Page images
PDF
EPUB

what manner were they rendered effectual to that purpose? 4. I conceive they were disposed of, and the produce appropriated for the use of government. (b)——Q. In what manner was the produce of such bills accounted for?—A. I do not know. (c.)

-Q. What allowances have been made to the persons employed in negotiating and discounting such bills? A. I do not know. (d)--Q. Have the accounts of the persons to whom the bills were issued been finally settled, and when? A. I do not know that they have any account. (e)—-—Q. In the register of bills for the year 1800, there appears to have been issued on the 23d October, to Cornwall Smalley, Esquire, sixtynine bills. on account of sundry naval services, which appear by a notation in the book to have been returned on the following dav. cancelled, and burned; state what you know relating to this circumstance? A. It was not in my time, and I do not know any thing relating to the circumstance.- -Q. When was the present mode of paying the Contractors by bills at ninety days first adopted? A. In December, 1796. ——Q. Previous to that time did the bills specify the nature, quantity, and price of the articles, for which they were issued in payment? Yes the account made out at the yard of the stores delivered,' was the bill, after having been registered in the Navy Office, and signed by the Board; since that time the bills have only specified the nature of the stores. Q. What was the reason for departing from the practice of making out the bills in the former mode? A It was done by direction from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.--[Signed by W. FOSTER, and by THE COMMISSIONERS.]

A

ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS MADE TO THE FOREGOING EXAMINATION, BY DESIRE OF THIS EXAMINANT, THE 1ST JUNE, 1804.

[ocr errors]

(a) To the question, "What was the object of the bills issued to those persons?" I now answer, they were issued to them for the service of the navy.- -(b) The bills were disposed of by Messrs. Benjamin and Abraham Goldsmids, and Messrs. Antrobus and Wood, and accounted for by them to the Treasurer of the Navy.--(c) The amount of the bills was accounted for, as I have before said, to the Treasurer of the Navy. (d) The persons employed in negotiating the bills were allowed the usual commission of one-eighth per cent.- (e) The center have been delivered in to the Treasure of the Navy, but whether they are in reseted or not, cannot say. [Signed as by

PUT TO

[FURTHER INTERROGATORIES WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQUIRE, THIS FIRST DAY OF JUNE, 1804,

Q. How do you know that the bills is sued to Messrs. Donaldson and Glenny, and Mr. George Glenny, were for the service of the navy? A From accounts having been rendered by Messrs. Goldsmids, and Messrs. Antrobus and Wood, the brokers to the Treasurer of the Navy, of the produce of such bills.--Q, Is it the usual practice of the Navy Office to charge all persons with imprests for money advanced to them on account of stores to be purchased, or services to be performed? A. Yes.--Q. When the ninety day bills were first issued, how were the days reckoned for which the interest was computed? A. The ninety days were reckoned from the day of the registry to the day of payment, both days inclusive.

-Q. Has that mode of reckoning the days on which the interest has been computed been altered, and in what manner? A. It has; the day of registry is not now included. Q. When did such alteration take place? A. I believe about twelve months ago.Q. Did the other offices reckon the ninety days for the interest in the same manner as the Navy Ofice formerly did? A. The Victualling Office did not; the day of reg'stry was not included.-Q. Was the practice of the Victualling Office long known at the Navy Office before it was altered? 4. I cannot answer that question with any de gree of accuracy. (Signed as before.)

[THE FURTHER EXAMINATION OF WIL LIAM FOSTER, ESQUIRE; TAKEN UPON OATH, the 19TH OF JUNE, 1804.

Q. What reason have you to believe that the persons employed to negotiate the bills issued by the Navy Board for the purpose of raising money, were allowed a commission of one-eigth per cent.? A. I have none. In my evidence of the 1st of June, I made a mistake; the commissi ́n I alluded to was on the sale of Exchequer bills. -Q. Have you any reason to believe that the persons employed to negotiate those bills are to have any allowance made them? A. I have not. [Signed as before.]

