Star.
London, England, 1806-06-13 00:00:00

SECOND DAY, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30.

The Lord Chancellor having acquainted the Ma-
nagers for the Commons, that they might proceed
with their evidence; they began by referring to the
Public Statute zo Geo. 111. c. S 4. intituled, " An
Azt for appointing and enabling Commit:Goners to
examine, Like, and Rate the Public Accounts of the
kingdom ; and to report what balances are in the
hands , f the Accountants which may be applied to
the public fervice ; and what defees there are in the
prefent mode of receiving, candling, iffuing, and
accounting (or public money, and in what more ex
pedi,ious and effeausl and lets expenfive manner Mit
(aid Cervices can in future be regulated and carried
on for the benefit of the public."
Then " the Third Report of the CommUnnners
cd lce, rid R. he ,iblic

appointed to examine, take, and (late, the public ac-
counts of the kingdom," was read, which has been
in the hands of the public fince March 1781, and
therefore is not here given.
The warrant granted to Mr. Barri when Treafurer
of the Navy, to increafe his falary, was then proved ;
and afterwards the warrant under the King's Sign
Manual app inting Henry Dundas to that Office with
a clear falary of *owl per ann. was read, dated the
23c1 of 09.tber, 1782.
Lord Melville reigned this fituation on the tt th
of April, 1783, and was re appointed to the fame
Office on the grh of January. 1784.
Thil WAi admitted by hi, Lo: lthip's Cotmfel with.
out the formality of evidence; after which an extra&
of that part of the Eighth Report of the Commit
!loners f Public Accounts was read, which re.
commend, that the cuftody of Cafh applicable to the
Navy fervices fisould be transferred from the Tres.
rarer to the Bank of England, and the account only
of the receipts and payments be kept in his Office, and
the Treafurer neither receive nor pay public money

himfelf.
Entries in the Journals of the Commons and Lords
in t 785, were then read to prove, that " Mr. Henry
Dundaa prefented to the Houfe according to order, a
Bill for better regulating the Office of Treafurer of
hisMajcßy's Navy," which was puffed with the ufual
forms.
The appointment of Andrea► Douglas, Efq. to be
Lord Melville's Paymaller, was then proved.
Mrs. Mary Douglas being examined, declared, that
a box containing all her .hufband's papers had been
delivered by her to two Gentlemen htlonging to the
Committee appointed to prepare the Articles of Im-
peachment against Lord Melville.
Samuel Whitbread, F.fq. one of the two Gentle-
men alluded to, proved that the above papers had
.ever Bore brin in his poffellion, or that of the Corn-
mittee, or in the hands of Mr. Winter.
Mr. John Winter had carefully examined all the
papers, hut could not find among them a Power of
Atom ney from Lord Melville to Mr. Douglas.
Rufe Haworth proved the entry by himfelf
of a letter ot Attorney from Lord Melville to Mr.
Douglas, in a honk called " The Letter of Attorney
Book," in the month of Anna 1782.
Mr. Thomas Rippen, one of the Cafhiers of the
Bank, produced a Firm Book belonging to the Bank,
containing the fignatures of Lord Melville, and of
Mr. Douglas. figued on the Bth of Augutl, 378 z.
Then Mr. Rippen was afked to Rate for what pur-
pofe Lord Melville and Mr. Douglas figned that book
on that day ?—ln confequence of a Power of Attor
ney granted from Hens y Dundas to Andrew Douglas,
Hem y Dundas figncd this book in confequence /If his
opening an account with the Bank. and Andrew,
Douglas figned it in eonfequence of a Power of
Attorney granted from Henry Dundas to him.
Du you know what is become of that Power of At-
torney ?--I Jo not
Then the following entries en the Paid Firm Book
of the Baulk west read.
Henry Dundas--lltb Antra sOs—jolm Clifford
For account of Right Honourable Henry Dustin.
Andrew Douglas-11th Augult i7lla—John
fwd. _ _

Foe the Right Honourable Henry Dundee and J.
Slade. Bth Augull ryBs. John Clifford.
For the Right Honourable Henry DundAs and
Ceo. Swart*ld. Bth Auguk 178 s. Juba Clifford.
Q2eftion by a Lord.—When an account opened
.t the Bank they enter their fignetures in the book,
for the bank to Isr. Acquainted with their band writ-
ing this is the bi.olt in which loch fignatures
are Always taken for the purpofe of comparing the
slap as they arc drawl..
A Paper was 'hewn to Lord lacono, Melville,
and the Cuunfcl admitted it to be his Lordlip's
baud-writing.
The Paper was read, and is as follows :
tisOsl• a. 4. Lembo, loth Januar?. tssts.
Then I eceised from Archibald Douglas. Aa•
log Exi. to And, cur Douglas.i.fq. mylate palatal:yr,
four itt.sufand tour hundred and feventy.five pounds.
4'. 9d. beiriglile dkrocouue of a b41.411C11 remaining iu
its tutudb, Jue me uvo acci,unt of twelve thou..tud
pounds 4lveole.o him cootie of my two Treat-
foterll.lo, to Fay 1.11:11CLOCT Fees, &c. pa account
Igo toccivs4. fisexv DCMDAS.

