Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:43:49.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

William Pitt and the Commission on Fees, 1785–1801*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

John R. Breihan
John R. Breihan
Affiliation:
Loyola College, Baltimore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 17 February 1785, William Pitt reported to the house of commons on his administration's response to the reports of the commission for examining the public accounts established by Lord North five years earlier. Since 1780, the commissioners of accounts had summarized and rationalized the new approaches to public administration that had blossomed in the economical-reform movement of the early 1780s; their work has been described by recent commentators as ‘a comprehensive and quite radical philosophy of the public interest’, and even ‘a new bureaucratic ideology’. For his part, Pitt commended the commissioners for having ‘given light to parliament on subjects hitherto involved in the most inscrutable obscurity’, and he stated that it was ‘the duty of the House to profit from the Reports’. After reviewing their findings of manifold deficiencies in the issue and audit of public money, Pitt introduced legislation to reform the treasurership of the navy and to set up a new department for auditing public accounts. The commissioners' more sweeping recommendations for reforms of official compensation and discipline were to be addressed by a new commission on fees, whose broad charge would be: to inquire into the fees, gratuities, perquisites, and emoluments, which are, or lately have been, received in the several public offices…; and to report such observations as may occur to them for the better conducting and managing the business transacted….

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 59 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Roseveare, Henry, The treasury, 1660–1870 (London, 1973), p. 62Google Scholar; Torrance, J. R., ‘Social class and bureaucratic innovation, 1780–87’, Past and Present, LXXVIII (1978), 57–81, at 79–80Google Scholar.

2 Cobbett, William (ed.), The parliamentary history of England from the earliest period to the year 1803 (London, 1806–1820), xxv, 229–307Google Scholar; 25 Geo. III, cc. 19, 47, 52.

3 Keir, D. L., ‘Economical Reform, 1779–1787’ Law Quarterly Review, L (1934), 368–85, at 384–5Google Scholar; Binney, J. E. D., British public finance and administration, 1774–92 (Oxford, 1958), p. 281Google Scholar; Roseveare, Henry, The treasury: the evolution of a British institution (London, 1969), p. 128Google Scholar; Webb, R. K., Modern England (New York, 1968), pp. 100–1Google Scholar; Willcox, William B., The age of aristocracy, 1688 to 1830 (Lexington, Mass., 1976), pp. 176–80Google Scholar; Ehrman, John, The younger Pitt (London, 1969 and 1983)Google Scholar, 1, esp. chapts. vi, xi.

4 Sixth report of commissioners of public accounts, Commons Journal, XXXVIII (1780–1782), 707–8Google Scholar.

5 Fourth report of commissioners of public accounts, ibid., XXXVIII (1780–2), 379–82.

6 Roseveare, , Treasury (1969), pp. 105–6Google Scholar.

7 Hoon, Elizabeth E., The organization of the English customs system, 1696–1786 (Newton Abbot, 1968), pp. 211–15Google Scholar.

8 5 April 1786, Part. Hist, xxv, 1300; Fitzmaurice, Lord, Life of William, earl of Shelburne (London, 1912), 11, 225–6Google Scholar.

9 11 02 1780, Parl. Hist, XXI, 49–53Google Scholar; 6th report of commissioners of public accounts, Commons Jour, XXXVIII (1780–1782), 712–14Google Scholar.

10 22 Geo. III, c. 81, ss. 11–12, 16.

11 House of Commons, Sessional Papers (Abbot collection), Bills, XIII, nos. 431, 541.

12 Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, 11, 225–6; Commons debates, 21, 30 May, 2, 17 June 1783, Lords, 30 06 1783, Part. Hist, XXIII, 926–31, 945–59, 1106 14Google Scholar.

13 Abbot diary, Public Record Office, London, P.R.O. 30/9/2/466.

14 25 Geo. III, c. 19.

15 26 Geo. III, c. 87; 29 Geo. III, c. 64.

16 Norris, John, Shelburne and reform (London, 1963), p. 225, nGoogle Scholar; Sainsbury, John, ‘The pro-Americans of London’ William and Mary Quarterly, XXXV (1978), 423–54, at 449 nGoogle Scholar; Pitt to Molleson, 28, 30 Nov. 1793, Chatham papers, Public Record Office, London, P.R.O. 30/8/102/196, 198.