-

No. VI. Treasury Chambers, October 22, 18C0. GENTLEMEN,→The public service requiring an issue to the amount of £500,000, for the purpose of paying off ninety day bills, I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to di rect that you will issue, from time to time, ninety-day bills to that amount, for payment of the said bills.- I am, gentlemen, your faithful humble servant,-CHARLES LONG.

Addressed to the Commrs of the Navy.]

No. VII. Navy Office, 24th October, 1800.--SIR,We have your letter of this date, informing us of your having received the sum of one hundred thou and pounds on our account, and we desire you will pay the same into the hands of the treasurer of his Majesty's navy, at his office in Somerset House. We are, Sir, your humble servants, A. S. HAMOND. C. HOPE. GEO ROGERS. [Addressed to George Glenny, Esq.]

No. VIII. Navy Office, 24th October, 1800.- SIR,-Mr. George Glenny, having received the sum of one hundred thousand pounds on account of this board, we have directed him to pay the same into your hands, and we desire you will please to receive it, and apply it towards the payment of navy, victualling, and transport ninetyday bills, as they becoine due.--We are, Sir, your very humble servants, A. S. HAMOND. C. HOPE. GEO. ROGERS. [Addressed to the Right. Hon.Dudley Ryder.]

No. IX. THE EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER TROTTER, ESQUIRE, PAYMASTER OF THE NAVY; TAKEN UPON OATH, THE 15TH JUNE, 1804.

QBy whom was the produce, of the Navy Bills issued for the purpose of raising money for the service of the navy, between October, 1800, and May, 1802, received? A. Money was received at the Bank on account of the Treasurer of the Navy, which I believe to have been the produce of bills issued under the circumstances alluded to in the question, and I also believe to have been the whole of the money raised by bills under this description. Q. Has any allowance been made to the persons in whose fayour such bills were drawn, or to the persons employed to negotiate such bills? A. I have no knowledge of the transaction, or of the negotiation.Q Did any correspondence pass between the Treasurer of the Navy and the Treasury, or the Navy Board, which led to the issue of these bills? A. I do not recollect any correspondence upon the subject.--Q Did the Treasurer of the Navy, between October, 1800 and May, 1302, meet with any difficulties in obtaining from the Treasury the sums applied for by him, by directions of the Navy Board? A. Official difficulties will always occur in the frequent applications made for money, and I believe difficulties may have occurred during that period. [Signed by Mr. Trotter and by the Commissioners.]

THE FURTHER EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER TROTTER, ESQUIRE; TAKEN UPON OATH, THE 11TH DECEMBER, 1804.

Q. It appears that several of the bills issued by the Navy Board for the purpose of raising money, were delivered to you and Mr. Thomas Wilson; were any of such bills discounted by you, or for your use? 4. They were not. Signed as before.]

No. X. Consists of Goldsmid's detailed account of the sales of the bills.

No. XI. THE EXAMINATION OF ABRAHAM GOLDSMID, ESQUIRE; TAKEN UPON OAT, THE 25TH JUNË, 1804.

I

Q. It appearing that in the years 1800, ¡Sor, and 1802, bills to the amount of 4,300,000l. were drawn by the Navy Board in favour of Mr. George Glenny, and Messrs. Donaldson and Glenny, for the purpose of raising money, was you employed to negotiate such bills and by whom? A I was; Mr. Long, the Secretary of the Treasury, asked me if I could discount such bills; and I afterwards received them from the Navy Office. Q. Has any allowance been made to you for your trouble in negotiating the bills? A. The account is not settled; the sum of the bills, the interest which had run on them, and the difference between the three-pence halfpenny per cent. per day, and five per cent at bich rate they were discounted, were carried to the account of government, and I am to have one-eighth per cent. brokerage, which exceeds the interest by the sum of forty six pounds sixteen shillings and nine pence, upon the sum of .,500,0001.. the amount of the bills.- Qin what manner did you dispose of the bills? A. We got them discounted. Q. To whom, and when, did you pay over the produce of such bills? A. Whenever it was required by the Paymaster of the Navy, the money was paid into the Bank on account of the Treasurer of the Navy.-Q. Did you pay over the produce of the bills as you discounted them, or did the produce of the bills remain in your hands any length of time? A, Never any length of time; the money was paid over as it was required. Signed Ly ABRAHAM GOLDSMID, and by THE COMMISSIONERS.]