Mr. George Fennel, Accountant to the Treafurer
of the Navy, was examined to prove what were the
duties of the Paymafler and the Treafurer of the
Navy, and what were the modes of payment. The
following were the principal points of his evidence :
Do you know whether it is the duty of the Pay-
ntafter of the*Treafurer of the Navy, when he re-
ceives money at the Exchequer. to trantinir receipts
of that money to the Navy Office, or a certificate of
his having received the money, to the Na►y Office?
—Yes, to the Navy Board.
Does the Treafurer of the Navy ever receive or
pay an' money himfelf es Treafurer of the Navy ?
None, to my knowledge.
Were yeti not Accountant at the time Lord Mel-
ville paired his accounts of the firtt Treafurerfhip,
and doting the whole of that period?—Thole ac-
counts have been but lately paired.
You were Accountant then at the time thole ac-
counts were palled ?—Yes, I was.
Did you not make up thole accounts ?--I did. I
In the courfe of that invelligation, did ;t appear
to you that the Treafurer of the Navy had ever piid
or received any money as Treafuret cat the Navy ?
It did not.

Mr. William Role Haworth proved that the Pay•
mal}er of the N.svy could receive no money iif led to
the Treafury of the Navy from the Exchequer, u,,lefs
he is exprefily autharifed by a power of attorney
from the Treafury of the Navy to to do.
Mr. Oj&crne &want examixed.
What fituation do you hold in the N ivy Office ?
Chief Clerk Cur examining the Treaftirer's Accounts.
Do you know whether it is the duty of the Pay-
mailer of the Navy, when he receives money at the
Exchequer, to tranfmit a certificate, receipt, or fome
document to the Navy Office, of his having fo re-
ceived the money at the Exchequer ?—I conceive it
to be fo, but I do not know it from authority.
L. it the contant praftice of the Paymatier of the
Navy fn to do; to fend a certificate of the money
having been received at the Exchequer ?—it is.
Where does he fend it to ?—ro the Navy Board.
Is the Navy Board the Supetior Board ?—I think
it is.

State for what purpnfe is that certif.cate tranf-
mined tt% the Navy Board ?—To acknowledge the
receipt of the form which the certificate contains.
Does that acknowledgement enable the Nav7
Board to aft upon it, and do they act upon it ?
It does.

In what way do they *A upon it ?—By atligning
bills out of the fusn. 'dch *re it, cived.

Do you mean by aaiitGing bills upon the Treafurer
of the Navy ?--I.lptin the Treafurer of the Navy.
Do the Navy Board ever affign any bills for pay•.
menu upon the Tre rimer of the Navy, until they have
receitcd filch certificate from the Paymaller ?—No.
Is the tranfmitlirn of the certificate of the receipt
to the Navy Board, a rieceffary preliminary to the
aflignmeuts being made ?—Certainly.
Crafr-examinid.
Whether in drawing for money or afligning bills,
the Board are in any MCArtIIC I ifiuenced by applica-
tions from the Treafurer ?—They are influenced en-
tirely by the Navy Board, and not by any application
from the Treafurer.

Does the drawing for money upon the Exchequer,
in favour of the Macurer, originate with the TreA•
furer or with the Boards ; the Navy and other Boards?
—With the Boards.

Are they, in that inflance, at all influenced by
any application from the Treafurer ?—The Treafurer
never makes any.
Does the amount of the balance at any time in the
Treafurer's hand, originate from the Aas cf the dd.
ferent Boards ?—Certainly.
Uninfluenced altogether by the Treafurer or the
PAyrtlAile
Qeltion by a Lord—ls that which you have
hate U to the Hqufe, in anfwer to the quellions of the
Honourable Iklanager, the invariable cow le ot office?
—lt is.

Do you know it to 1)e fo ?—I do.
Q.t.2eftion from a Lord—Whether the anfwer you
have lilt given, applies to the period previous to
pairing the Aft in 1785 ? It applies to all caies be-
tore and lublequent. - .

