I I Appendix ( B) N° 3- Appendix ( A) N° 8. Appendix ( B) N* 4. Appendix ( A) N° 2, Appendix ( B) N° 5, Appendi.\( A) N° i3. Appendix( A) N° i4, Appendix ( A) N° 16— 17. Ibid N* 15. civ ( Ireland.) S U P P L E M E N T to the Ninth Report of the [ Poft- Office.] tity purchafed would have been known, and might be confidered ( unlefs fraud intervened) as the circulation of the Itoad within the period of fuch payments. We do not, however, confider that the mode ufed by the Clerks was adopted from any improper motive, as it might have tended as well to the redu& ion, as to the increafe of their claim for compenfation; but as their calculation for the three years had been the refult of fuch a computation, it would feem that upon that account they adhered to it in fubfequent years. Returns made up in this form were fubmitted, on the 5th of January 1803, to Sir John Lees, who was then doing the duty of Secretary, and being approved of by him, and allowed as correct, he ordered that compenfation thould be paid equal to the deficiency of each Road as dated therein ; and in all the other years fimilar Accounts were returned by the Cleiks, and were accepted of and a6ted upon by the Managers of the Poft Office, without any objection having been made to them. Upon the credit of thefe feveral Accounts the Clerks received, in the feven years ending 5th January 1809, for the deficient produce of their Roads, £. 3,539. o. 2.; of this fum the Clerk of the Leinfter Road contributed, as on account of its excefs, in three of the above years, 314. 10. 8. leaving a fum of <£'. 3,224. 9. 6. which was paid out of the Revenue. In the laft vear of this period, the demand for Newspapers had fo increafed, that the whole of the claims of thefe Officers on the Public amounted only to about £,. 25. This reduction of the charge 011 the Revenue, juftifies Government in having confidered that tlie diminiihed circulation of Newspapers in the year 1801, was likely to be but temporary, and alfo in its fele6tion of the mode propofed for making the Clerks compenfation ; for if their application for a fixed annual fum had been acceded to, the Public would in thefe feven years have paid 5,160. 15. exceeding the fum adually paid out of the Revenue by ,£. 1,936. 5. 6. and notwithftanding the demand for Newspapers fliould have even exceeded what it was when compenfation was granted, the charge on the Public would have continued the fame, unlefs reduced by the death or difmiifal of the parties. However, in the month of Auguft 1809, in a conversation between the Secretary of the Poft Ollice Mr. Edward Lees, and the fuccellbr to the Clerk of the Connaught Road, who had died in that, year, relative to the value of that Road, a suspicion was excited, that the Clerks had been guilty of suppressing their profits to a very large amount, and that the fums paid to them out of the Revenue had been fraudulently obtained ; this led to the inveftigation that after- wards took place, the result of which was the acquittal of the Clerk of the Leinfter Road, and the removal of the Clerks of the North and Munfter Roads. Mr. William Armit, who was the Agent of the Clerk of the Leinster Road, and was likewise Principal of the " Penny Post, was 110 longer permitted to manage the Road, and was alfo required to refign his employment in the Post Office, but he does not appear to have forfeited on that account the good opinion of his Prin- cipal, who continued him Agent of his private affairs. Mr. Lees proceeded in this inveftigation until his fufpicions being confirmed, he communicated the refult to the Poftinafier General, by whom he was directed to make known to the perfons accufed the extent of the charge againft them, and to require from them a Statement of any defence they might be able to make thereto. Accordingly a letter was written to the acting Clerk of the Leinfter Road, to the Clerks of the North and Munfter Roads, and to the Reprefentativeof the Clerk of the Connaught Road, informing them refpe& ively, that it appeared to the Poftmafter General, that the annual produce of the Roads had been confiderablv under- rated in the Returns, with a view to receiving compenfation unjuftifiably from the Revenue; and that ij; had been found that large fums had confequently been improperly obtained by each of the Clerks on account thereof. We have been furnilhed with the an Avers of the Clerks of the Munfter and North Roads, and of the Reprefentative of the Clerk of the Connaught Road; the latter, disclaiming any connexion with and all knowledge of the tranfa& ions alluded to, is not material. In the former it is afierted that the Clerks, reiving upon the correftnefs of the Returns of 1802, had conceived themfelves bound, in making the fucceeding Returns, to adhere to the mode then adopted, which they ftate they have con- ftantly done. No written anfwe'r appears from the afting Clerk of the Leinfter Road to Mr. Lees's communication, but as he in common with the Clerks of the other Roads continued to ufe that form of Return in the fucceeding years, it becomes