VOL. VII. No. 25.].

[PRICE 1057

cessity

3291

MR. PITT'S CASE.
(Continued from p. 890 and 897.)

Before we enter on the continuation of this discussion, it will be proper to take notice of what took place, relative to the subject, in the House of Commons, on Friday last, the 14th instant, which, it will be recollected, was after the writing of the remarks in page, 897, &c. above referred to. -Mr. Whitbread, at the close of a speech of considerable length, moved four RESOLUTIONS, as follows: 1. That in Septem "ber, 1796, Messrs. Boyd, Benfield, and "Co. being then contractors for two loans "in the progress of payment, did represent. "to the Right Honourable William Pitt and the Right Honourable Lord Viscount

Melville their inability to make good an "instalment, falling due on the 9th day of September, 1796, on account of the ge"neral embarrassinents at that time, affecting both public and private credit, and the particular line of conduct adopted at the "Bank, of limiting their accommodations "in the way of discount.-2. That the

66

Right Honourable William Pitt being impressed, as stated by him, with the belief "of the importance and urgent necessity, "with a view to essential public interests, "of granting relief to the said Messrs. Boyd,

Benfield, and Co. for the purposes of making good the said instalment, and no "other means suggesting themselves by "which much public mischief might be prevented, and having understood from "the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Melville, the Treasurer of the Navy, that "the sum of 40,0001., which, together

with other sums, had been issued from "the Exchequer, and placed to the credit "of the said Lord Viscount Melville, at the "Bank of England, as Treasurer of the

Navy, for navy services, might be spared "without inconvenience, provided unquestionable securities were obtained for the repayment of the same within a short pe"riod, did consent to the advance of the sum of 40,0001., which had been issued "for navy services as aforesaid to the said “House of Boyd, Benfield, and Co.

3.

"That it appears to this House, that sui"cient securities were produced for the repayment of the said sum of 40,0001; that it was afterwards repaid by instal"ments, the last of which was received in January, 1798; and that no interest was paid thereon by the said Messrs. Boyd, Benfield, and Co.-4. That no memo"randum or entry of any kind of the said

66

transaction appears to have been pre"served, and that no act of indemnity for "the persons concerned in such transaction "has been obtained."Upon these resolutions being severally proposed, the previous question was put, and carried without a division that is to say, upon Mr. Whitbread's moving the first resolution, a member on the minister's side rose and called upon the House to decide, net whether the resolution should be adopted or rejected, but whether it should then be put as a question to the House. This, which is called the " pre

vious question," is the mode resorted to in order to avoid the express acknowledg ment of any thing which cannot be denied, or, at least, in the denial of which it is supposed a majority will not concur. Thus were these resolutions, though a mere statement of facts, and though expressed with astonishing mildness, got rid of; and, in their stead, the following resolution was adopted. That the measure of advancing 40,0001. to Messis. Boyd and Co. upen unquestionable securities, which "have been regularly discharged, was adopted for the purpose of averting con sequences which might have proved highly injurious to the financial and commer"cial interests of the country, and, although not conformable to law, appear"ed, at the time, to be called for by the "peculiar exigencies of public affairs." Whereupon it was ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill to indemnify all persons concerned in advancing 40,000 1. to Messrs. Boyd, Benfield, and Company, "in 1796, out of monies issued for naval "services; and that Mr. Henry Lascelles, "Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor Ge "neral, Mr. Whitbread, ir. Fox, and Lord "Viscount Castlereagh, do prepare, and

bring in, the same."— -It was a saying of Lord Northington, that a man had "bet"ter be damned than indemnified;" and, as his Lordship, doubtless, meant politically, there can, I think, be little objection to the sentiment. Nevertheless, I am far from thinking that enough has been done in this case. The mere humiliation of Mr. Pitt is no satisfaction to me.. I confidently expected to see the House of Commons place upon record some signal mark of its disapprobation of so flagrant a breach of the law, especially in a case where the public money had becn lent without interest, and that, too, to some of its own members. I confidently expected this; but, though my expectation has been disappointed; though the result of the discussion of Friday, which has produced general surprise, has been, with me, a subject of deep regret; though I confess myself severely mortified at what has taken place, I am by no means disposed to slacken my exertions. It is not when the game is abundant and easily obtained that chearfulness and activity are valuable in the pursuer. It is the last brake that hides the hare, and she needs entertain but little fear of the enemy whom disappointment renders ill-tempered, or sluggish. So, amongst politicians, it is not the yelper, whose head is constantly in air, waiting for a view or a full cry, that a corrupt minister, or system, has to dread: it is he who has fixed on his object, who goes on steadily in pursuit of it, who has chosen it as the labour of his life, and who, as far as that object is concerned, knows not the feeling of weariness, and is exempted from the influence of despair and of disgust.

In returning to the case of Mr. Pitt, the point which we have next to consider, is, whether, as is pretended, the loan to Boyd and Benfield prevented, or was intended to prevent, a great public mischief."-And, first, let it be observed here, and let it be kept constantly in view, that this affair has come to light, not by way of acknowledgement, but by way of detection. Mr. Trotter, instructed, no doubt, by his principal, first made discovery in his evidence of the 14th of June, 1804. (See Parl. Debates, Vol. III. p. 1196.) Lord Melville confirmed Trotter's statement in his letter to the Commissioners, dated at Wimbledon, 30th June, 1804. The motive, by which these gentlemen were actuated in the making of this discovery, and in thus involving Mr. Pitt in the " gross violation of the law," is not worth inquiry; but, I think, it will be readily believed, that, had Lord Melville and his paymaster said nothing about Mr. Long and a considerable sum of naval mo