An entry of a certificate figned by Mr. DimitclAs
as P.tymAder in hi, official capacity was read tollbew
that inch certifi.:ate µ•ii tranttLitted from the Pay.
di !tier to the Navy Board. _ _ .

qileitioll (Toni x Lord—You are rum:ruled to have
faid;thut the Treafurer of the Navy dud not receive
any money at the Exchequer hinlfelf. but that it
was always received by his ?Ay mriller, under a power
of attorney by him ; have you faid fo ?—Yes.
Is it the 'dual etturfe for the Treaturer of the
Navy to receive money for the public fervice in his
ollce, through the Paymaller eontlituted his agent
under power of attorney ?—lt is.
Mr. John Girninghans, a Clerk in the Bank of
England, was called to prove that money imnrelfed
to the Treafurer of the Navy, is always paid to him
or to hia leprefentative, and that this was the proc-
tors during the -fife of Mr. Douglas, the money being
entered in the Bank book. The PaytnAtier ufually
takes creiie for the whole fum, but fometisnes he
ddes to have a part in Bank notes.
Entries made 6th and aid November, and igth
December, 1782, were then proved.
Did you attend as Clerk cf the Bank at the Ex-
cheques, on the 6th of November 178 a ?—I
Did yuu pay to the Paymaster of the Navy any
rum in Bank notes, as a pat' of the Cum th.4l he W 35
to motive that day at the Exchequer ?—':es,
In Bank notes.

State the day, the number, and the (urn 1,1 each
note. Whet is the honk you lievt. in y.,... ?
nib is the hook wherein we cuter ail ...)tc, t...i etc
iffued et the Esehequer, on eaconnt of the Get t...
and CumpAny of the Bank ...b
eak of Ent.Lni.

Qeflion by a Lord.—Are you able to afceetain by
the entry or otherwife, that that 3c.001. was paid to
Lord Melville or was it paid to Ms. Douglas?—[
apprehend it was paid to Mr. Douglas ; I never faw
his Lordhip at the (Ace.
_ . .

Q2eltion by Managen.—State the dates, the num-
ber,, and the fums of the notes, which you paid on
the iad of November ?—The notes were paid on the
azd November t 782.
Q2ellion by CJunfel.—ls that entry your hand.
writiog ?—lt is.
Q2eition by Managers.—What are the dates of
the notes?—The 7th (,1 November 179 z.
. .

110rt1.41 are the u.gmbers?—No. 211, zt3, an' 214,
each of goocl. in •alue.

Look At that note ; is that one of the notes which
feu paidiu that day ?—I have no doubt but it is ;
it is No. 2 tl.

Crnir examined.
Does it appear upon your hook, that thofe notes
paid on the :ad of November were paid to Mr. Diu
becaitfe you foy you apprehend In; does it ap-
pear from the ho•ak that it was lo N nes are
written .IF in the name of Mr. nuncios, but I appre-
hend :hat Mr. Douglas received them.
What is your reafon for laying you think yon paid
it tii Mr. Douglas ?—Only becoufe Mr Dougl.rs
.tttended upon tl at bulinels.
you give any reafon why thole three notes of
wool. each were written off in the name of Mr.
Durdas, when you fay that you never Law Mr. nun-
cios at the Exchequer, and therefore the payments
could nut be made to him .?—No particular reafon
it was au ufual thing whether they were written off
in the name of the Trealbrer of the Navy, or of the
perfon who reprefented him ; it was fitne:imet in
one way and fometimes in another. . .

Q.2eilion Imm a Lord.—Whether, under whatever
name thrice emries were made, they were not at all
underltood by you to have becn made on account of
the Treafurer of the Navy i—Undoubtedly.
Mr. Wm. Heald, a Clerk of &frail. Drummond,
underwent a long examination, for the purpofe of
proving, that the bank note, No. 212, had beet paid
into that Finnic by Lord Melville. He could only
(wear the note had been paid in on his account ; but
whether by himfelf or another, could not State.

FOURTH DAY—FRIDAY, MAY s.

o.her Clerks belonging to Meas. Drummond's
honk, proved that Lord Melville had a cafh account
with the houfe in 5781, that kraal rums of moue),
were -eceived on his Lordhip's account, and fume of
them from Mr. Douglas; that money was paid for
drafts, figned by Lord Melville, and interell charged
for overpayments.
Mr. George Scott, Clerk to Meths. Moffats and
Kenfington. !Wore that the note, K. No. I a, for toool.
was received by their hoof* in November. 1782, in
payment of a bill upon the Lord Advocate of Scot-
land. but could not fay from whom.
Then Mr. Whitbread, one of the Managers for the
Commons, Sated as follows Having brought the
examination down to the 7th Apiil, 1783, and hay
ing been called by the Counfel on the other fide, to
dep. re upon oath as to a part of the articles in this
impeachment, 1 beg to appear in the charaßer of a
ssi.nefs, and upon my oath to declare, that I beard
Lord Melville declare on the t sth June, tBos, that
during the Paymalterlkip of Mr. Douglas be Incense
pallid of the public money to the amount of 20,0001.
or thereabouts ; and that he further declared th.st he
would not reveal the application of that money, being
impelled to do ft from motives of public duty, pro
vats honour, and perfstal convenience.
Qtellinn by a Lord.—Was that :infarct Cr, given
by Lord Melville committed to writing ?—lt was not
committed to writing ; 1 heatd my Lord 'Melville
fay it; and it was Trcly to !Ave the time of the Cowl,
and AI I have been ahead,' fa nrn, that 1 lwe tr it.—
Many other witneffe. who beard it might be called to
prove it.

