people in the tailors' shop late the night before?-No; it appeared the fire happened the morning after New-year's-day; the tailors, as they called it, knocked off the day before at three or four o'clock, to keep New-year's-day, to make holiday; then it was necessary to shew who were the people that was in this place, at the time of shutting up the shop; there was the master tailor himself, his clerk, and one or two indifferent people belonging to the Hospital, a kind of scouts, who came there to do any little office, were all there at the putting out of the fire; and the description of the manner of putting out that fire, is set forth in their information; it was the middle of the day, there was no necessity for a candle; there were no goods packing up, or to be sealed, and there was no cause for any light whatever; and they carried their observations of putting out the fire to such minuteness, that after they had raked the fire out, they threw water upon the cinders when they were upon the hearth, and pulled the circular fender out, to prevent any mischief happening; so that the care upon putting out the fire, seems to me to be exceedingly satisfactory.

How many people, in general, did it appear, worked in that place?-Upon an average, thirty. This man contracts only for labour; and, upon examination, I find they got very little out of every suit of clothes; they only contracted for the labour and the trimmings, so that the profits arising were very low; and I do suppose, that the tailors employed were of the lowest order.

Did it appear that they had gin there to drink?—It appeared, that the master tailor used to have a keg of gin in his cutting-room, and to serve it out to his men.

Did it appear they used to work there by candle-light-That I do not recollect; I suppose in winter time they did.

You said captain Allwright was examined upon oath? He seemed to me the earliest person there that could give any account, and he is a gentleman I happened to have a particular knowledge and acquaintance with; he is a very amiable worthy man; I do myself, I may be wrong in my judgment, but I do think, that upon the difference of opinion that arose between him and a very active fellow that was there, who was going to rip up the steps and pull down all before him, that he might see the seat of the fire; he was prevented from doing it by this idea, whether right or wrong I do not say; they said, if he took up the steps, it would give vent to the fire; now if they had taken up these six steps instantaneously, they must have seen where the seat of the fire was.

Who advised taking them up?-A spirited fellow, I think his name is Cox.

Did you ever hear what is the amount of the damage by the fire at Greenwich Hospital?-No.

You have mentioned captain Allwright;

VOL. XXI.

what character does he bear in general?-What I know of him is this, he is a gentleman that has been protected from his early youth by the duke of Bolton, and I have seen him hundreds and hundreds of times at Chatham with the duke's relations, and I always considered him as a very amiable, modest, worthy man; he did apply to me two or three years ago, together with lieutenant governor Baillie, in order to prosecute some men that had been guilty of some robberies in the Hospital; and captain Baillie and captain Allwright carried on their prosecutions with a great deal of spirit and propriety. I never saw captain Baillie but at that time in my life, but captain Allwright I have known many years; he is as amiable a man as I ever knew in my life.

And is captain Allwright likely to side with a man that is causing great disturbances in the Hospital?-He seems to me the contrary; he appears to be a man of a tranquil temper, a polite well-behaved man.

You could give credit to his opinion?-As soon as any man I know.

[Sir John Fielding withdrew.] Captain Chadds called în again. Viscount Dudley. Whether you know any thing of a dispute and a quarrel between two gentlemen of the Hospital; one a military man; the other, in the civil employ?—A. I do.

Who are they?-Lieutenant Smith and Mr. Mylne, the surveyor of the works.

Can you tell us any thing that passed upon that occasion?-One morning last summer, lieutenant Smith sent to me, and desired to speak with me; I accordingly went to him; he told me he had had some difference the night before with Mr. Mylne, and would be glad of my advice how to act upon it; as I was a military officer, and he was a military officer, I told him to relate his story to me, and I would give him my advice very cordially; he said last night we were at the club; the subject was captain Baillie's book, which was the cause of this disturbance; they had some altercations there upon it; I was not present: this is as lieutenant Smith told me; when the club broke up, they withdrew; Mr. Mylne was going to his apartments along with another gentleman.

