ney, issued for naval service, applied to purposes not naval? A. I know of one such instance.-Q. Have the goodness to state it. A. It was an advance made from naval money, in the course of the year 1796; I think late in the summer or in the autumn. 1796; I am not able to ascertain the precise time; it was made to the house of Messrs. Boyd and Benfield, who were then contracters for two loans for government; the advance was the sum of 40,000l. It was made in consequence of a representation, that, from the difficulty which existed at that time in obtaining advances, even on good security, they were under such pecuniary embarrassments as would prevent their making good an instalment due to government. Unquestionable securities were given for the repayment of the advance; and under these circumstances, knowing no other way at the time by which serious mischief to the public service could be prevented, and understanding that the naval service was not likely to suffer any inconvenience from this advance, I concurred in opinion with the Treasurer of the Navy, that it was adviseable to make it. I must beg the committee to understand, that I can only state the general substance of the transaction to the best of my recollection, not being able precisely to recall all particulars at this distance of time.-Q. To whom was the pecuniary embarrassments of the house of Boyd and Benfield made? 4. To myself and Lord Melville. -Q. At the same time? A. Whether separately or jointly I cannot undertake to say, but I rather believe both ways. Q. With whom did the proposition for the relief of the house of Boyd and Benfield, by the means which were afterwards resorted to, originate? A. I am confident the suggestion of the means must have originated with the Treasurer of the NavyQ. Did the Treasurer of the Navy state in what manner he meant to obtain the money? A. I do not recollect that he did; but I understood generally, that it was money which could, in his opinion, be spared for a time without inconvenience, provided there was sufficient security for its repayment.Do you know in point of fact how it was obtained.? A. I do not, from my own knowledge. Q. Did you enquire into the nature of the securities that were taken, or their amount? A. I was satisfied at the time that the securities offered were such as might be depended upon, and I think I understood them to consist either of navy bills or of bills which had been accepted by the East India Company, which were to fall due at successive periods; but I do not re -Q. collect having myself seen. the securitis Q. Did you conceive the transactica be irregular and illegal? A. I certans considered it as irregular; I do not knowi occurred to me, at the time, that it w positively illegal; but I have no difficulty saying, that I was so strongly impressed with the belief of its importance and urgent necessity, with a view to essential public in terests, that I should have thought it ay duty to incur the risk of committing an ir-r regular and illegal act, rather than expose the public to the mischief which I though: would otherwise infallibly have arisen. Q. Did you make any memorandum in writing of the transaction, or any part of it? 4. No, I did not.- Q. Did you take mar steps towards obtaining an indemnity of sura an irregularity, committed with your know ledge and concurrence? 4. No, I did not and I conceive that it was impossible for me to have done so, without disclosing circanstances which must have been highly injur cus to the mercantile house it concerned, and might have in a great measure tended to counteract the objects of the public s vice which I had in view.-Q. When such delicacy as to the disclosure of the tran saction had ceased, did you take any such steps? A. I have never hitherto taken any such steps; the delicacy attending such dis closure could never, I conceive, be considered as having ceased, till after the house u question became bankrupt.Q. When did that happen?d. I really do not reallect, but it was a considerable time, I believe three or four years after the transaction; and I confess the necessity of applying for indemnity did not then present itself to my mind.- -Q. Were any of the other pubic servents acquainted with the transaction? A. I believe no others, with the exceptica of Mr. Long, then one of the secretaries of the treasury, through whom the money was so advanced.- Q. Do you know any thing about the repayment of the monty, or the periods at which it was repaid? 4. I only know it as I learned it from Mr. Long, and I cannot state precisely particular periods; but I understood generally a large proportion of it to be within a short time. -Q. Do you know if it has all been repaid? A. I have no doubt but it has—Q. Do you know of the existence of any incament any where, at the time or since, or now, by which the public could have come at the knowledge of this transaction? A. I do not know of any memorandura of document made at the time, or since; but I conceive, that if the monies had not been punctually repaid, the securities deposited must have led to ascertain to whom the advances were made.-Q. The money being paid, and the securities of course returned, was there, or is there any other source of such information? A. None, that I lenow of, but the evidence of the parties concerned.-Q. Then, supposing the death of such parties, was there, or is there, any such evidence at all? A. None, that I know of, since the repayment of the sums. Q. Do you know of any other advances of money issued for navy services to purposes not naval, at any time, or of any description? A. No, I do not know of any such advances. 