to Somerset Place,Q. As the Paymaster of the Navy does not disburse any part of the public money, except for the payment of exchequer fees and other contingencies, does your lordship think it necessary that the paymaster should have in the iron chest, or at a private banker's, any of the money issued for carrying on the current services of the navy? I do not think it necessary, but for the reasons I have given, I think it expedient: the whole moneydrawn from the Bank, and placed in the hands of the sub-accountants, pass through the hands of the Paymaster of the Navy; but though this is my opinion, I know many very competent persons entertain a different opinion. Q. Did you give 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 advantage or emolument therefrom? A. If it is meant to ask me, whether 1 ever gave any direct authority to the paymaster 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 believe it was so understood by others at different times, when the establishment of the Navy Pay Office. was under consideration, when certainly no comperent provision was made tor the person exercising that trust of great extent and responsibility. Q. As the money applicatile to naval services, was directed to be lodged in the Bank by the act of 25th Geo. HI. cap. 31, and not to be drawn f om thence without specifying the services for which it is drawn, by what authority did you give permission to the paymaster of the navy to draw the money out of the Bank, and lodge it in the hands of private bankers ? 4. I take it for granted it always was drawn under the heads of service pointed out in the act of parliament; and when I talk of permission, I mean it under the explanation contained in answer to a former question, in which I suppose the money drawn under compe tent authority. Do you know of any instance of a treasurer of the navy having made good any loss which had arisen from overpayments, or other misapplications of the public money? 4, No, I do not.Q. Did you derive any profit or advantage from the use or employment of money is sued for carrying on the current service of the navy, between 19th August 1782 and 30th April 1783, or between 1st Febru. y 1784 and 31st De cember 1785, during which periods you held the office of treasurer of the navy? A. I decline answering this question, under the 5th clause of the act 43d Geo. III. cap. 16, and for the reasons given in my first answer Q. Did you consider the addition granted by the King's sign manual, upon your appointment to the once of treasurer of the navy, making your salary 4,000l. a year, clear of all deductions, to be in full satisfaction for all wages, fees, and other profits and emoluments, previously enjoyed by former treasurers? 4. Certainly I dic, with the exception of coals, candles, and some such small contingencies.-Q. When was it first discovered that Mr. Jellicoe was deficient in the balance of public money with which he stood charged, as deputy paymaster of the navy? 4. I do not recollect the precise period; but the fist thing that gave me any suspicion that there was a danger of deficiency, was, by observing in the reports occasionally made to me, that his balance remained stationary, so far at least as never to get below a sam, I think, of between twenty and this ay thousand pounds; this led me to have a partitalar conversation with him, when he confessed to me, that for a considerable number of years he had been embarrassed from some advance of cogagements he had come under with a Mr. Cort; that from the high opinion I had of him, in copsequence of the character of former treasurers of the navy, and my own observation, I had no reason to doubt the fidelity of his representation; and, it was my belie, that if he had lived to superia tend the business himself, and to bring the profits of the patent Mr. Cort had obtained to their proper bearing, that the loss might have heen repaired. Upon this, however, I do not pretend to give any positive opinion, as it appeared after his death that his embarrassment had existed, and a balance. become due at least as early as 1782.—Q. How many years before the death of Mr. Jellicoe was it. that you suspected he was deɓcient in his balance? . I cannot mention the precise time, but, it was certainly more than one or two years →→→ 2. Was any enquiry made, upon the discovery into he real state of his balance? A. Certainly it was minutely enquired into. — Q. Does it any where appear what was the exact state of his de ficiency at that time? 41 canoor state it from. memory, but & dare say it does appear. -[Signs ed by Lord Mellie and the five Commissioners.} EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER TROTTER, PATMAM TER OF THE NAVY; TAKEN UPON DATH, ON TES DAYS UNDERMENTIONED. June 11, 1854. Q. Does the paymaster act as deputy to the treasurer of the navy in all duties attached to the situation? A He does, except in the appointment of officers and clerks.-Q. By what authoritydoes hé so act?. Under a general power of attorney. 2. What is the salary of paymaster? 4. At present decl. per aumum. Q. When was it in creased to that sum. About 3 or 4 years ago, to the best of my remembranes. Does the paymaster of the navy pay or disburse any money on the public account? 4. No--V. Has it been usual for him so to do? 24. Nut within my recollection, excepting in the payment of exthes quer fees, which I till within these few years was in the habit of disbursing myself.→→→Q. Who wai paymaster of the navy when the act of the 518 of the present King, cap. 37, was first carried into execution, which directs, that the money issued by the Exchequer shall be lodged in the Bank, and that the services for which it is drawn out should be specified?. The late Andrew Douglas, Esq. →→Q. Did he draw the money out of the Baut and lodge it in the hands of private bankers? d I do not know that he did...Q: Did he apply the public money in any way to his own private use or advantage 24. I do not know that he did.→→→ Q. When did the practice of the paymaster`s draw. ing the money out of the Bank, and lodging it in the hands of private bankers, first obtain? A About the year 1787, as well as bean recollect. Q. Previous to that time were the drafts up the Bank, for money necessary for the several departments, invariably given to the sub-accentants, and the money received by them Generally, though not invariably in the ja stances where the drafts were not given to Midaccountants, to whom were the drafts given, and by whom was the money received at the, Bank! The former and first examination of this pet son was on the 8th of June, 1804. It nolated principally to the mode of keeping the severe accounts in the offices under the treasurer of the mavy; and was hot very material ad. Tô mëssengers and others employed in transacting that part of the business of the pay office. To whom did the messenger and others employed is receive the money, in the instances where the drafts were not given to the sub-accountants, pay over such money! A To myself, to the best of my recollection. 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→→→d. What sums did you usually so keep in your hands? 4. That I cannot recollect.2. Did you defive any advantage from the money which you so kept in your own hands? A. object to that question on the same grounds I have done before. 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 na by? A. It was. 2. 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 beater, by the hands of common messen. gers, who were at that time employed in carrying in such checqués and almost daily in bringing out large sums of specie, which they received at the Bank in payment of those checques; and in adopting this mode, I conceived the Bankers became responsible for the amount of the drafis so lodged in their hands.-Q. If the checques had been delivered to the cashiers of the navy and victualling, and the depury paymaster, as the money became neces fary 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 1 apprehend the treasurer must ultimately have been responsible for such a loss, 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 rel ceipt of the money? A. I never heard that there had been any loss occasioned by any such accident.