17 Dictionary of Motional Biography, III, 192; SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, Members of the kttue of commons, 1754–1790 (London, 1964), 11, 87Google Scholar; SirWraxall, N. W., Bart, ., Posthumous memoirs of his own time (London, 1838), 11, 334–5Google Scholar; Scrope Bernard to ? [Marquis of Buckingham], 2 Sept. 1792, Pitt transcripts, University Library, Cambridge, Additional MSS 6958, VI, 1118.

18 Order in council, 26 Aug. 1785, P.R.O. 30/8/231/135–36.

19 27 Geo. III, c. 35.

20 First, 2nd, 3rd reports, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806 (309), vII, 10, 56, 102Google Scholar; Sainty, J. C., Treasury officials, 1660–1870 (London, 1972), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Home office officials, 1782–1870 (London, 1975), p. 2Google Scholar; Collinge, J. M., Foreign office officials, 1782–1870 (London, 1979), 2Google Scholar.

21 Fourteenth report, Commons Jour, XLI (1786), p. 23Google Scholar.

22 Resolutions of commissioners of public accounts, 15 Jan. 1787, P.R.O. 30/8/282/45–49. Ehrman (Tounger Pitt, 1, 302, n) has mistakenly attributed these resolutions to the new audit commission, which was a permanent office.

23 Knight, Roger J. B., ‘The royal dockyards in England at the time of the American War of Independence’ (unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of London, 1972), esp. pp. 22–30, 40–8, 55–70, 80–5, 379–81Google Scholar.

24 Bloomfield, J. H., ‘Lord Sandwich at the admiralty board: politics and the British navy, 1771–1778’ Mariner's Mirror, LI (1965), 7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roger Knight, ‘Sandwich, Middleton, and dockyard appointments’ ibid. Lvn (1971), 175–92; Philips, I. Lloyd, ‘The evangelical administrator: Sir Charles Middleton at the navy board, 1778–1790’ (unpubl. D.Phil, dissertation, Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar.

25 To Dundas, , 10 12 1794, Dundas papers, British Library, London, Add. MSS 40, 179, fos. 21–4Google Scholar.

26 Howe-Middleton-Pitt correspondence, Nov. 1784, Middleton to George III, n.d., to Pitt, n.d. and July 1786, ‘Navy Board’ memo, Laughton, John Knox (ed.), Letters and papers of Charles, Lard Barham (Navy Records Society, 1909–1911), II, 178–91, 208–17, 245, 258–9Google Scholar; memos, n.d., P.R.O. 30/8/246/1–2, 45; Philips dissertation, pp. 305–10.

27 Webb, P. L. C., ‘The rebuilding and repair of the fleet, 1783–93’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, L (1977), 194–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Middleton to Pitt, 31 Dec. 1785, n.d., 07 1786, Laughton, (ed.), Papers of Barham, 11, 197–208, 213–15, 288–305, 216–30Google Scholar; 7 Feb. 23 Sept. 1785, P.R.O. 30/8/111/147–8, 162–3; Philips dissertation, pp. 311, 317–20, 346 49.

28 Middleton, to Baring, [Dec. 1787], reply, 3 Dec, ‘Navy Board’ memo, Laughton, (ed.), Papers of Barham, 11, 232–49, 287Google Scholar.

29 Fifth–9th reports, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806 (309), VII, 165 754Google Scholar. John Norris (Shelbunu and reform, p. 210) is mistaken in his remark that the commissioners did not appreciate Middleton's suggestions. Collinge, J. M., Navy board officials, 1660–1832 (London, 1978), pp. 8–10Google Scholar.

30 Howe to Pitt, 22, 25 Sept. 1787, P.R.O. 30/8/146/215–18. The commissioners' 5th report, on the navy board, was dated 14 Feb. 1788. The other four appeared between then and 1 May.

31 Pitt told Wilberforce in June 1788 that the dispute with Middleton had been the cause of Howe's departure. Wilberforce, A. N. (ed.), The private papers of William Wilberforce (London, 1897), p. 22Google Scholar; Ehrman, Younger Pitt, 1, 315–16; Philips dissertation, pp. 311–13.