7th May.Q. Was any interest paid by Messrs. Boyd upon the loan of 40,0001. ? A. I do not know that there was. was it not paid? 4. No demand was made. Q.Why Q. Do you recollect any other instance Q. Do you recollect how many loans were you their difficulties for the first time? 4. notice being given, but I cannot now state at Q. Did Mr. Boyd make any particular and specific complaint to you of his own embarrassments, in consequence of the conduct of the bank? 4. I believe he complained of its effects.- -Q. Had you any communication with the governor and company of the bank on this subject of their conduct? 4. I think I had conversation on the subject of their conduct in narrowing their discounts at different times. Do -Q. A. I you recollect the date of the first? do not.- Q. Can you give the committee any information as to the probable date of such communications? A. I really cannot, as I do not at present recollect when the measure was adopted.- -Q. Can you recollect the reasons assigned by the governor and company of the Bank of England for their conduct in so narrowing their discounts? A. As well as I recollect, but I cannot at this distance of time speak with certainty, the reasons assigned were the decrease of cash in their possession, and a de-. sire to check speculation, to which they thought those discounts were applied.Q. Did any particular conversation take 1795 a close loan, or a loan by public bid-place on the subject of the house of Boyd ding? A. There was one of the loans with Mr. Boyd a close loan, but cannot recollect which.-Q. Do you recollect that Mr. Boyd laid claim to the loan in December. 1795, in consequence of any previous transactions between you and him, or of any understanding that had taken place between you? 4. I cannot take upon myself to state these circumstances now with accuracy upon. recollection, and I beg to refer to the examinations that were taken when the transaction was recent.-Q.Was not a lot of 7,500,000l. For thereabouts, contracted for a or about the month of April 1796 4. I elieve there was.Q. Was Mr. Boyd Contractor for that loan? A. He was.Q. Was that aclose or open loan? A. I'do otinow recollect.Q. Do you recollect dout what time the house of Boyd stated to -Q. Do and Company in your communications with of the danger in which that house found itself? 4. I cannot say; in the course of the year 1796, I believe.Q. Was that danger ascribed by them to the particular conduct of the bank towards them? 4. To the best of my recollection it was.- Q. Do you believe the conduct of the bank towards them at that time to have been an exception to their then general conduct?. 4. I do not know that it was, but I have not sufficient knowledge of the particulars to form a judgment on that subject.Q. Was it so stated to be by, Boyd and Company? A. I rather think that they represented an opinion, that the conduct of the bank was adopted with views unfavourable to them. ment? A. Í -Q. Have you any reason to believe such representations were well founded? A. I have had no means of forming a judgment upon that subject.Q. Do you believe the bank to have been under difficulties about that period? 4. I believe the difficulties of the bank, which led to the suspensions of their payments in cash in the February following, were commencing in that year, or perhaps the preceding.—Q. Have you any reason to believe those diffculties to have intermitted, or have been suspended about the period of the advance to Messrs. Boyd of 40,0001.? A. I do not at present recollect any reason for such belief.- Q. Did you know that the 40,0001. so advanced would be drawn from the bank? A. I had no knowledge of the particular mode by which that sum would be furnished,-Q. Did you believe it would come out of the public money advanced for navy services? 4. I did. -Q. Ought not such money, according to law, to remain in the bank till assigned to, or drawn for particular navy services? A. Yes, I conceive st Q. Were you at the time aware of such legal provisions? A. I certainly have known the existence of the act; but its particular provision was not at that time under my contemplation.-Q. Did the governor or deputy governor of the Bank of England, in the information which they gave to you of one of the reasons which induced them to narrow their discounts, namely, for the purpose of checking speculation, allude at all, or in any way to the house of Boyd? A. I cannot take upon myself to say either way.Q. Did the governor or deputy governor of the Bank of England, in the information they gave you of the reasons for their conduct in narrowing their dis counts, state the necessity for their so doing, in consequence of the large advances under which they were to government, and which had not been replaced according to agree ions to that effect they made representsbut for the particulars! would beg again to refer to examinations which were taken before the committee soon after that period.- -Q. Had you any money transactions on the part of the public with the house of Boyd, subsequent to the loan of the spring 1796? A. I think there was an issue of money to them for public service, which appeared in the extraordinary of the army in 1797.-Q. To what amount? A. It will appear by the extraordinaries; 1 think about 100,000l. and, as well as I recollect, it was for the remittance of silver from India to the Cape. Q. Did they apply to you, or were they competitors for any loan subsequent to the loan for the spring 1796? A. I do not re collect.-Q. Was any information given to you, or had you any reason to believe the house of Boyd and Company were engaged in speculations to any amount besides their engagements for the loans negotiated with them? A. I understood them to be engaged in very extensive pecuniary or mercantile transactions as bankers and remitters, but I had no knowledge of the particulars.Q. Was any information given to you, of hint thrown out, of the probability of the event which actually took place, namely, the failure of the house of Boyd and Com pany? A. I heard surmisses to that effect, but I cannot say at what time.