The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-14

4
anfwer to my hrft ouellou.
q. During the time you aSted rs tre3!1rer or
the navy, between the IN of January, 1885, and
sir May 1900; WAS any of the nonvy applicable
to naval fervices advanced by you or by your
direction, for any other public iervice than TINT
of the navy.
A. decline to antwer that qucition under
the provIhons OF the 5th .sSt. OF the act rs Geo
III. cap. is.
Q. Was any morey iiincd for carving or the
current ftrvice of the navy, applied by your
lo,dil,ip, or by your direction, for any other
public fervice than that of the navy, with the
knowledge or content of the navy board
| "A. No; certainly not
| Q. Was there any Official note or record
made of the money i0uc,i tor carrying on the
current fervice of the navy, having been a,,~,n-
ced by our direction for anv other public pur-
poie than that Of the navy, of the repayment of
| fi,ch money!
| n. No; there was certainly no cRics note.
| q. Did you authorize the paymaiter, in or -
bout the year 1886, to draw the money apnica-
Bile to naval purpofes from the bank, and lodge
IL in the hands of private banker?
a. cannot precifely Fix the time, but am
| certain that did permit Mr.. Trotter to lodge
any money drawn from the bank, for publi,. Ter
vices, in his private bankers hands during tin.
period twas not demanded, 10 the purpofes for
which it was drawn.
.. What circumstances induced you to give
| iuch Permflion 10 the paymater?
a. An opinion in which fill adhere. that if
the whole monies necet1arily drawn from the
bank, in purfi,ance of orders from the connie
tent boards, were lodged in the hands of ref
Pectable banker, under the controul of the pay
matter of the navy, that it would add more faci-
hty to the conduct of the bulinefs of the officer
IN the multitude of finalI payments to be made,
than IT the money were depolited, according to
the contribution of the Office, in an iron chef
| l likewife had it in contemplation, that in the
receipt of the various fmall payments, made to
Inch variety OF perions. they would be lcfs IL
able to be impofed upon, by that mode of trrni-
acting the bnfnefs, than if they were es~tt to re-
ceive drafts for flch fmal flms upon the bank,
at tuch dtance from Office, after its removal
to Somerfet-place.
Q. AS the paymafter of the navy does not
diiburfe any part of the public money, except
tor the payment of exchequer fees and other
contingencies, does our lordihip think it recef-
fairy that the paymafter Mould have in the iron
chef or at private bankers any of the money
iEued for carrying on the current fervice of the
navy?
A. do not think it neceHary; but for rcarons
have given, think it expedient. The whole
money drawn from the bank, and placed in the
hands ofthe paymafer of the navy; but though
this is my opinion, I know many competent
perfons entertain different opinion.
Q. Did you give permifiion to the paymafter
to withdraw the money from the bank, & lodge
it in the hands of a private banker, with view
to his deriving any advantage or emolumcnt
therefrom?
A. Fit is meant TO ak IRE whether ever
gave any direct authority to the paymaiter to
ufe the money in the manner aforementioned, |
fhould certainly anfwer, no; but have no he
ftation in faying, that ! believed, and under
food he did, and never prohibited him from
doing TO; and believed it was 70 underftood
by Others at different times, when the eftab,ifh-
ment of the navy pay office was under conlider-
alton, when certainly no competent provfion
was made for the perfon exercifing that truft of
great extent, and Responsibility.
Q. As the money applicable to naval fervices
was directed to be lodged in the bank, by the
ACT of 25 Geo. III. cap. 81, and not TO be drawn
from thence without fpecifying the fervices for
which it is drawn by what authority did Won
give permiilion to the paymafer of the navy to
draw the money out of the bank, and lodge il i'm
the hands of private bankers?
| A. take it for granted, it always was drawn
under the heads of iervicc pointed out in the act
| of parliament and when talk of permifiiop,
| meant it under the explanation contained in an
fwer to former queition, in which / fuppofe
! the money drawn under competent authority.
O. Do you know of any inaance of a treafrr-
err of the navy having made good any lois which
bad aren from over payments, or other mifap-
plications of the public money!
| a. No, do not.
o. Did you derive any profit or advantage
from the ufe or employment of money ifIued
for carrying on the current ftrvce of the navy,
between 10th of Aueult 1888, and soth of April
| 1885, or between lift of Feb. 1884, and SIN
Dec. 1885, during which periods you held the
Office of treafurer of the navy.
A. l decline anfwering this queftion, under
the 9Th claufe of the act 4s Geo. III. Cap. &c,
and for the reafons given in my firt anrwer.
o. Did you conlider the addition granted by
the kings fgn manuel, upon your appointment
to the Office of treafurer of the navy, making
your falary 4ooOl. year, clear of all deduefi-
ons, to be in full fatisfacton for all wages fees,
and other profits, and emoluments, previouly
enjoyed by former treafurers!
A. Certainly did, with the exception of
| Goals, candles, and fome fuch fmall contingent
cies.
Q. When was it frft difcovered that Mr.. Tel.
licoe was deficient in the balance of public mo-
ney, with which he food charged, as deputy
paymafer 10 the navy?
A. do not recoe6t the precife period but
the frit thing that gave me any fufpicion that