Star.
London, England, 1805-07-02 00:00:00

ELEVENTH REPORT.

810111 T 01 THE SELECT COMMITTEE UPON THIS !Li%
vENTH Rtenat. (.7 THE COMMISSION OF NAVAL EN-
OSIR .—( Contintrerl fr yfllerdat.t S
Puri, er Examination If Sir ANDRSIV SNAPS HAM.VOND.
In the Appendix to the Eleventh Report, there is
only the letter of Mr. Long, No. 6, direaing the one
soo,oool. did you receive fubfequent orders from him
for the iffue of bills afterwards delivered to Mr.
Glenny, and up to what period ?—I received fpeci-
te orders for each ifTue of bills, originals of which or-
ders I now produce : I received thofe orders from
Mr. Long, while he remained Secretary to the Tree.
fury ; the orders were generally given to the amount
of 500,0001. at a time ; but the bills to Mr. Glenny
were only made out as the money was requirei.
Had you any converfation with Mr. Vanfittart, or
other gentlemen belonging to the Treafury, refpea-
ing the ifrue of bills delivered to Meas. Donaldfon
and Glenny, on or after the 9th September 1801 ?
Yes, I remember hating a converfation with Mr.
Vanfittart about the firft week in September in that
year, on the fut.jea of the deficiency of the grants,
and of their rot holding oat to the end of the year,
and Rated to him that there was a profpea that the
deficiency would be upwards of 2,000,0001.: for not.
uithtlanding the confiderable additional Turn whtch
Lad been voted for the augmentation of 15,c00 fea-
men in the beginning of that year, yet it was found
in September not to be equal to the year's expendi-
ture by the fum I have already Rated.
What did Mr. Vanfittart &tire you to do, in ton-i
fequence of that reprefentation ?—Mr. Vanfittart
propofed to refort to the fame mode of paying the
Navy bills that might become due, as had been
adopted the year preceding ; and here I think it ne
ceffary to Rate to the Committee, the great inereale
of expense that was incurred in that year, befides the
high price of all naval Dotes, by the augmentation
of the flee: as, to the belt of my recolleaion, between
the beginning of February and the end of June, 18oz,
there were upwards of eighty (hips, frigates, {loops,
and gun brigs put into commirnon, in addition to
the fleet which was the fubjea of the eltimates of
that &Rion.
When did the 11;„,1) price of all naval Rores, refer-
red to by you. take place ?—lt began in the year
1800, when the Emperor of Ruffia {but his ports
againß the exportation to this country of all naval
Bores, and continued until the preliminary articles of
peace were figned ; during that time fome of the
molt expensive articles were procured circuitoufly
through neutral merchants.
Have you any objeaion to Rate the • eafims why
you objeaed, under the sth fec. of 43 Geo. 111 c.
16, to anfwer a queflion put to you by the Commif-
. Boners of Naval Enquiry, which is Rated in page
498, in Appendix to the Itth Report ?—I have no
objeftion to give my rearons for having declined to
anfwer the queftion put to me by the Commillioners
of Naval Enquh y. It was not from any confciouf-
nth of having acted illegally or impjoperly, but as
they had had all the authorities fur fome time before
them, on which I, as Comptroller, and the Navy
Board aced, viz. the Navy Board Patent ; Order in
Council of 1796 ; the Admiralty order relative to it,
together with the Treafury order for the itl'ue of the
bills ; and believing their queftion tended to draw
forth.fome crimination of myfelf, and not knowing
what they might be acquainted with, and of which
I was ignorant, I thought it right to Ojai to anfwer-
ing the quellion.
Were you aware, or are you aware of any thing
in the authorities which you have enumerared,nr in the
Ath of the 34th and 37th of the King, regulating the
iffue of Navy Bills, which makes the condua of the
Navy Board, in iffuing the bills to Mr. Glenny, and
Meas. Donaldfon and Glenny, illegal or improper?
I was not then, nor am I now.
Are you aware of any other authorities by which
the condua of the Navy Board, in the iffue of Navy
Bills, is regulated ?—I am not.
Did your refufal to anfwer the queftion arife
folely from the apprehenfion that the Commiffinners
might be acquainted with fame authority, by which
the Abe of loch bills was made illegal or improper,
with which authority yen were yourfelf unacquaint-
ed ?—lt did.
Did you conceive, when you were under examina-
tion before the Commii:ioners of Naval Enquiry, that
you were jullified by sth fec. of Aft 43 Geo. 111. c.
s 6, in de-lining to anfwer any quetlion, under the
general apprehenfion that filch anfwer might pally
criminate yourfelf, without being aware of any par.
titular ground on which it was probable that it would
tin fo ?—I was not aware of any particular ground
on which I might criminate myfelf by the anfwer,
except, as I have Paid before, that the Commigioners
might be acquainted with fome law of which I was
ignorant, and therefore I thought myfelf fully juni-
fied in declining to anfwer the qneflion.
Previous to the A& of 34 Gen. 111. what was the
(late of the Navy Bills with refpea to the time they
had to run, and what was the ufual courfe of pay-
ment ?—They bore an interea after the fiat fix
months, but having no certain time of payment,
they were generally at a very confiderable difeount,
ioromuch that I believe at the end of the American
war they were upwards of 18 per cent. difcount.
Was the credit of Navy Bills confiderably redeem-
ed by the Mt of the 37th of the King, which made
them payable in 90 days ?—I conceive it to be the
mall beneficial A& that ever paired for the payment
of the Navy. as it totally did away the poffibility of
any diicount whit(' their credit was fupperted ; and
in the fiat year after the Aft paired, namely, 1797,
there was an actual riving to the public (fuppofing
the difcount to have continued at the rate it was at
previous to the paging of the Al)c r,f 8 or 900,000.
and in the fubfequent years, when the expenditure
was larger, the laving mull have been confiderably
greater ; the Committee will therefore fee the great
. connquence it was of to prevent thefe bills getting
into difcredit.
Have there 9c, day bills fallen to a difcount at any
period fence the firfl iffue ?—No.
Do you believe that they could have maintained
their credit, if any holder of them, when he pre•
fenced them for payment, had not been fatibfied ?
Qertainly not.
Do you mean that no holder of a 90-day bill was
ever delayed when he prefented it for payment ?
I. can only fay that fuer a circumaance never came
co my knowledge.