-Q. Can you say that it was not at an earlier period than the one at which the 40,0001. was advanced? A. I do not think that it was.— Q. Do you know any thing of the causes which led to that failure? A. Nothing pre cisely.-Q. Have you heard what those causes were? 4. I cannot pretend to recallect them now with precision; the narrow ing the discounts of the bank, and their refusal in 1796 to make the accustomed advances on the loan, was stated as circumstances very prejudicial to them; but how far these were the causes of their ultimate failure I cannot judge. -Q. Did you ever hear there were large speculators in the pub lic funds at the period of the negotiations at Lisle? 4. I have heard such report, but know nothing of the subject.What was the nature of the injury the public was likely to sustain from a full disclosure of all the circumstances relating to the advance made to Messrs. Boyd and Benfield, as soon as they had made good all the instalments of the loan? 4. I meant in that part of my answer, to apply particularly to the period while the instalments of the loans were not made good; the injury afterwards to the public would have been that of the failure of any gréal mercantile house; but in that latter period, the principal reason I assigned for avoiding disclosure, was, the injurious effect it would have upon the parties them selves. Q. Do you conceive the 40,0001. advanced to Mr. Boyd, if it had not been so advanced, would have been productive of any interest to the public? A. I conceive certainly not.- --Q. Will you state generally to the committee, what you recollect to. have been the state of the money market in the course of the year 1796, and the beginning of the year 1797? A. I conceive it to have been a period of the greatest embar rassment, both of public and private credit, and it led to the circumstance of the stoppage of the payment of cash by the bank in the spring 1797.-Q. From the then state of the public money market, in case Mr. Boyd had failed in making good his payments, and the contracts for the two loans then in progress of payment had been dissolved, do you conceive a new loan could have been procured for the public on terms equally advantageous? A. I am perfectly convinced that it would not, and that the embarrassment that it would have occasioned to the public service would have been of the most serious and alarming nature.Q. In the then state of the market, would it have been easy to have made a loan in lieu thereof A. No, it would have been extremely difficult, and I believe impossible, unless upon most unfavourable terins.-Q. Tỏ what extent.do you conceive the failure of Messrs. Boyd's loan would have effected the general credit of the country? A. To a very great and serious extent.- Q. Would the effect have been such as to render the fulfilment of any future contract to be made with other parties, in a considerable degree, precarious and uncertain? A. That is inatter of opinon of which I cannot speak positively, but I think there would have been great danger of such an effect.Q. Have you any knowledge of a certain sum of public money, amounting to 10,0001. being in the hands of Lord Melville in the beginning of the year 1786? A. No, I have not. 8th May.-Q. Were any representations at any time made to you by any body, of the circumstance of money issued to the bank for navy services, being drawn from thence, and lodged in the hands of a private banker or bankers? 4. I have a general recollection, that Mr. Raikes, one of the bank directors, and, I believe, either governor or deputy governor at the time, took some occasion to mention to me, that he believed sums were drawn from the bank to a larger amount than he supposed to be necessary, and carried to a private banker's, but no memorandum or document of any sort was given to me; and at this distance of time, I can only state the substance of what passed very generally, and cannot undertake" with any precision to recollect the particulars.-Q. Had you any communication with the Treasurer of the Navy in consequence of what Mr. Raikes had told you? A. Yes, I had; I took an early opportunity of stating to him the opinion which Mr. Raikes had expressed to me. Q. What further passed on the subject? A. I cannot state precisely the conversation that took place between us, but I was led to suppose from what passed, that the Treasurer of the Navy did not believe that any larger sums were drawn from the bank than such as were necessary for carrying on the detail of the service in payment to individuals? but I beg to have it understood, that I cannot state with any precision the terms which were used, I only state the general impression left upon my mind.- Q. Was that general impression such as to lead you to disbelieve the fact stated to you by Mr. Raikes, ramely, that money was drawn from the bank under the authority of the Treasurer of the Navy, and lodged at a private banker's? A. It did not lead me to disbelieve the facts, that money was drawn from the bank, and lodged at a private banker's; but it led me to believe that no other sums were drawn but such as were necessary for carrying on the details of the service.— Q. Were you aware that such proceeding on the part of the Treasurer of the Navy was irregular? 4. I was so far satisfied with the general statement so given, me, that I made no further inquiry, and did not particularly advert to the provisions of the act of parliament; and it did not occur to my mind, that drawing such sums of money as were necessary for carrying on the details of the service was an illegal practice.