sure Mr. Beckford must have been against it, because he knows, and could have shewn your Lordship in writing, the utter falsehood of what is there insinuated.

"I have not the honour to know your Lordship, so I cannot tell what you may have heard to induce you to carry to our Sovereign a complaint of so atrocious a nature.

"Your Lordship, by your speech made to the King at delivering the petition, has adopted the contents of it; and I do not know of whom to enquire but of your Lordship concerning this injury done to an innocent man, who am by this means (if I am the person meant) hung out as an object of public hatred and resentment.

"You have too much honour and justice not to tell me whether I am the person meant, and if I am, the grounds upon which I am thus charged, that I may vindicate myself, which truth will enable me to do to the conviction of the bitterest enemy; and therefore I may boldly say, to your Lordship's entire satisfaction, whom I certainly have never offended, "I am, with the greatest respect,

"The Lord Mayor presents his compliments to Lord Holland, and in answer to the honour of his Lordship's letter delivered to him by Mr. Selwyn, he begs leave to say that he had no concern in drawing up the petition from the Livery of London to his Majesty; that he looks on himself only as the the carrier, together with other gentlemen charged by the Livery with the delivery of it; that he does not, nor ever did, hold himself accountable for the contents of it, and is a stranger to the nature of the supposed charge against his Lordship. "Mansion House, July 10, 1769."

Mr.

Mr. Beckford, seeing his name implicated in this correspondence, wrote from the country the following letter to a friend, who was a Liveryman of the city :

"Dear Sir,

Fonthill, July 15, 1769.

"I am as much surprised as you seem to be, at seeing my name, and papers in my possession, appealed to by a noble Lord.-You and my friends in the city think it incumbent on me to vindicate (as they are pleased to express themselves) my honour and character, which is called in question. The only proper satisfaction in my power to give you and my other friends, is to relate plain matters of fact, to the best of my recollection.

"In the last session of Parliament, on a question of revenue (as far as my memory serves) I did declare to the House that the public revenue had been squandered away, and that the money of the nation had not been regularly audited and accounted for.

"That in the department of the pay-office I had been informed there were upwards of forty millions not properly accounted for; that the officers of the King's Exchequer were bound in duty to see justice done to the public; that process had issued out of the Court of Exchequer, and that all proceedings for a certain time had been suspended by the King's sign manual. I then did declare, that it was an high offence for any minister to advise the King to stop the course of public justice, without assigning a very good reason for such his advice.-I desired the chancellor of the exchequer, and the lords of the treasury, who sat opposite to me, to set me right if my information was *not well-founded; but not a single word was uttered in answer by any of the gentlemen in administration.

"After some days had elapsed, I met my friend Mr. Wood'house in Westminster Hall, he told me I had been misinformed as to what I had mentioned in the House of Commons, and that if I would give him leave, he would send me a paper from a noble Lord, which would convince me of my mistake. The

paper alluded to is in London, I therefore cannot speak of the contents with accuracy and precision; but this I recollect, that the perusal of the paper did not convince me that all I had heard was false. It was a private paper, and I do not recollect having shewn it to more than a single person. I have no doubt Mr. Woodhouse has a copy of the paper by him, and I hope he will submit the contents to the judgment of the public, in vindication of an INNOCENT man.

"I am, dear Sir,

"Your ever faithful and affectionate humble servant,

"WILLIAM BECKFORD."

It was in consequence of this letter that Lord Holland was induced to publish the account above referred to by JUNIUS, and again by Mr. Beckford. Long as it is, it ought not to be omitted in this place.

FOR THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

Letter to H. S. Woodfall.

MR. WOODFALL,

Kingsgate, July 20, 1769, "Lord Holland seeing in your paper a letter from Mr. Beckford to a Liveryman, of July 15, 1769, and MrWoodhouse being at Spa, in Germany, sends you an authentic copy of the paper which he sent by Mr. Woodhouse to Mr. Beckford. He hopes the perusal of it will convince the reader that all is false that can impute any crime to Lord Holland.

"The reader will see that some of Lord Holland's accounts were then before the auditor; and there are two years' accounts since lodged there.

"He will see that Lord Holland's accounts (voluminous and difficult beyond example) have not been kept back from inclination, but necessity; and not longer than those of his prede

cessors.

"He will see (and is desired to observe particularly) that savings, so far from remaining all in Lord Holland's hands, had been given in and voted in aid of the public service, to the amount of £910,541. And £43,533. 19s. 7d. (upon some

regimental and other accounts being adjusted this last winter) have been since paid and voted.

"He will read in it, that Lord Holland desired to be shewn how he could proceed faster than he did. If nobody has shewn or can show how that might have been, or may be done, does And had he not a

he deserve either punishment or censure? right to think himself sure that Mr. Beckford must have been against the article in the petition relating to him, because Mr. Beckford knew, and could have shewn the Lord Mayor in writing, the utter falsehood of what is there insinuated.

"Lord Holland prints the memorial examined by the Treasury, and the sign manual it obtained; stopping process (not accounts) for six months, which neither did nor could suspend or delay the pay-master's accounts an hour.

HOLLAND."

OBSERVATIONS ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PAY-MASTER GENERAL

Why were Lord Holland's accounts, as pay-master general, for the years 1757, 1758, and 1759, not delivered to the auditors before the year 1768?

ANSWER.

The pay-master general's officers being best acquainted with army accounts, are employed in making up the account of the preceding pay-masters. The accounts of the earls of Chatham, Darlington, and Kinnoul, and Mr. Potter, were made up by them, and regularly, and in due course delivered to the auditors.

Great as the army and its expenses were during the last war, beyond all former example, dispersed in all quarters of the world, and difficult as it must have been to keep the accounts in any tolerable order, it will be found, upon examination, that the accounts of Lord Holland, as pay-master general, are not further back than those of his predecessors, and that his Lordship's accounts are not kept back, as has been suggested, from inclination, but necessity.

The

The late Mr. Winnington's accounts, for two years and a half, from December, 1743, to 24th of June, 1746, were declared the, 15th of May, 1760. The earl of Chatham's accounts for nine years and a half, from the 25th June, 1746, to the 24th of December, 1755, are not yet declared.

The earls of Darlington and Kinnoul for the year 1756, and the earl of Kinnoul's and Mr. Potter's for six months, to the 24th of June, 1757, are now before the auditors.

the

The accounts of Lord Holland for the years 1757, 1758, and 1759; likewise the accounts of his deputies, attending army in Germany, from the commencement to the end of the late war, are also before the auditors for their examination, and bis Lordship's account for the year 1760, is almost ready to be delivered to them.

From the nature and extension of army accounts, it is most evident to those that are best acquainted with them, that it is tedious and difficult to bring even regimental accounts to a final adjustment; other parts of the accounts are more so. Lord Holland, in the course of the years 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, and 1764, has paid to regiments and independent companies £320,391 9s. 11d. whose accounts are at this time unadjusted, for want of proper authorities, and till those authorities are obtained, the auditor will not allow one shilling of said sum in his Lordship's accounts. To obtain those authorities, his Lordship has often repeated his solicitations.

What is the balance of cash in Lord Holland's hands?

ANSWER.

The meaning of this question can be no other than, what savings are in Lord Holland's hands? Or, in other words, how much has the expense in any case fallen short of the sum voted?

As to the savings :-so far as the pay-office has been enabled to state the army accounts, they have been given into parliament. From services that have fallen short of the sums voted, and from monies paid in by army accomptants, Lord Holland di

rected