Be so good as to confine what you say, to tell us what part you had in making up this dispute?-Mr. Mylne was going to his apartments; Mr. Smith followed him; Mr. Smith came up with him, close to his apartments; they had some altercations there; this is as lieutenant Smith said; words ensued, and then blows; which struck first I cannot say; Mr. Mylne, I believe, was more successful than lieutenant Smith, and knocked him down; I said, I think you are to blame, that is my opinion of the matter; for had you gone to your apartments, this thing would not have happened, for Mr. Mylne was gone to

2 H

his apartment, therefore you are the aggressor by following him; I thought a challenge would ensue; and as an officer of the house, I thought it would be a reflection upon gentlemen of that house to suffer two gentlemen to fight; I begged of lieutenant Smith to let me interfere in the matter; he said he thought he was ill used, but would abide by what I said; I interfered; I begged of the gentlemen to pitch upon two gentlemen, on each side, and we would hear the whole story; there were three military officers; I was one, and one civil: we settled the affair, made them friends, and they are so to this day for what I know; and therefore there was no complaint made by these gentlemen to captain Baillie; and what he has said, is from hearsay; it is a point of honour; we made them friends, and they are friends to this moment.

He did not repeat it to you as if it was any quarrel between the civil and military? None, in the least; I was not present; I understood it was disputing about captain Baillie's book, which threw every body into confusion in the Hospital when it came forth; I never knew of any quarrel in the Hospital till that book did come forth.

After you had made this matter up, you understood it was a thing to die?-Entirely; I never heard it mentioned from that time, till I heard it mentioned at your lordships' bar, that a military officer was knocked down; I thought it my duty to prevent their quarrelling.

Cross-Examination.

I shall beg to know whether it appeared from your examination that Mr. Mylne struck first, or Mr. Smith? Upon my word and honour, I believe neither of them knew who struck first; they had words, and blows ensued immediately; I never heard them say which; however, the affair was made up with honour to them both, as gentlemen, and they are friends to this moment; I gave lieutenant Smith my opinion; I thought he was wrong, and I believe he thought so himself; if he had gone to his apartments, there would have been no blows; they are both respectable gentlemen in their characters in the Hospital.

But it is material to know whether an architect or clerk of the works is to take upon himself to strike an officer?-If an officer will follow an architect, or a civil officer, I think that civil officer is to defend himself, as .I said; if that officer had gone to his apartments, this matter would not have happened. I asked you a plain question; which struck first? I don't know which struck first; but it appeared to me that lieutenant Smith was the aggressor, because he followed him to his apartments; they both were reconciled, and shook hands.

Whether you imagine that either of them wished the matter ever to be mentioned again? -Never did; for we were bound in secrecy; the gentlemen that made it up, we looked

upon it a point of honour; if we made them friends, that is enough; they both shook hands, and were contented.

[Captain Chadds withdrew.] John Morgan, esq. called in. Please to inform the House what you know respecting the prosecutions of the butchers for serving the Hospital with bull beef.-I trust your lordships will permit me, in the first instance, to give a full answer to the question; for this reason, that many great and gross reflections have been thrown out against the whole board of directors respecting their conduct in the prosecution of Mr. Mellish, the contracting butcher.

Be so good as merely to relate the facts relative to the prosecution of the butcher?-My lords, the opinion of the standing court of Greenwich Hospital was taken with respect to the mode of proceeding against Mellish; that opinion was laid before me as a counsel for the Hospital, and as a pleader for the purpose of drawing a declaration, or two declarations, against the contractor; the opinion of the standing counsel was, that the proceedings should be taken upon the board; there are two contracts; the one entered into in 1774, the other in 1775; one of the boards was made to Mr. Hicks*, and others; the second board was made to sir Charles Hardy, and others; in consequence of the boards being so made, the complaints could not be consolidated into one action, but must necessarily be divided into two; I drew one, if not both the declarations, and I think that was in Hilary term; the utmost expedition that I could use, was used upon that occasion; the declarations were both delivered in both suits, in Michaelmas, according to the information which I have received, and do not doubt to be true, for pleading was obtained by the defendant; that the original declaration stated merely the bonds, without taking notice of the conditions, being the usual mode of pleading, it was incumbent upon the defendant, when he gave an answer to the charge against him, first, to state the condition of the bond; I am speaking now in each action; the condition appeared to be for the performance of the covenants in articles; the defendant then stated those articles in each action; when I am speaking of one, I beg to be understood as speaking of both. When he stated the articles, he had no other answer to give, but that he had fully performed his covenants; the covenants related to providing the Hospital with the best fat ox beef, and I think the best wether mutton; but, in fact, the various kinds of meat to be provided by the contractor, were to be of every kind the best; one of the bonds was in the penalty of 300l. the other in the penalty of 500l. the pleadings of course, on the behalf of the defendant,

