HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



91 



committee of the privy council for 

 instructions. Tiiese commissioners 

 were five in number— James Craw- 

 ford, John Breckwood, Allen Chat- 

 field, Alexander Baxter, and 

 John Bowles! a member of the 

 society for the suppression of' vice, 

 or rather, as appeared from the re- 

 port, of pilfering from the public. 

 Their sales ceased, and their trans- 

 actions were brought nearly to a 

 close in 1799. Nothing remained 

 after that period but small sales of 

 remnants not completed till 1801. 

 and a few other things which would 

 scarcely give the least trouble. To 

 these small views, however, was to 

 be added an important law suit 

 commenced in 1797, whichbrought 

 into question property to the 

 amount of 180,000/. But it was 

 obvious that the burthen of this 

 law suit must fall on the solicitors 

 and counsel. As no fixed remune- 

 ration had been assigned to the 

 commissioners, these gentlemen 

 resolved to remunerate themselves, 

 and charged a commission of 5 

 per cent on the gro3s proceeds 

 of their sales, which commission, in 

 the four first years, amounted in all 

 to 80,000/. No regular accounts 

 were furnished to government. 

 And criminal as this ;vas in the 

 commissioners, Mr. Ord could not 

 help saying, that the government 

 was far more criminal in not calhng 

 for them. Only one account was 

 rendered to the privy council, and 

 in this it was remarkable that no 

 mention was made of commission, 

 which omission the committee ob- 

 served, might lead the privy coun- 

 cil to imagine that no commission 

 was charged, although, at that 

 time 25,000/. had actually been 

 divided. But the commissioners 

 had good reason for not rendering 



any account, because accounts 

 might lead to the suppression of 

 their illegal profits. This was a 

 most extraordinary thing, Mr. Ord 

 observed, considering the noise 

 which Mr. John Bowles had made 

 about false returns to the property 

 tax. It would be curious to know 

 what returns John himself had 

 made to the property tax at the 

 time he wa^ receiving this large 

 profit from his labour. The act au- 

 thorizing the appointment of these 

 commissioners required, that the 

 proceeds of the sales should be paid 

 into the bank of England. But in- 

 stead of this the commissioners 

 had opened accounts with private 

 bankers. It was singular that a 

 lawyer should lead them to a vio- 

 lation of the law, and that the mer- 

 chants who were in the commission 

 should state a false account of 

 commission as consistent with the 

 general practice in mercantile 

 transactions. 



Mr. Ord next adverted to the 

 magnitude of the cash balances re- 

 turned by the commissioners ; and 

 he particularly called the atten- 

 tion of the house to the fact, that 

 Mr. Pitt had, in 1796, applied to 

 them to know, whether any sum 

 arising from the sale of property 

 under their management, would 

 be paid into the exchequer for the 

 service of the current year. They 

 denied that they could pay any 

 thing into the exchequer, although 

 it appeared they had in their hands 

 a balance of 190,000/.: out of 

 which though they had great de- 

 mands upon them at the time it was 

 proved, the committee observed, 

 they might have advanced, at the 

 least, 50,000/. The commission- 

 ers, instead of applying the ba- 

 lances in their hands, during the 



years 