32 Middleton to Pitt, 23 Feb. 1788, P.R.O. 30/8/111/197–8; 22 08 1788, Laughton, (ed.), Papers of Barham, 11, 311 12Google Scholar; memo to Pitt [July 1788], P.R.O. 30/8/246/278–324; to Chatham, n.d., P.R.O. 30/8/365/161–2; George Jackson, recollections, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Jackson papers, JCK/7/9/89–93; Webb, , Bull. Inst. Hist. Res. L (1977), 199Google Scholar.

33 Middleton to Chatham [1 Oct. 1788], P.R.O. 30/8/365/38–9; memo to Pitt, n.d., P.R.O. 30/8/246/35–6; Middleton, to Sandwich, [02 1789], Laughton, (ed.), Papers of Barham, II, 315–19Google Scholar.

34 Chatham to Middleton, 7 Mar. 1789, Middleton, to Pitt, , n.d. [May], 24 09 1789, to a friend, n.d., Laughton, (ed.), Papers of Barham, 11, 319–23, 329–30Google Scholar; Middleton to Chatham, memo on behaviour of clerks, n.d., Middleton papers, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, MID/3/4, 11–12; Middleton to Pitt, 8 Feb. 1790, P.R.O. 30/8/III/205–10; to Dundas, , 13 03 1790, Melville papers, British Library Add. MSS 41,079, fos. 5–6Google Scholar; Philips dissertation, pp. 92–100.

35 National Maritime Museum, JCK/7/9/9–12, 87–115.

36 Webb, Paul, ‘The navy and British diplomacy, 1783–1793’ (unpubl. M.Litt. dissertation, Cambridge, 1971), p. 185Google Scholar; Middleton, to Sandwich, , 12 01, [Feb.] 1789, Laughton, (ed.), Papers of Barham, 11, 315–19Google Scholar.

37 Middleton's correspondence with Chatham is in P.R.O. 30/8/365/40–135. See also Philips dissertation, pp. 359–60; Crimmin, Patricia Kathleen, ‘Admiralty administration, 1783–1806’ (unpubl. M.Phil, dissertation, London, 1967), pp. 41–2Google Scholar.

38 Ehrman, Younger Pitt, I, 316–17. Philips has adopted a similar explanation: dissertation, pp. 96–8, 315.

39 Ellis, Kenneth, The post office in the eighteenth century (London, 1958), chaps. 10, 11Google Scholar.

40 Ibid.; Report of select committee on the post office, Commons Jour. XLII (1787), 800 ff.Google Scholar; 10th report of commission on fees, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806 (309), VII, 755–905Google Scholar; Grey, , 15, 28 05 1787, Part. Hist, xxvi, 1172, 1187–8Google Scholar.

41 Ibid. 1172–98; Wraxall, Posthumous memoirs, II, 334–5.

42 Tenth report, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806 (309), VII, 775Google Scholar. According to the original order of proceedings laid down by the order in council of 26 Aug. 1785 (P.R.O. 30/8/231/135–6), the post office would have been investigated after the salt office and just before the surveyor generalship of the woods and forests.

43 Tenth report, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806 (309), VII, 775–906, esp. 781–2, 792, 854–5Google Scholar.

44 Ellis, Post office in the eighteenth century, pp. 112–15, 163.

45 Molleson, to Pitt, , 11 11 1791, 28 Mar. 1794, P.R.O. 30/8/160/156–7, 162Google Scholar; Bernard, Scrope to [Marquis of Buckingham], 2 09 1792, University Library, Cambridge, Add. MSS 6958, VI, 1118Google Scholar; to Pitt, 6 Mar. 1799, P.R.O. 30/8/113/178–9.

46 Privy Council draft minute, 14 Oct. 1789, P.R.O., P.C. 4/5; committee minute, 12 Jan. 1792, P.R.O., P.C. 1/19/A.27.

47 The exception was the 8th report, on the victualling board, apparently laid upon the table of the house of commons in 1788, in order to vindicate the conduct of Montague Burgoyne as victualling commissioner. This occurred, however, before the 10th report was completed. Burgoyne, Montague, ‘An account of the proceedings in the late election in Essex’ (London, 1810), pp. 137–8Google Scholar.

