The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-05-29 00:00:00

!'CIE REPORT.

WURSTANCE OF THE REPORT OF THE grurer
rTEE UPON THE TEN Fit Re.POR I'.
The Report of the Seidl Committee appointed to
investigate the Tenth Report of the Nava. Commis-
sioners was last night presented to the 'louse a
Commons by Mr. Leycester. This Report was di-
vided into three heads.
The first head of inquiry relates to the application
of money voted for naval services to w Eer purposes.
Upon this head the Committee state that, not think-
ing it the intention of the House that they should go
into the subjea which relates to the prosecution or-
dered by the Attorney General, they desire.' to make
no inquiry as to what sums Viscount Melville or
Me. Trotter may have applied to their own ace.
Thcy were, therefore, led into a long examination,
not knowing the aaual application of any sum until
traced. At the same time they gave to every
party examined, when he was liable by his answer
to criminate hire .elf, the oppottunity of objeaing to
answer.
The Committee have found that 40,0001. from the
naval funds have been advanced by Viscount Mel-
ville and Mr. Pitt to the house of Boyd and Ben, j
geld.
A scan of 10,0001. had been advanced by Vis-
count Melville befote Mr. Trotter became Paymas-
ter of the Navy ; but how this sum was applied the
Committee have been unable to ascertain.
Sums have been frequently advanced by Trotter
for the use of Viscount Melville from a mixed fund,
at Coutts's, of public and private money.
Mr. Trotter borrowed at one time 22,0001. for the
use of Viscount Melville, for which the Noble Vis-
count was to pay an interest of 5 per cent. Viscount
Melville did not.inquire how, or from what fund the
loan was obtained. It was lent by Trotter.
Trotter was in ad nnce in account current to Vis-
count 'Melville, teat t ally from 10 to 20,0001. which
was lent from a tinted fund, and for which Trotter
considered Viscount Melville his private debtor.—
Upon these advances, however, no interest was ever
paid—nese was any interest paid open any of the
sums of 40,0001. 10,0001. or 22,00u1. already al-
luded to.
The loan of the 40,0001. which the Committee
remark was decidedly against the law, was made
under circumstances, with respen to the state of the
country, of a very peculiar nature. Mr. Boyd,
however, represented, on his application to Minis-
ters, that he was under great pecuniary difficulties.
and requested accommodation. This accommoda-
tion -vas granted, good security being given ; and
it tieing considered, as is stated in the evidence, that
if the accommodation were refused, the House of
Boyd and Ser.field might have failed. and many
other houses might have failed aleb. To pre vent '
;e they should occur, it
would, according to evidence, be difficult to con-
clude a new loan for the public service, without a
great los., Viscount Melville, coaceiving that the
Naval service would sutler no inconvenience, ad-
vanced the sum required. The security given by
Boyd and Tlenlield consisted of India Company's
Bonds and Bills, and also of some Government se-
corities. The sum has been since repaid, but ;with-
oat interest.
As to the sum of 10,0001. due by Viscount Mel-
vige to the Naval Funds. previous to the appoint-
ment of Mr. Trotter, in 1786, it appears that it has
been replaced without interest, subsequent to the
year 1900. The time and manner of paying this
sum, the Committee state, that they have not been
able to ascertain.
Immediately after Mr. Trotter became Paymaster
of the Navy, it is stated that he was appointed pri-
vate Agent to Viscount Melville. In this capacity
Trotter received the salary of Vis-ount Melville,
with other sums, in England, and also rcmlnarces,
sometimes, from Scotland, which receipts he paid
into the mixed fund at Coutts's.
Trotter had advanced sums to Mr. TweeJy, and
ether persons. The advances he made to Tweedy
amounted, once or twice, to about 3 or 4,0001. All
those sums have been since replaced, but without
interest. The time at which they were advanced
or replaced cannot be said, " all vouchers, &e.
Seine destroyed."
The Committee observe that Viscount Melville,
in a Letter to the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry,
states, that lie " did not decline giving occasio.,al
accommodation from the funds in his bards, as
Treasurer of the Navy. to other departrocals of the
Public Service," they da not find that any such ac-
commodation has been given in any instance what-
ever. The Committee allude to another Letter from
the Noble Viscount to the same Commissioners.
alleging that " he did not derive any profit from
the use made by Trotter of the Public Mone7," and
refer to the Appendix, which contains the evidence.
The second head of the Report refers to the repre-
sentations said to have been made to the Lords Com-
missioners of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, respetting the manner in which the Na-
val Money was drawn from the Link, contrary to
the A.t of the 25th of George 111. chap. 91.
The Committee state, that they do not find any
representation on this subjea was made to the Lords
of the Treasury, but that it was represented to Mr.
Pitt, as appears from the evidence of Mr. Raikes,
and she admission of Mr. Pitt himself.
The Report nate% that some time in the year
1797, Mr. Raikes. Governor of the Bank, had an
official in.etritievr with Mr. Pitt. After official busi-
neat was at an end. he told Mr.'Pitt, in conversation,
the manner in which public money was drawn from
the Bank by the Treasurer of the Navy ; that he
had hears: the Treasurer (Viscount Melville) kept
cash at Coutro's, and that Navy Bills were paid by
drafts on that house, instead of by drafts on the
Bank. Mr: Pitt thanked Mr. Raikes fur this infor-
mation. Such, Mr Raiker, in his evidence, states to
have been the purport of the conversation, but, from
• the length of time that has since elapsed, he is not
sure as to the terms.
Mr. Pitt ad nits the general import of the conver-
satian, as stated by Mr. Raikes, but differs with him
as to the terms. He don't undertake to " recollea
with accuracy," but states it in substance to have
conveyed to him an impression, that sums were
drawn from the Bank and carried to a private bank-
ing-house, to a larger amount than was supposed
accessary ; that he took an early opportunity of
stating toViscount Melville, the information he T e-
L ceived from Mr. Raikes ; and theuzli he cannot state