-Q. Did you take any steps to verify the statements made to you, by calling for an examination of any books, accounts, or papers on the subject? 4. No, I did not; I beg leave to observe, that I have already stated that I was so far satisfied with the general statement which I received in conversation with the Treasurer of the navy, that I made no further enquiry.Q. Did you inform Mr. Raikes of the satisfaction you had obtained from your conversation with the Treasurer of the navy? Q. I do not recollect having afterwards auy conversation with Mr. Raikes on the subjectQ. Did you inform any other of the public servants, or any of the law officers of the crown, of the communication that had been made to you by-Mr. Raikes? Supplement to No. 23, Vol. VII.-Price 10d. regular, and was taking steps for altering it -Q. Had you any conversation or correspondence with Lord Melville in conse 4. No, I did not; no impression was left on my mind, after the conversation with the Treasurer of the Navy, to make me feel it necessary to take any steps on the subject.quence of such communication from Lord Harrowby A. No, I had not.-Q. When this communication was made to you by Mr. Raikes, did he suggest to you anyidea of any improper application or use of the money so taken out of the Bank A I have no recollection that he did. -Q. the Naval Commissioners, any knowledge of, or reason to suspect that private profit had been made by Mr. Trotter, or any other person, of naval monies, or that the business of the office was so conducted as to admit of private profit being made of such monies by any officer of that department? A. I had no knowledge at any time, previous to the inquiry before the Naval Commissioners, of any such profits having been made by ang person; nor had any suspicion of the -Q. Although you did not know to what extent money was so drawn from the bank by the Treasurer of the navy, and lodged at a private banker's, did you know the practice was continued? A. I do not recol lect knowing any thing afterwards on the subject; but I conceived, from the Treasu-Had you, previous to the late inquiry before rer of the navy's conversation, that the practice took place only as necessary for carrying on the services, as I have already explained,Q. Did you investigate such necessity? 4. No, I did not; I relied on, the opinion given me by the Treasurer of the Navy, without further examination. Q. Do you recollect how soon after the conversation with Mr, Raikes, your conversation with the Treasurer of the Navy took place? 4. I do not recollect with any certainty, but I believe very soon after; pro-business being so conducted as to admit of it bably on the first occasion I had of conversing with him, when our attention was not engaged by other pressing business.-Q. Did Q. Did he state to you any ground of the necessity he alleged for placing the money at a private banker's? 4. I have already said, that I cannot, at this distance of time, recollect the particulars of what passed; but I believe that he stated his opinion of the impossibility of carrying on various detailed payments in any other manner.- Q. Do you recollect that the propriety of the revision of the existing laws on the subject formed any part of that conversation? A. No, I am persuaded it did not; he did not appear to me to have any impression on his mind that what was done was contrary to law. -Q. On what ground, as far as you can recollect, did Mr. Raikes make any communication to you on the subject? A. I have already stated that my recollection does not enable me to refer to the particulars of the conversation, but I conceive him to have stated, that he supposed money to be withdrawn to a greater amount than was necessary for the public serviceQ. Had you any infornation at any time from any person, in any manner, of irregularity in the management of the public money advanced for navy services besides the communication made by Mr. Raikes, or did you, ia point of fact, know of any such irregularities in any other manner? 4. I had no such information besides that referred to, nor did I know any thing further on the subject until at a period long subsequent, I learned from Lord Harrowby, then Treasurer of the Navy, that he thought the practice which had prevailed ir till after the communication I have before adverted to with Lord Harrowby, which conversation, to the best of my recollection, took place when I was out of office.-Q. Had you, previous to the above inquiry, any knowledge of any other sum other than the 40,000l. stated to be advanced to Mr. Boyd, being at any time diverted from the servic of the navy to purposes not naval ? A. None whatever.- -Q. Did Lord Harrowby tell you that he knew, or that he had reason to suppose, that profit had been made of public money issued for naval service? A Ido not think he told me that he knew that had, but he appeared to suppose that it might have been.- Q. Were any steps taken by you to ascertain the fact? A. No; there were not. Q. Had you known at the time that profits were derived from the public money placed in the hands of private bankers, should you have deemed it irregulat and illegal, and consequently a practice that ought immediately to have been stopped A. I should certainly have deemed it a pri tice that ought immediately to have been stopped. 17th May Q. Have you any reason to suppose that 20,0001; of money issued for naval services, was applied to purposes. not naval, during the last treasurership of Lord Melville, besides the sum of 40,000 stated to have been advanced to the house of Boyd and Benfield, in the year 1796? A. I m derstood from conversation with Lord Mel ville, that to the best of his recollection, that was nearly the amount, and on that ground I stated my belief to that effect in the House of Commons. Q. Have you any infor |