48 Parliamentary proceedings, 17 06 1793, Morning Chronicle 18 JuneGoogle Scholar; H.C., Sess. Papers (Abbot), Reports, I, no. 103; Debrett's edition, copy in the library of the Institute of Historical Research, London. Ehrman is mistaken in maintaining that the reports did not appear in print until 1806 (Younger Pitt, 1, 308), although the appendices were not printed until that year.

49 Canning to Pitt, 23 March 1805, P.R.O. 30/8/120/228; , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806 (309), VIIGoogle Scholar.

50 Lord Hawkesbury attended five committee meetings; Chatham and Dudley Ryder each attended three. Another fifteen privy councillors appeared on one or two occasions. For citations of minutes, see below.

51 Committee minutes, 12 Jan. 1792, P.R.O., P.C. 1/19/A.27.

52 Ellis, Post office in the eighteenth century, pp. 114–22; treasury reports, 18 June 1793, and orders in council, 21 June 1793, printed in 7th and 15th reports of select committee on finance, 1797, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., XII, 178–9, 286–9; committee minutes, 18 June 1793, P.R.O., P.C. 1/20/A.31; Sainty, Treasury officials, pp. 11–12.

53 Dundas, to Grenville, , 30 Aug. 1792, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, Esq., preserved at Dropmore (1892–1927), 11, 306Google Scholar; memo, ‘New arrangement proposed for the home office’, 10 Sept. 1792, P.R.O. 30/8/282/201; Grenville to Pitt, with enclosure from Dundas, 8 Jan. 1795, Dundas, to Grenville, , 11 01 1795, memo by Grenville, and Dundas, , n.d., University Library, Cambridge, Add. MSS 6958, IX, 1598–9, 1895Google Scholar; Portland to Lord President, 8 Jan. 1795, P.R.O., P.C. 1/24/A.43.

54 Secretaries' report, 23 Feb. 1795, and order in council, 27 Feb. 1795, printed in 16th report of finance committee, 1797, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., xII, 297 8, 309–11; committee minutes, 23 Feb. 1795, P.R.O., P.C. 4/5; Sainty, J. C., Colonial office officials (London, 1976), p. 1Google Scholar; Home office officials, p. 3; Collinge, Foreign office officials, pp. 2–3.

55 Admiralty report, 2 May 1796, and orders in council, 8 June, 28 Dec. 1796, printed in 17th report of finance committee, 1797, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., xII, 330–3Google Scholar; committee minutes, 8 June 1796, P.R.O., P.C. 4/7; Collinge, Navy board officials, pp. 10–12.

56 Admiralty reports, 4 Oct. 1799, 27 01 1800, printed in ‘Proceedings of the admiralty board relative to recommendations of the finance committee’, , H.C., Sess Papers, 1st ser., xII, 800–15Google Scholar; privy council committee minutes, 7, 28 Jan. 1800, orders in council, 15, 29 Jan. 1800, P.R.O., P.C. 2/154/15–43, 65–6, 114–59, 161–2.

57 Bentham, M. S., The life of Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham, K.S.G. (London, 1862), pp. 145–54Google Scholar; Bentham, Samuel, ‘Services rendered in the civil department of the navy…’ (London, 1813), 36–7Google Scholar; Admiralty report, 16 Feb. 1801, order in council, 21 05 1801, ‘Proceedings of the admiralty board relative to the recommendations of the finance committee’, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., XIII, 821–8Google Scholar; Privy Council committee minutes, 11 May 1801, P.R.O., P.C. 2/158/35–87; Breihan, J. R., ‘The Addington party and the navy in British politics, 1801–1806’, in Symonds, Craig L. (ed.), New aspects of naval history (Annapolis, Maryland, 1981), pp. 163–89Google Scholar.

58 Nineteenth report of finance committee, 1797, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., XII, 402–403Google Scholar.