Examined by At Comfit.
Did the I-knowable Manager make any note at
the time of the words that were frken f—l Jid not
commit it to writing at the tium ; but I remember
the words upon my oath.
Did not the Noble Defendant at the fame time ac-
company it with a pnfitive ..inclaration, that he bad
not converted any part of it to his own profit or
emolument f—l believe he did.

Have you the lealt doubt that he did f ?—As to
the exprefs terms I do not remember tl,em ; thole
that I have fpulcco are the words that made great
impieXon upon une, and which I (hall never forget :
the inip..rt of the ether parts of his tp,:ech certainly
WS/. that he had not applied it to any private advan-
tage or emolumeor.
lit fubaance it was to that effe& ?—I have 14:d
Ti:at C1.41`11 .1.t5 110 eQ.t:,: 1:
Wits .1.1 1.•.

—•••••• • • • . .
Wiils •nt •i h .ic!;•?"'r Jr L.•••••• "
lal"."1,2 7' cc., 1-Y th.• C• • 4

• I N ;•JJ: th:
Lord 1: .v• g.4ve ;
exAnlina: . • i • 41:caav 1.: 11:
lueJbut c

A Clerk belonging to Mure and Atkinfon being
eramined, read a draft on Smith, 1' tyne, and Smiths,
payable to Lord Advocate of Scotland for 50001.
drawn by Mitre and C. ad July, • ;83 ; and Smith
and Co.',clerk proved the paymee:t ut the draft.

Another draft, the fame on the fame, for 60001. of
s rth july, payable to Lord Advocate, was proved is
the fame manner ; and a clerk belonging to Smith
and Co. wa: called to prove the Bank Notes in which
it had bten paid, but an error in the entry made ano-
tlizr bock necelfary.
A fimilar draft, of 31ft July, for wcol. was prov.
ed, soil a pet lon belonging to Smith and Co.'s houfe,
proved, that on that day 44761. los. :cc!. was paid
for two drafts, one of which was for 2cvzol. , The en.
try in the wale book was r:ad as follows :
C. 171 • • C. IMO
Jr- 959 10.0
• 809 - - too°
H. 409 - mu"
B. 77 - 400
14- 37 - J 4
C. t 6 - so
Mu. • - 6 to to

More and Co. £. 4476 10 ma
but the witnefa could not fsvem that the notes amen
to hint were the identical notes paid.

FIFTH DAY, SATURDAY, MAY 3.

Evidence was fubfequently given during the exa-
mination to which we referred on the preceding day,
Poiterior teltimony ettablifhed three payments by
'Lord Melville, to the extent of 15,4001 in recludlion
of the 33,0001. which conHituted the balance we have
dated agoin,t his Lordthip, on a comparifon of the
ace, unts of the Treafurer's Office and the Bank, on
the 3cth of April, 1783.
A tittegion then arofe, whether the contents of the
t>,,oks of the Navy Office, without any reference to
the dne,irnentv from which the items of account were
colleaed, were admiffible evidence ; and after a fhort
tirtorgle by the Learned Counfel for the Defendanti
he Loan CH am c st.Loa decided that they ought to be
received.

Mr. GIL.Es rata, that the balance compofed of the
difference between 23,0601. and 13,4001. was 76001.
which the Defendant was indebted to the Navy Ac-
count at the period he entered a fecund time on the
office of I'reafurer. The Honourable Manager then
produced the Bank books, to thew that this balance
76z01. was reduced to 16001. by the transfer of
6 col in the Btrik•books on the 13th And 3111 of
.larch, the 24th and scab of April, 1784, tram the
account of the new Treafureribip to the credit of
thtt of his former Treafurer Chip.
- _

Mi. GiLas then added, that he fhould confirm the
eircumllance of this redudion of the balance againft
Lead Melville, in the old account, to 16001. by a
compariton cf the Office books with the Bank books.
This enquiry led to a long detail of fic;oret, extract-
ed from the Office books and the Bank books, by
which the Ratement of the Hon. Manager, as to the
condition of the balance, was confirmed.
The Winds of the day concluded with the exami-
nation of Mr. Standard, refpeding the authority
under which Soo& was transferred front the new to

the old account of the Treafurer ; skiing which he
raid, that he had taken the means to inform himfelf.
and that he did not find any authority for loch
transfer.