precisely what further pitted between himself and '
Viscount Melville on the cubje&, he was impressed
with a belief that no sums were so transferred, but
such as were necessary to carry on the details of
service in payment; to individuals, and that it
would be difficult to carry on such details in any
other way ; that in his conversation with Viscount
Melville he did not advert to the provisions of the
A& which lot hid such transfers, nor did it occur to
him that drawing from the Bank such sums of
money in such a way for the purpose of carrying on
the details of office, was an illegal prai9ice. Belying
on thereaitude of Viscount Melville, from the opinion
he entertained of him, he made no inquiry as to the
necessity of the praftice, and was so far satisfied with
the general statement given by that Noble Viscount,
that he did not think it necessary to communicate the
circumstances of the case to any other of His Ma-
jesty's Ministers, or to take any further steps on the
subject. He (Pitt) had no knowledge or informa-
tiofi of any Naval money, the 4,0001. excepted, be-
ing applied to other purposes, except from the com-
munication r.f Mr. Raikes, until after his retirement
from office he was acquainted of it by Lord Har-
rowby. That Noble Lord told him that he thought
the praaice very singular, and was, therefore, biking
steps to put a stop to it. That private profit was
made from the use of the money belonging to the
funds of the Navy, he had no knowledge whatever,
till it was made known by the Report of the Naval
Commissioners, tor did he suppose that the business
of the office would admit of it.
The third head of the Report relates to the case
of Jellicoe. From the 'reads Report it appears that
1 all Jellicoe's property, returned by the inquisition,
had been sold, and the proceeds carried to the pub-
lic accraint, antecedent to the writ of Privy Seal, ex-
cept Cort's Patent, Sheffield Farm, a Messuage at
Pb! tsrnoutb, a warehouse and wharf at Gosport.The
Report notices that 40,0001. were owing to Mr. del-
Leo by his son. Con's Patent has not been made
available. The Warehouse at Gosport was valued
by the Inquisition at 1,0001. It was lett to the son
in September, 1791, at 1001. a year, and in May,
,1800, it was raised to 1501. a year ; 8751. from the
rent of this Warehouse for ten years, have peen
paid to Mr. Trotter on account of the Treasurer of
the Navy, and several sums out of the 4,00. d due
by the younger Jellicee, have been also paid. Upon
the manner of accouuting for those several sums,
some remarks are made. It is stated, that the uses-
suage at Portsmouth was lett at 10. per year, and
that no rent was ever received for it. It is added,
that no rent was ever received for the wharf, and
that no measures were properly taken for the reco-
very of the arrears due from the rent of the ware-
house, or the instalments unpaid out of the 4,0001.
due by Jellicoe, junior.
Mr. Pitt states, that information was given to the
Solicitor of the Treasury, to take the requisite mea-
sures for the recovery of this money.
Tke Solicitor (Mr. White) admi's that he re-
ceived rich instruaions, and that he proceeded ac-
cordingly while there were visinle effcas from which
there was a hope of recovering any thing. lle
states also that although he received such general
instruaions as are usual on similar occasions, he
considered himself charged only with conducting tie
law proceedings. He thought that Trotter had em-
ployed proper persons to enquire into Jellicoe's pact-
perty.
Trotter appears to have colleaed several parts of
Jellicoe's property, till Viscount Melville had pro-
cured the Writ of Privy Seal.
The Report concludes with stating the reasons
whlch induced the Committee to decline examining
Viscount Melville, as, according to the restriaions
under which he was allowed by the conference with
the Lords to appear before them, they could not
proceed satisfaaorily to examine the Noble Lord
touching the points submitted to their consideration.