59 Twenty-seventh report of finance committee, 1798, ibid, xIII, 200–1.

60 Order in council, 26 Aug. 1785, P.R.O. 30/8/231/135–6.

61 First report ofselect committee on public expenditure, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1807 (61), 11, 313–77Google Scholar; report of select committee on 10th report of commissioners of naval inquiry, in Hansard, Luke (ed.), The parliamentary debates (London, 1803–), v, Appx., ii–viii, liii–lviiiGoogle Scholar; 12th report of commissioners of military inquiry, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1810 (81), ix, 457–516Google Scholar; 5th report of public expenditure committee, ibid. 1810 (216), v, 369–79.

62 Middleton to Lord Melville, 18 Aug. 1804, Melville Castle papers, Scottish Records Office, Edinburgh, GD 51/2/220/3; 14 Nov. 1804, B.L. Add. MSS 41079, fos. 100–1; Dugan, James, The great mutiny (London, 1966), chap. 3Google Scholar; Breihan, in Symonds (ed.), New aspects of naval history, pp. 165–9.

63 , P. and Ford, G. (eds.), Hansard catalogue and breviate of parliamentary papers, 1696–1834 (OxfordGoogle Scholar, repr. 1953), chaps, x, xxiv, xxv.

64 Keir, M, Law Quarterly Rev. L (1934), 385Google Scholar; Binney, British public finance and administration, pp. 273–82; Jarret, Derek, The younger Pitt (London, 1974), pp. 102–3Google Scholar; Ehrman, Younger Pitt, 1, 286.

65 Ibid. pp. 172, 303–4, 309–11, 317, 321; Binney, British public finance and administration, p. 275.

66 Charles, , Colchester, Lord (ed.), The diary and correspondence of Charles Abbot, Lord Colchester (London, 1861), 1, 120Google Scholar; Windham, , 20 11 1797, Woodfall's parliamentary reports, 1797–98, 1, 152Google Scholar; order in council, 1 11 1797, in 35th report of finance committee, 1798, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., xiii, 681–5Google Scholar.

67 Binney, , British public finance and administration, pp. 246–54Google Scholar; Roseveare, Henry, The treasury 1660–1870: the foundations of control (London, 1973), pp. 56–60Google Scholar.

68 Gunn, J. A. W., ‘Influence, parties, and the constitution: changing attitudes, 1783–1832’, Historical Journal, xvii (1974), 301–28, at pp. 306–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 29Jan., 11 Feb. 1784, Almon, John (ed.), The parliamentary register (London, 1743–1802), 2nd ser., xii, 20, 98–9Google Scholar; Stanhope, Earl, Life of the right honourable William Pitt (London, 2nd edn, 1862), 1, 190Google Scholar. Ehrman, (Yonger Pitt, 1, 66, 136) feels that Pitt always held these views, while Gunn, (Hist. Jour, xvii (1974), 312–16)Google Scholar and Donald G. Barnes (George III and William Pitt, 1783–1806 (New York, repr. edn, 1965), chap, iii) describe him as being forced into them by the political situation of 1784 or by George III, respectively.

70 Ehrman, Younger Pitt, 1, 309.

71 Ibid. chap, x; Rose, George, ‘Observations respecting the public expenditure and the influence of the crown’ (London, 1810)Google Scholar; Ward, W. R., ‘Some eighteenth-century civil servants: the English revenue commissioners’, English Historical Review, LXX (1955), 25–54, at 40–4Google Scholar.

72 Ehrman, Younger Pitt, 1, 284, 290. For a discussion of the less-than-complete success of Pitt's method of abolishing sinecures by attrition, see Breihan, J. R., ‘The abolition of sinecures, 1780–1834’, Proceedings of theConsortium on Revolutionary Europe, xi (1981), 141–9Google Scholar.

73 An exception was the reform of the crown lands department by statute in 1794, but it should be noted that George Rose, speaking for the government, declared this to be the final instalment of official reform. 8 04 1794, Part. Hist, XXXI, 185–7Google Scholar; 34 Geo. III, c. 75.

74 Ellis, Post office in the eighteenth century, pp. 120–2.

75 Sir John Mitford to Pitt, 5 Jan. 1795, University Library, Cambridge, Add. MSS 6958, IX, 1594; memo in admiralty board papers for 29 Feb. 1796, P.R.O., Adm. 1/3525.

