com"missioners of Enquiry, are such as to "occasion any material obstruction to the "business of his department, we think the "production of them in their present shape, "is all that can be reasonably expected." --The accounts we called for by those precepts were afterwards furnished; and we apprchend the current business of the of fice was not materially impeded by the clerks being employed in preparing them.--We have not met with difficulties of this set, in any of the other departments to which our enquiries have been directed; but we think it right to notice this instance, that in the appointment of Commissioners of Enquiry in future, the assistance which they may require from the pub'ic offices may be defined by the legis lature. It is obvious that the business of such offices would be much impeded, and the labour of such Commissioners much in. creased, if the books and documents were to be sent from the offices (as proposed by Mr. Canning) and kept by the Commissioners till they could make the proper searches, and extract such matters as might be necessary for their purpose. Add to this, that the commissioners would frequently have occasion for the attendance of clerks from the offices to explain the entries, and that, if this mode of proceeding were to be adopted as to books and papers at distant places, such as the out-ports, the inconvenience would be intolerable, and an enquiry on such terms impracticable.