* A servant to the Hospital; the Sixpenny Receiver. Orig. Ed.

sary suits, we have daily instances of it in actions brought upon policies of insurance, in proceedings brought against officers of corporations, by Quo Warranto, where the determination of one cause will determine many, to postpone them all till the determination of that one cause, and rest the issue of all upon that one cause.

were long; when the defendant had delivered in his pleas, they were laid before me, with instructions to draw replications, and then it was essentially necessary to consider the true nature of the case, and what was best to be done for the Hospital. When I came to consider the true nature of the articles that were stated, I found what I conceived would be a vast advantage to the Hospital; for I discovered, that notwithstanding the complaints had been said to be made innumerable, yet at the same time that there was very little evidence; and I was perfectly convinced, that if in replying I assigned my breaches generally, and left it to the jury to ascertain the damage, that the jury would not have before them evidence sufficient upon each of the breaches, that I could assign to give 10s. damages; but in attentively considering the articles, I found there was a clause which I thought might be turned to apply to the case in question; that is this, that upon every breach, the defendant should forfeit 107. each breach; I thought my best way was to assign my breaches, and assign likewise upon my replication, that the defendant had forfeited 10. upon each breach; we had a consultation with Mr. Wallace; he was of opinion, that the action, upon the last contract, should be first tried, because there was much better evidence to support the action in that case than in the other, and therefore it would be most eligible for the Hospital to try only that one; the defendant obtained time, and a variety of delays unavoidably ensued, which the solicitor for the Hospital could not by any means avoid. At last, one of the causes came to be tried at Guildhall, by a special jury, before the noble lord that presides in the court of King's-bench. Upon that trial, evidence was given of ten breaches having been made; there was some slight evidence of an eleventh breach, but not sufficiently strong to go to a jury; the jury gave upon each breach 101. that made 100l. in that action; exclusive of the 100/. damages, the defendant paid costs, 108/. 10s.

After this the directors gave orders to proceed in the second action upon the first contract; many difficulties ensued in collecting evidence, by a variety of delays that it was impossible to avoid; that cause continued for some time before it came to a trial, it afterwards came on to be appointed in the vacation, which was so extremely short, that the cause stood postponed, and when my lord Mansfield was moved to appoint a day, there arose a circumstance concerning which something has been said that renders it necessary for me to explain the transaction, as far as is within my knowledge; I do not mean to pay a compliment to any noble lord in this House; but ever since that lord has presided in the court of King's-bench, it has been an invariable rule of conduct with him, to do every thing in his power to prevent the subject from being harrassed and oppressed with unneces

Please to answer the question as precisely as you can ?-I was going to assign a reason for the second action being compounded; Mr. Dunning, the counsel for the defendant (I need not pay him a compliment in saying, that his honour and humanity are equal to his abilities) upon its being moved to appoint a day for the trial of that cause, upon lord Mansfield asking, What the cause was? Mr. Dunning, with a great unaffected warmth, considered the prosecution of the second cause as a persecution, by way of resentment, and not done with a view to justice; a hint dropt from the bench, that as justice had already been done, and they had been severely punished, and as he had made an offer to pay a sum of money, and to pay all the costs, the ends of justice might be obtained; and, in fact, as I understood it, a hint that it was more advisable, for the sake of justice, to compromise the suit, than for any other reason; upon that account, when we came into court, as the directors, upon application to them, said, let the counsel for the Hospital do what shall be thought best, with the approbation of the court, the defendant's counsel undertaking to pay 100l. and all costs, that second suit was compromised; the costs in that suit came to 2091. the whole damages came to 603/ 10s. and, I suppose, the defendant's costs came to 3001. more; and I beg to say, that the causes were carried on to the best advantage for the Hospital, and with all the expedition that they could be done with.

Were the actions properly laid?—I conceive they were, and properly passed in every respect.

Were the proceedings carried on in a desultory manner?-I think not.