76 Pitt, 26 April, 24 11 1797, Peal. Reg., 2nd ser., n, 367–8, IV, 269Google Scholar; Colchester (ed.), Diary of Lord Colchester, 1, 119, 120–36, 149–53; Abbot MS diary, Colchester papers, Public Record Office, London, P.R.O. 30/9/32/322, 151–225, 255–6, 323; Abbot to Addington, 13 Nov. 1797, Sidmouth papers, Devon Record Office, Exeter, C1797 OT9; 38 Geo. III, cc. 86, 89; 39 Geo. III, cc. 94, 110; 39 and 40 Geo. III, cc. 43, 45, 47, 55. The 36 reports of Abbot's finance committee, along with published ‘proceedings’ of the treasury and admiralty boards, are printed in H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., XII and XIII.

77 Two reports of the commissions on customs fees were printed with the 4th report of finance committee, 1797, ibid., XII, 79–81. The reports of the commission on the crown lands and forests revenue are printed in H.C., Sess. Papers (Abbot), Accounts and Papers, XXXVI.

78 See, for example, Westmorland, Lord to Pitt, , 5 02 1791, frothing with indignation over the commission's investigation of his family's lucrative rights of ‘Herbage and Debrouze’ in Rockingham Forest, University Library, Cambridge, Add. MSS 6958, v, 911Google Scholar; 9th report of crown lands and forests commission, H.C., Sess. Papers (Abbot), Accounts and Papers, XXXVI, 546 ff.

79 Memo ‘Notes respecting the proposal intended to be made in 1792’, draft bIII and notes, P.R.O. 30/8/285/163–75, 181 7; Ehrman, Younge Pitt, 1, 289–90.

80 32 Geo. III, c. 64; 34 Geo. III, c. 75. The crown lands and forests commission had devoted eleven of their seventeen reports to the forests department. SirCall, John to Pitt, , 19 03. 1788Google Scholar, 17 May 1790, P.R.O. 30/8/119/44, 74”5.

81 Abbot, , 11 03 1799, Parl. Reg., 3rd ser., VIII, 197–201Google Scholar; report of select committee on civil list accounts, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1801–2, n, 76–7; Reitan, E. A., ‘The civil list and the changing role of monarchy in Britain, 1782–1804’, Proceedings of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe, xi (1981), 132–40Google Scholar.

82 Twenty-second report of finance committee, 1798, H.C., Sess. Papers, 1st ser., XH, 451–2Google Scholar; Binney, British public finance and administration, pp. 203–8.

83 To J. D. Thomson, 22 Dec. 1804, Laughton (ed.), Papers of Barham, in, 56. Cf. to a friend [May 1789], ibid. 11, 322–3.

84 See, for example, Bankes', Henry eulogy of Pitt for trying ‘to proportion the salaries to the services performed’, in the public service, delivered in support of Bankes's bill to abolish all sínecure offices, 29 03 1813, Parl Deb. XXV, 397–8Google Scholar; Breihan, , Proc. ofConsor. on Revolutionary Eur XI(1981)Google Scholar.

85 Reports of commission for revising and digesting the civil affairs of His Majesty's navy, , H.C., Sess. Papers, 1806, v, and 1809, viGoogle Scholar; 8th Report (not printed) interpaginated with admiralty orders in response, P.R.O., Adm. 7/406; Breihan, in Symonds (ed.), New aspects in naval history, pp. 175, 181.

86 46 Geo. III, cc. 82, 141; 47 Geo. III, sess. 1, c. 51; treasury minutes, 17 July, 12 Aug. 1806, P.R.O. T. 29/79/308–10, 432.

87 48 Geo. III, c. 56; 49 Geo. III, c. 116.

88 50 Geo. III, cc. 56, 117; Roseveare, , The treasury (1973), pp. 65–6Google Scholar. Perceval also expanded the audit board: Gray, Denis, Spencer Perceval (Manchester, 1963), chap. 17Google Scholar.

89 Cookson, J. E., Lord Liverpool's administration (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 125–8, 399Google Scholar; Breìhan, , Proc. of Consor. on Revolutionary Eur. XI (1981)Google Scholar.