[THE FURTHER EXAMINATION OF ABRAHAM GOLDSMID, ESQUIRE; TALEN UPON OATH, THE 9TH JULY, 1804.

Q. Is it customary, in calculating interest on bills, to include the day of the date of the bills, and the day of payment?

[ocr errors]

A. It is not; the day of payment is included, but not the day of the date of the bill. -Q. Was aware that the ninety you days interest on the bills drawn by the Navy Board, and negotiated by you previous to the 19th of December, 1801, included the day of the date of the bills, and the day of payment? A. No.-Q. It appearing from the account furnished by you to the Navy Board, of the produce of the bills drawn by that Board in favour of Mr. George Glenny, that bills to the amount of 100,000l. dated the 24th October, 1800, were negotiated by you on the following day, and that the sum with which you have credited the public beyond the principal sum of the bills, is £36. rs. 5d and that on the 5th of May, 1802, bills to the sante amount were issued and negotiated by you on that day, and that the sum carried to the credit of government beyond the principal sum of the bills, is £63. 2s. 1d.; how do you account for the latter sum being greater than the former? A. It was owing, in the first instance, to the money being provided before the bills were issued, some delay having occurred owing to a difficulty in whose name the bills were to be made out. -The second sum is right according to a calculation made from a discount book, by which book we always make our calculations of interest.-[Signed as before.]

No. XII. Navy Office, 7th February, 1797. GENTLEMEN,-We have received your letter of the 1st instant, transmitting an account of the victualling bills payable in course, which have been registered in last month; and we conclude there are none outstanding previously thereto, although that circumstance is not mentioned in your letter. As we think that all the bills past under the same act of parliament ought to be uniform in all their terms, we are concerned to find that the days of your bills becoming due, as noted in this account, differ from those made out at this office, and at the Transport Office, viz.; that your's, registered on the 2d January, are noted to become due on the 2d April, and so on, forward; whereas at this office and at the Transport Office, they are made to become due on the 1st April (when 90 days for their running on interest expire) according to the custom which has been constantly adopted of including the first and last days on all occasions, dependent on length of time or number of days; and amongst the rest, in the mode of computing interest on the navy bills passed under the act of parliament in force immediately pre

ceding the present one, and likewise in conformity to the present act, which directs such interest to commence from the dates of the bills.- -We are, gentlemen, your humble servants, H. HARMOOD. GLO. ROGERS. S. GAMBIER. [Addressed to the Commissioners of the Victualling Board.]

No. XIII. Victualling Office, 8th Feb. 1797.--GENTLEMEN,--We received your letter of the 7th instant on the subject of the bills payable in course, which have been issued by us in the course of the last month, as specified in the account transmit ted to you in our letter of the 1st instant, being noted as becoming due a day later than the bills of the same description as issued by you, and the commissioners for conducting the transport service, on the same day.--In reply to which we beg leave to acquaint you, that the bills in course, which since the beginning of last month have been made out in this department, are payable ninety days after date (instead of three months) conformably to the plan adopted by you. In ascertaining therefore the particular periods on which these bills seve rally become due, it appeared to us obvious, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the days on which they were respectively dated could not be included in the computation of the time they have to run, and of course the bills issued by us on the 2d January last (which were the first we made out) have ́ been marked payable on the 2d April next, being according to the number of days in each month, the ninetieth day after the said 2d of January.--This rule is likewise consistent with that universally observed in respect to bills of exchange, to which, ex cept in the instance of the three days grace usually taken, we understood it was the intention that these bills should as near as possible be rendered similar, and to which also we believe the custom you mention "of including the first and last days on all "occasions dependent on length of time