Were (itch of thofe bills ever iiTued to Mr. Glenny
and I‘l,-ffrs.Donaldfon and Glenn), refpeetiveiy, as
were ont-Handing at the end of the years 1800 and
tBot'refpeBively, part of the Navy Debt laid before
Parliament in the enfuing years? Yes ; thole
iffued in the tuft three months of t 800, flood in the
Navy Debt of the 30 of December as bills out-
(landing; thole that were iffued in the early part of
tBot, were of courfe paid off in that year when
due ; thofe iffued in the laft three months of that
year, flood in the Navy Debt of 3 tft December as
outstanding.
Were thefe bills ever at a dircount ?—Never.

You having, in one of your anfwers to the Com-
miffioners of Naval Enquiry (page 498 of the
Eleventh Report) Rated, " that the expedient of
jailing new bi:is to pay thole becoming due, was ab•
folotely necetfary to keep up their credit ;" would it
have been fo if the Treafury had fupplied the Trea
furer of the Navy with money for that purpofe, de-
rived from other fources?—No.

... ..-. -
What was the rate of intereft that the public paid
for the bills difcnunted by Mr. Goldfmid ?—The
bills to Mr. Glenny had an intereft upon them of
34d. per diem ; but when Mr. Goldfmid difcounted
the bills, he difcounted them at 5 per cent. per an-
num ; the difference was rendered back to the Navy
Office in his account. . . _

Was there any other charge attending the negoti-
ating of thefe bills, befidec Mr. Goldfmid's broker-
age oft 9th per cent. ?—There was not.
(7o k continued.)