And you think the prosecution was effectual?-Not only effectual, but the best that could be had upon the occasion.

You have said the suits were carried on with all possible expedition ?-The causes were commenced in Trinity Term, 1775.

The whole time, how long might it be?The last cause was tried, I believe, in Trinity Term, 1777, that was two years; I have told your lordships, that one of the suits was suspended, by the advice of the counsel for the Hospital.

When that last suit was prosecuted, there were five witnesses in court to prove the fifty penalties, I believe?-The defendant, as I stated before, gave 1007, which amounted to ten penalties; and, in my own private judgment, had we gone on and tried the cause, we should not have recovered fifteen.

What was the reason for that ?—I assigned fifty breaches; but the witnesses that were to give an account of the transaction, and to give strict and legal evidence before a jury, had not been particular in the accounts they had taken, and could not speak to many of the days, when they might have been delivered, with precision; they could not specify particular days, except to very few of the breaches.

That article for the forfeiture of 101. for each breach of the contract, which you think was not intended to apply to that particular case, but that you ingeniously turned it to that; what was that inserted for, do you think?-I conceive the article was intended as a general one; but it did not strike me, that the words applied to this particular kind of breach; because, in that article, there is a provision, that the Hospital disliking any of the meat may return it, and go to market and supply the Hospital with other provisions in lieu, and the contractor is to make a deduction out of his account for it; and it did not appear to me, that the case in question immediately applied to this particular kind of breach of contract; I should rather conceive that that was intended where the contractor, in times of scarcity, and finding meat at a much higher price than he had contracted to supply it for, might hang back and not perform his contract, that I considered the penalty was intended against him more in that respect than any other.

You apprehend, that the 107. penalty was for each failure of his contract?-And so it was applied, upon this occasion, and the jury gave us a verdict.

But you did not think justly?-I had my doubts about that, but thought it might be applied to the point, and it answered my purpose.

Upon the second trial, in Guildhall, I think you said, that the chief justice, lord Mansfield, before whom it was tried, said, this was a persecution, and not a prosecution?—I neither did say, nor could mean to say, that the noble lord said that; but that Mr. Dunning, of whose honour and humanity I spoke, took up the matter with an unaffected warmth, and he considered it as a persecution.

Do you take upon you to say, that lord Mansfield said, from the bench, that it would be more for the end of justice to compromise it? No, as I understood it, that the ends of justice had been sufficiently answered already.

Did you mean to say, that it was dropped from the bench or not, that the ends of justice would be as fully obtained?-Not expressly said in terms; but I understood the hint that dropped from lord Mansfield, that all the cir cumstances of the case considered, it might as well be compromised as tried; that the ends of justice might be as well obtained, was what myself subjoined. [Here Mr. Gurney was called upon to read his short-hand notes, by

which it appeared, that Mr. Morgan had, in the former part of his evidence, made lord Mansfield say, that it would be a persecution, and not a prosecution; but as Mr. Morgan said, he had through mistake mis-stated that fact, he was permitted to re-state it, and it now stands upon the Minutes as the witness said he meant to express himself.] A very, little from my lord Mansfield, to those who know him in his judicial capacity, conveys to his hearers a great deal; my lord Mansfield said but little; and the representation made by the solicitor to the directors did, in my opinion, convey very properly the idea that he entertained of what had passed; and that was this, that my lord (I think the expression is) seemed to hint, that under all the circumstances of the case, might as well be compromised as tried; I think that was the representation that was made by the solicitor; that was what I considered my lord Mansfield had said; but very little, but in the very little he did say, I understood a great deal; and I have not been attempting to state to this House, a long conversation of lord Mansfield, when I do not know that he dropped half a dozen words upon the subject; therefore I have been misunderstood; when I have been giving my own construction, your lordship has thought I was giving lord Mansfield's words.

Were you in court yourself, or did you take it from the solicitor, what lord Mansfield said upon that subject?-I was in court.

