282 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE, & c. board feeding their own horses, while they were doing work for Sir Charles, and his horses while they were making compensation. Our investigation into this head, led to the pro- duction of a document in evidence, by an officer of the name of Nevin, who is at the head of the horse department in both districts, which we think it right . to advert to. The document was an account made out by Nevin, to show the value of the work of Sir Charles Coote's horses, by allowing so much a day as hire, and deducting the expense of feeding, shoeing, & c. This account appeared, however, on a scrutiny, to be totally inconsistent with the evidence of Nevin, given on a former day; and we regret to state, that when asked for an explanation of such inconsistency, he could give none, and we cannot help thinking that there was a corrupt intention on his part to deceive us, with respect to the value of the return made by Sir Charles for the work of the board horses; we think it our duty to advert to this circumstance, for the purpose of bringing into con- sideration the conduct of an officer filling a place of so much trust as that held by Nevin. But supposing the fact to be established, and we are disposed to say, that it may on the whole, fairly be presumed, that Sir Charles made compensation to the public, in the way adverted to, for the use of the board horses and men; the practice is one so objectionable that we humbly conceive nothing of this sort ought to sanction its continuance. In proof of this, we have to state amongst other evil consequences, that itHieads at once to a gross violation of a very wholesome regulation of the board. It is the duty of the overseer of the stables, to make a daily return to the board of all the horses, stating the number at work, the particular work of each, and those that remained in the stables from sickness, or any other cause. Until about a year ago, one item in the return, specifying the work was " Sunday Works." Under this general head, the horses employed by Sir Charles Coote, were always returned, until the form was changed in pur- suance of an order of Major Taylor, directing the general item to be omitted, and the work to be specified. The form of return was changed in pursuance of that order; notwith- standing which, no return has ever been made of any horse employed by Sir Charles ; so that since that order, whenever Sir Charles has employed the horses, the overseer must have given a direct falsehood under his hand in the return, by specifying some public work, at which the horses employed by Sir Charles, were returned as engaged. Whether these false returns were made in pursuance of any particular directions, we are not satisfied; the evidence relating to this pointbeing such, as we do not think it right to rest such a charge upon; but it is obvious that they were a natural consequence of the system, and that Sir Charles, if he ever saw these returns at the board, must have known them to be false. However, Sir Charles states in further justification in respect to this charge, that he was fully sanctioned by a report made upon a former inquiry into this establishment, by which he states that a similar practice met with the sanction of those to whom that inquiry was committed; this report we have called for, but upon search made at the secretary's office in the Castle, it could uot be found, so that we cannot say how far he is supported in his assertion by it, and we have been left to form our own opinion on the subject, which we have submitted accordingly. The last subject that requires particular observation is, the oats delivered from the stores at Mespil factoiy to Sir Charles Coote for his private use, between August 1818 and No- vember 1821 ; the quantity amounts to 44 barrels ll stone, and though regular entries have been made of it in Finnerty's private books, and in the ledger kept in his office, yet it has not been brought into the above- mentioned accounts furnished by him to Sir Charles Coote, nor has he paid for any part of it, either in money or by a return in kind. The reason of the omission in the accounts furnished, has not been brought clearly before us on the evidence; but it appears, that five barrels had been furnished during the period of the first account, which had been balanced and settled, and no charge entered for the oats. Twelve barrels 10 stone, appear to have been furnished during the period of the second account, yet not brought into it; and 27 barrels 1 stone since the closing of that account. No reason has been assigned for the omissions, though the reason given by Sir Charles, for not paying the second account, was an overcharge against him. It appears, however, that in directing Finnerty to make out his account within the last two or three months, he directed him to charge the oats and every thing else. It thus appears, that Sir Charles has been a debtor to the establishment, since August 1818; and of this he has given no explanation whatever, except, that it was his intention to pay for every tiling he got; and that as accounts were kept, the public could not lose. However, taking all the circumstances of this part of the case into consideration, we do not think there was any corrupt intention on the part of Sir Charles Coote, to defraud the public, by converting the property to his own use without making compensation, although the neglect of payment was calculated to incur just suspicion; and strongly marks the evil tendency of the system pursued, and the necessity of putting an end to all interference on the part of the commissioners or their officers, with the public property for their own use. It is an abandonment of the trust with which they are clothed; and with- out the possibility of any public benefit arising from it, must in general, terminate ( let the precautions be what they may) in public loss and detriment. With respect to the other charges, one of them, viz. N° io, is merely an example of the first two; and none of them we think, have been established in evidence, nor do we be- lieve they are true; in fact, at the same time we do not mean to say, that they were frivolous and vexatious, or that the prosecutor's conduct, in preferring them with the others, was such as to deserve censure; on the contrary, we think he has done a great public benefit, and what will tend to prevent in future, a system highly to be disapproved of.