L4IV INTELLIGEN:i.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY I.
THIS KING V. JUDGE JOHNSON.
We noticed the queltion before the Court in this
cafe, aad the arguments upon it, in our report of the
proceedings of Saturday. This day the CHIEF JUS-
TICE delivered the judgment of their Lordfhips.—
?he authorities cited were from the Doarina Piaci-
tanth, 204; Cowper, 171 ; Tremain, 299 ; Fuller,
*7 ; alto, moth at length, Lord Hardwicke's opi-
nion, from Vefey, in the cafe of the Earl of Derby
v. the Dube of Athol. It was dated, that in au ap-
peal of this nature againft the authority of a fupreme
Court of Judicature, it was incumbent on the party
to point out tome other Court under which the ju-
rifitiftion devolved. With raped to a fuperior Court,
the prefumption was, in favour of its controul, and
it could in no refpeft be refembled to an inferior
Court, where an fuch prefumption could prevail
( t ft Saunders, 74).
The real question Teemed to be, if, in consequence
of the nativity and refidence of the Defendant in Ire-
land, he was or was not punifhable for the offence.
The argument of the Counfel for the Defendant went
the length of contending that, as he (hewed no obr.,
dience to the laws of this country, be was guilty of
no crime. But if fuch a defence were at all availa-
ble, it would operate as an abfolute bar, or an en-
tire anfwer to the charge ; and in fuch cafe, the plea
ought not to be in its prefent form : for the aver-
ment "that he unlawfully publifhed," would be ab-
furd and nugatory. On thefe authorities, and on
thefe principles, the Court was of opinion that the
offence was within its jurifdiaion.
The ATTORNEY Gamszat.s4 I apply to the
Court, then, that the Defendang bt ordered to plead
to-morrow."
Lord Eteemsoaonon.—" Be it fo. There is no
reafon why he fhould not plead over ;Vanier. You
may either take it beanies. or for to-mo:row.
'file ATTORNEY GENERAL.—" Inflamer, if your
Lordthip fo pltafe."
Mr. PARK E. -•••4 I prefume the day will be allowed
for that purpofe."
To this concurrence was given.
THE KING V. nowetwo, atm
This was an application to file a criminal informa-
tion againft the defendant, who is an attorney, in
Somerfetfhire, for a libel upon Colonel Shepherd, of
the Mendip Legion. The cafe has already been re-
ported. The defendant wrote to the Colonel, de-
standing the payment of a debt, and the Colonel
returned for anfwer, that he owed none ; that he
knew the law, and would never break it ; but, hav-
ing been bred in the army, he would not take an in-
tuit. This led to a challenge, and a fubfequent
libel, on the part of the defendant, which produced
the prefent application. •
Mr. GI ass (hewed Tante againa the rule (formerly
obtained by Mr. Easerrts) being made abfolute ;
but the Collet determined, as it expreffed itfelf, of
breaking down the praftice of firli challenging a
party, and next libellin& him for not bseaking the
peace, made the rule abLlute, and the information
will be tried at the enfuing Affixes. -
TIRE KINC V. valet.,
The Defendant in this cafe, a poor labouring man,
was indiaed for affaulting John Wakefield, an offi-
cer in the imprefs fervice, at Briftol, and had (offer-
ed judgment by default. It appeared that a great
riot had taken place at Brill** in confequence of one
A(hley having been impreffed, and that the Defen-
dant *hook his horftwhip at the officer, and called
out to the mob to maffacre him, a mob who had pre-
vioufly been whetting their knives on the church fleps,
(wearing to cut the officer's ears of.
Mr. Jullice GROSS Paid it was an outrageous breach
of the peace, and fentenced him to be imprifoued fix
months in Newgate.
A perfon named Davidfon was brought up from
St. Luke's Hofpital for Lunatics, to be rendered in
difcharge of his bail. The party appeared to be cons-
poted, and pedal'', fenfible of what he was doing.
CROSBY H. WATSTORD.
This was an anion of trefpafs. The Plaintiff had
contrafted verbally with the Defendant to fell the
latter the growing crop of a field of grafs, but af-
terwards difpofed of it to another perfon. The De-
fendant, when the grafs was ripe, entered the field,
cot it down, and carried it away. The queflion was
; upon the conftruaion of the flame, as to parole
agreement ; whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the
growing crop until Inch time as it was fir for mow-
ing, he having previoufly made an agreement to
kit it ?
The Court held, that the contraft was good from
the time of making it, and the title to the crop be-
came veiled in the Defendant from that moment.—
I They therefore gave judgment for the Defendant.
CLARtS H. GREY MOH °THUS.
The Court gave judgment in this cafe alto. It
was au attion brought %pia a costantssoarrier, for

the Otte of certain goods committed to his care, and
afterwards 1011. The Plaintiff recovered a vertlift
for 51. only, according to the notice affixed in the De-
fendant's coach office, which held out, that they
would be accountable for no greater value, unlefs
booked and paid for as fuch. The Defendant, how-
ever, contended, that as the goods in quellian were
above the value of sl. and as they had not been book•
ed and paid for as above that value. they were not
liable under this notice to pay even the 51. The Court
were of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to retain his
limited verdiet of 51.