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 per. sons 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 Pay"Office, instead of from the Bank? A. I ap prehend it likewise consisted in providing against the toss which would have attended the circumstance of a messenger either embezzling or losing any of the drafts, which being made payable to bearer; I have been told by the cashiers of the, Bink, must and would undoubtedly have been. paid to any stranger presenting the same. 201 Would there not be the same tisk of loss and i embezzlement by sending for 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 drafo 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, be came their property.. 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.)—Q. In what man ner 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? From having had conversation with them respectively on the subjects Q. What is the date of Mr. Bragge's order for putting a stop to that practice? A. I do not re member.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 circum stance, although I may have expressed my wishes to them that they should keep their balances at the house of Messrs. Coutts and CoQ. Did the drawing of the money out of the Bank, and lodging it in the hands of Messts. Thomas Coutts and Co. offer any facility or advantage to the public service, which might or could not he 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 sub accountants, placed immediately to their respec tive accounts, or first to your name, and only made over to their accounts by draft, as occasion required? A. Both modes were practised.-Q. Do you know of any person or persons (the paymaster 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 Exchequer for the service of the navy, since the year 1784? A. (c.) No, I do not, to the best of my knowledge. Are the applications made to you by the sub-accountants for money in writing? A. 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. What is the usual mode of directing the money to be transicire at the Bank. to the names of the different sub-ac countants. 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, 1894, to the answers given by him on the 11th instant (a) 1 should apprehend it was about the year 1736. ——(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 1 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 11th instant.-Q. 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. 1 object to answer that question.Q. 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 A. 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 pe riod 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 you know any. person or persons (the paymaster of the navy-out of the question) who bave derived any advantage Difcents, 4 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 yer object to it because it may criminate, or tend to ériminate you, or to expose you to any pams or penakies? A. Conceiving that irregularities it the management of public money may tend to expose me to pains aud peñaltics, I object to the above question, believing that my answer may read to discover such irregularities-Q. Do you know of any person or persons (the paymaster of the navy out of the question) who have de rired any advantage from monies or bills not fissued out of the Exchequer, but which have other wise come into the hands of the treasurer of the uavy, or any other person on his account, being applicable to naval services? A. The monies arising from sources of this description have been so much blended with monies issued from the Exé chequer, that I am under the necessity of offering the same objection to make any answer to this question.Q. Have any of the treasurers of the navy derived any advantage from monies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval service, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services, since 1st January, 1786, when you bes 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. Tier ney, while he was treasurer of the navy, did derive anyadvantage from modies or bills issued out of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other monies 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? A. I do not know that he did.— Have you any reason to believe that he did? A. I have not.Q. Did Mr. Ryder, now Lord Harroway, 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 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 out of the Exchequer for naval services, or from other monies or bills applicable to naval services? A. The length of period during which I acted under Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville, had been productive of so many different occurrences which occasioned des viations from the usual mode 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 member, must be best known to himself; but any rate, as whatever monies may trave heeg 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 îndure me to object to giving an answer to this question. --2. What were the deviations which occurred in the usual mode of carrying on the business the Pay Office, during the time that Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville, was treasurer, to which have alluded in your preceding answer? A. It is impossible to remember the whole of such devias tions. Do you recollect any of them, and state those that you do recollect? 4. In the con fidential situation in which I acted under Lord" Melville, his fordship communicated to me many eifenmstances which I do not consider myself at liberty to relate; others he did not explain himself to me upon; I only judge of his having at one ume employed a considerable 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 explan3tions 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 stated my reasons for begging to decline answer ing any further interrogatories on this subject.Q. Did the differences, or any part thereof, which appear by the official account rendered on the 2d February, 1863, between the sums with which the treasurer of the navy stood charged, exclusive of the sums advanced to his sub-accountants, on 31st December in each year, from 1790 to 1802 inclusive, and the sums standing in his name at the Bank at those periods; arise from money applicable to naval services being advanced by you to the treasurer, or to any person on his accounts or to drafts, on the Bank having been given by you to the treasurer, or to any person on his account? A. I beg, epon the same grounds on which I have before done, to decline making any answer to further interrogatories upon the subject of extra-official transactions with Lord Melville.—Q. 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 Exchequer for naval ser"vices, or which were otherwise received as applicable to naval services? A. I object as before. Signed by Alex. Tritter 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 eirIn the first place, I desire cumstances: 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 sums of 3,000 at a time, at the request of the paymaster, when the sum in hand is reduced below 3,000l.; 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 Hurt, and Transport Boards, who respectively fix he 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 I. 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. Jellicoe to have actu ally taken place prior to 1782, as apppears by a declaration of his embarrassments at that period dared 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 parliament pissed, 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 invariably 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 supplies 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 recourse to the assistance though I cannot prove it, that such advan, That accounts have been delivered in 562,2491. 2s. 1d. →→ 5th. That no loss has accrued upon the numerous payments attending such disbursements, excepting in the sum of 4621. 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 Į bar |