66

or number of day's," has never applied; and we have the satisfaction to state, that the mode we have hitherto pursued has not occasioned the slightest remonstrance from any person receiving or holding such bills, of their having been made payable a day later than accuracy requires. The custom above referred to, which you are pleased to represent as having been constantly adopted on all occasions, has, we believe, been confined solely to the com putation of the interest on the navy bills past under the act of parliament in force preceding the present one, and was then

adopted from the suggestion of your officers. But before that period, it was the inv riable practice of this office not to include both the first and last days in the calculation of the interest; and, upon referring to the

given? 4. Head money is the principal; payment for timber felled in the King's forests; payments for ships detained before a declaration of war; and references for reports upon expenses in naval affairs.municate such directions to the Admiralty? A. No.-Q. Did the Admiralty, during the late war, direct the Navy Board to furnish them with copies of such orders as they might receive from the Treasury? A. No.

present act of parliament, it expressly. Is it usual for the Navy Board to com

enacts, that the interest shall commence "from" (not on) the dates of the bills. We beg leave to add, that in the formation of the plan we have thus pursued, we were not conscious of differing from the practice of other departments, no had we any other object in view than a desire of acting correctly.- -We are, gentlemen, your most humble servants, G. CHERRY, G. P. TOWRY, F. STEPHENS, R. S. MOODY, J. HUNT, W. BOSCAWEN.

No. XIV. THE EXAMINATION OF RICHARD A. NELSON, ESQUIRE, SECRETARY TO THE NAVY BOARD; TAKEN

UPON OATH, THE 8TH NOVEMBER, 1804.

Q Was the report of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, respecting the arrangement of the Navy Board into committees, and the duties of its several members, upon which the order of his Majesty in Council, dated the 8th of June, 1796, was grounded or a copy thereof, transmit. ted to the Navy Board with the Admiralty order of the 17th Aug 1796 A. It was not. -Q. Has that report, or a copy thereof, been since transmitted to the Navy Board? A. It has not.- Q. Have any and what regulations been established since that period, for regulating the official duties of the Navy Board, or any particular member thereof? A. None.-Q. It not being specified in the regulations of the Admiralty of the 17th August, 1796, under what authority the Comptroller was to perform the secret services therein alluded to, under what authority did the Navy Board understand the Comptroller was to perform such services? 4. The Comptroller is authorized by the order of 17th August, 1796, to execute secret services; and for any secret services which he has hitherto performed, and which have afterwards been laid before the Board, he has produced the orders of the First Lord of the Admiralty.-Q. Is the Navy Board in the practice of following the directions of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury? A. Yes, in many instances.-- Q. How long has this practice prevailed? A. It has always been the practice since I have been in the office; on looking over the books I have seen old orders from the Treasury addressed to the Navy Board.-Q. Upon what subjects are such directions usually

Q. Are there any regulations by which the Navy Board, or any particular member thereof, is required or authorized to follow the directions of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury? A. None that I know of.-Q. Do the orders given by the Treasury to the Navy Board for the payment of money, specify the particular sums to be paid, and the services for which the payments are to be made? A. The services are always specified; sometimes the rate, and sometimes the sum. [Signed by R. A. NELSON, and by THE COMMISSIONERS.]

THE FURTHER EXAMINATION OF RI

CHARD ALEXANDER NELSON, ESQ. SEC.
TO THE NAVY BOARD; TAKEN UPON
OATH, THE 12th JAN. 1805.

Q. It appears that on the 12th December 1801, a minute of the Committee of Accounts was laid before the Navy Board, proposing an alteration in the mode of paying the ninety day bills, which was adopted by that Board on the 18th of that month, and ordered to take effect on the following day; was any general notice given to persons holding contracts, under the Navy Board, and their consent thereto required previous to carrying into execution the resolution of the Board above-mentioned? A. I do not recollect that there was.-Q. Have any remonstrances or complaints been made by the contractors to the Board, iu consequence of this alteration? A, None that I remember.Q. Is there any minute on the proceedings of the Navy Board, shewing, previous to the resolution above mentioned, an intention of altering their mode of computing the time when the ninety-day bills became payable, either at the approach of peace or any other period? A. None that I know of.Q. Do you know of any inquiry having been made, by order of the Navy Board, into the mode of computing the time of paying bills of exchange, or exchequer bills, in consequence of the representation made to them by the commissioners of victualling, in their letter of February 1797, or of any inquiry made by the Navy Board at any other time upon the subject? d. I do not know

whether any inquiry bas or has not been made, but no public enquiry has taken place by examination before the Board. [Signed as before. J