What was the result of what lord Mansfield said upon that occasion?-A hint from lord Mansfield, that under all the circumstances of the case, the second cause might as well be compromised; upon the cause coming on to be tried, something like a question dropped from lord Mansfield, if that cause was not mentioned, something like it; upon which Mr. Wallace, in answer said, that the directors thought, if they compromised it of themselves, without the approbation of the court and council, that it would look like extortion; upon which lord Mansfield said, "No, nothing of that kind." The council of the Hospital thought it advisable to compromise; I was of that opinion, that the man had been sufficiently, and it was my own opinion, more than sufficiently punished; it can have cost him, in the whole, little less than 9007.

Is that the whole of hints, that you understood from lord Mansfield, given in so few words, which you understood so largely?— That is the substance.

I think you have said, that it was your opinion also, as counsel for the directors, that the butcher who had been convicted of one wicked act before, should not be convicted again, because it would be persecution?--I am afraid my opinion is not properly understood; I think it is tantamount to conviction, when a man agrees to pay 100l. and costs, which amounted to near 300/. that that opinion was not ill-founded; and that it was not the duty of the directors, in a case of this

How long have you been in the Hospital? -Between 13 and 14 years. Who appointed you?-I was appointed in lord Egmont's time.

Do you conceive the infirmary to be a good establishment?-The infirmary is, of itself, one of the best hospitals in this country. How many pensioners will it hold?-Between 240 and 250.

Will it, upon an average, hold all the sick of the Hospital?-It always has done it; and we have had room enough to shift the people. Is it designed to hold both the helpless and sick, or sick alone?--It will hold only the sick alone.

Do you attend the examination of people who are candidates to be admitted into the Hospital?-It is my duty to be present at the Admiralty on every examination of invalids.

Who attends?-Lord Sandwich, since he has presided at the board; he has always attended and examined the invalids, when he has been in town.

How are they admitted?-They bring certificates of their servitude, and they are admitted by the length of their services, and by infirmity. Those that have had long service, lord Sandwich generally puts upon short lists; and those that have accidents, they are put upon a short list; those of less merit and service are deferred.

Did you ever find the butter bad?-No. I have very seldom had any complaints about provisions: there has been complaints, I know, at one time, about some butter; but I don't know whether it was in the infirmary or in the Hospital.

Did you never send a quantity of bad butter to lieutenant Smith, or captain Chadds, for their inspection, which your patients could not eat?-I have forgot that circumstance; it is very possible I might; but it is a long time ago.

Was the same sort of beef supplied to the men in the infirmary that was furnished to the pensioners in the Hospital?-I believe the same sort; I never heard any complaint of the beef in my life.

Did you ever complain to the directors of the defective state of your house in the infirmary? We wrote a letter to have our house refitted; we have been eleven years in our houses, and there has been nothing done to them in that time; that was a general letter wrote to desire that they might be repaired, and the wainscot might be put to rights, and the painting refreshed and whitewashed.

Was there nothing done to them but painting and white-washing?-They are repairing them at this time; repairing the wainscot, painting and white-washing it, and laying some of the floors.

Did you complain of captain Baillie's printed Case?-I signed the complaints against captain Baillie.

Did you complain, at first, with the other officers, or afterwards?-When the book came out, and I found reflections thrown out against the physical people, as well as other classes, I then signed both the first and the last.

Could the admission of pensioners be better regulated than it is ?--I think not; there has not been a landman got into that Hospital ever since I have attended, but those who have served at sea.*

Cross-Examination.

If you recollect making any representation concerning any bad veal for the sick?—I remember some very bad veal one morning being brought into the infirmary; I saw it, and recommended the cooks to carry it to the proper officers; it was very indifferent, but it was not putrid; it was fresh.

Was the colour good?-It was in all respects bad veal.

* It is presumed he does not speak of officers or petty officers, which is of infinitely more consequebee. Orig. Ed.

Do you think it possible that bull beef could be received for ten months, instead of good fat ox beef, if the clerk of the cheque and the steward's clerk had done their duty? -I think it impossible they could be served with bull beef in that time.

Do you imagine they were not served with bull beef during that time?--Yes; I imagine they were not.

Did you attend the trials?-No, I never did. Did you not hear it had been made appear there, upon oath, that they were served for ten months with hull beef?-I cannot think it possible that they could, because I never heard any complaints among the people; and I think I should, if it had been so.

[Doctor Taylor withdrew.]

John Baptist Cipriani called in. The Earl of Chesterfield. Do you know