No. XV. COMMITTEE OF ACCOUNTS, 12th Dec. 1801.Doubts having been suggested of the propriety of the mode in which the ninety day bills issued from this office are made out, as to the expression of the time for which interest is to be paid on them, the committee, after investigating the business, find, that the mode of computation used in this office was adopted in conformity to the custom which had constantly prevailed, and still prevails on all occasions dependent on length of time and number of days, and among the rest in computing the interest on every navy bill paid since their first establishment, to include in the computation the day on which the bill is issued as well as that on which it is paid, and this mode of computing the interest being that to which the contractors with this office had been accustomed, it was considered as only keeping faith with them to continue the calculation of interest on the same footing; and the chief clerk at the time, and the late Mr. Davies (the preceding chief clerk) deeming it to be in conformity not only to the ancient practice of the office on all occasions, but also to the present act, which directs such interest to commence from the dates of the bills (they, according to official interpretation, conceiving the word "from" to mean inclusively, as in the computation of all broken time, whether for the payment of pension, salary, day-pay, interest, &c) it has always been, and now is, the invariable practice to include under the expression of " from such "a time to such a time," both the day on which the salary, pension, day-pay, interest, &c commenced, as well as that on which it terminated. The ninety day bills issued by the Victualling Office are made out differently (though on the inspection of salary bills made out by that office, it appears that in their computation of broken time from such a day to such a day, they included both the first and the last day, construing the word "from" to be inclusive) in the ninetyday bills the first day is thrown out in the computation, by which means a bill drawn by that office falls due one day later than one drawn on the same day by the Navy Office; but it may be considered whether this day's interest is really any saving to the public, as it may be presumed that the contractors reckon upon it accordingly.-Under these circumstances, the committee refer to the Board's consideration, whether it may be

proper at this time to depart from the ancient usage of the office, and make an alteration in the computation of the time the ninetyday bills are made out to run, in conformity with the Victualling Office and the custom of merchants in discounting bills.→→→ →→→18th December 1801. The whole of the preceding circumstances being this day taken into consideration, the Board determined, that the ninety-day bills to be issuedin future, should not bear any interest for the day on which they are dated, agreeable to what is the practice with regard to exchequer bills, and bills made out at the Victualling Office. To commence on the 19th inst.—BOARD.

No. XVI Navy Office, 22d August 1804. GENTLEMEN.-We have received your letter of the 1st instant, desiring to be. informed what induced us to continue the practice of including the day of the date in reckoning the interest of ninety-day bills, until the 19th of December 1801, and what afterwards led to our adopting the practice of the commissioners of the victualling, pointed out in their letter of the 8th February 1797; and we request to inform you, that we did not, upon receiving the letter from the commissioners of the victualling, in answer to the one we had addressed to them on the subject, see sufficient reason, from what was urged by them, for altering a mode of computation which had constantly prevailed in this office since the first establishment of navy interest bills, of including the day on which the bill is dated, as well as that on which it is paid; a mode of computation which extends to all payments for salary, pension, ful or half pay, and for all other allowances issued from this department.In whatever light the consideration may have been held. in respect to, whether a bill be paid one day sooner or later (the sum paid for the interest being the same in one case as in the other) it was of course calculated upon by the contractors when they made their contracts, and we could not deviate from it while the contracts were pending, without subjecting ourselves to the imputation of having departed from the universally understood mode of rendering payments at this office; but when the time arrived, at the conclusion of the late war, that many contracts were put up, and many more were intended to be so, we thought it a good opportunity for altering the day of paying the ninety-day bills, in order that an uniformity in this respect might pervade the different public boards where bills of a similar description were issued. We have the honour to be, &c. W. PALMER. S. GAN

« PreviousContinue »