ney paid back by him, we should have head not a single word upon the subject; and, Lord Melville's friends may think, perhaps, that we never should have seen such great exertions made in his behalf by Mr. Pitt and his adherents.- -But, whatever may have been the motive of Lord Melville in making the discovery, and of Mr. Pitt in defending his Lordship after the discovery was made, there appears no good and honourable motive for the transaction's having been so long kept a secret. The "accommodation" to Boyd and Co. some people persist in calling by a very ugly name; but, if it was an accommodation, intended to prevent "a great "public mischief," as Messrs. Pitt and Long aver; if it did, too, really prevent a great public mischief, as they insist it did, why keep the accommodation so profound a se

cret? Were there in the Cabinet no bosoms as worthy of confidence as those of Lord Melville, Mr. Long, and Mr. Trotter? Three men highly worthy of Mr. Pitt's confidence, I allow; but, how came they to be more worthy than the members of the King's cabinet? It has been observed before, and it can never be too often repeated, that, after there was, upon public grounds, no longer the slightest pretext for secrecy, the secret was closely kept. Public credit was restored, or, rather, it was set at defiance; gold disappeared; paper became, in fact, a legal tender; a new æra commenced as to the currency and credit of the country. Why was not the transaction made known then? The house of Boyd and Co. failed. They could be no longer affected by the discovery Why was it not made known then? Must we not conclude; are we not compelled to conclude, that, by the parties concerned, it was regarded as a transaction that would not bear the light?But, "in point of fact" (to borrow the favourite phrase of the "Se"lac Commattée") was this accommodation necessary to prevent a great public mischief? The Committee, who, it will be remembered, was, in part, composed of Lord Castlereagh, Sir William Scott, Lord Dunlo, Mr. Foster, Mr. Leycester, and the Master of the Rolls, say that it was necessary; but, to me, judging from the evidence that has been published, it clearly appears, that the “ ac

commodation" was not at all necessary to any purpose of public good. The Committee, after describing the nature and extent of Boyd's concerns with the public, or rather the minister; after stating the embarrassed state of commercial credit at the time the accommodation was given; after tracing the transaction down to the time when the lostjobbers received the public money in ex

change for their pawns; after this the Committee say: "under these circumstances, at "some time before the 9th of September, "1796, Mr. Boyd appears to have repre"sented to Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, the great pecuniary difficulty and embarrass"ment of his house; that the Bank had re"fused to discount their bills, and that, "with ample securities in their hands, they were not enabled to raise money to pay the "next instalment on the loan, which was nearly due, and requested immediate pecuniary assistance for the purpose of completing their engagements to government.

-It appears to your Committee, that "in addition to these engagements to go"vernment, Messrs. Boyd and Company "had large payments to make on account "of the Emperor of Germany; that they

paid, on the 31st of October, 1796, a sum “of £186,340. 13s. 1. of account of the "Director of the Emperor's finances at Vienna; and that, in the whole of the same year, they remitted, on the same ac*count, sums amounting to 14,609,506. 9. "It appears also in evidence, that it would "have been difficult, and perhaps IMPOSSIBLE, for Messrs. Boyd and Company "to have procured advances upon the secu "rities in their possession (which we shall hereafter mention) or to have converted "them into cash; that a payment of 15 "( per cent. on the loan of 18,000,0001. was "due on the 9th of September; and that, "had they brought to market such a pro

serve to illustrate my meaning, when, in resuming my Letters to Mr. Pitt on the causes of our national decline, I shall enter fully into the effects of the paper-money system. At present we must confine ourselves to an observation or two upon the judgment given by the committee, in the above quoted passage. I have read the evidence, the whole of the evidence, with great attention, and, if the reader has done the same, I appeal to him, whether it does "appear" that Boyd and Benfield, "with ample securities in their hands, were not able to raise money to pay "the next instalment on the loan." I ap

66

peal to him whether it does "appear in evidence, that it would have been difficult, "and, perhaps, IMPOSSIBLE, for Messrs. Boyd and Company to have procured ad

vances upon the securities in their posses"sion." Mr. Goldsinid, whose biographers tell us that he was once visited by the King, during the. Pitt ministry; that " respecta"ble" Jew did, indeed, tell the Committee, that the times were such that there was no depending upon any thing very large in the way of discount. But we must do the Jew the justice to observe, that he does not appear to have seen the securities, or to have known of what sort they were; and, if the Israelite had known, that almost threefourths of the securities consisted of bills on the Treasury and Victualling Office, with only from six weeks to two months to run, is it not likely that he would have declared, that, amongst his own tribe, discounts to a hundred times the amount might have been instantly obtained? Mr. Newland, the Cash

86

46

crease the discount on scrip, which at that time amounted on the loan of April, from 13 to 15 per cent. to affect injuriously the "credit of Boyd's house, especially if it had "transpired that their necessities compelled "them to make such disadvantageous sales, "and must thereby have had a general ten"dency to augment the embarrassment of public credit. It has also been stated in " evidence to your committee, that if a "failure in the loans then in progress of payment, had been occasioned, either in "the whole or in part, by the circumstan

ces above stated, the deficiency could not "have been supplied by a fresh loan (had) "it been necessary to resort to such a measure) except upon terins of very consider"able loss and disadvantage to tlie public."

86

All this juggling work between ministers of state and Jews and jobbers; this prostration of law; these means of low grovelling influence, will be noticed, and will

a

of the securities was shown, tells the Committee, that he thinks them such as the bank would have discounted. Mr, Drummond, partner in the house of Boyd and Co. has no doubt (see his evidence in the preceding sheet) that the securities might have been discounted, and that the scrip might have been sold. Some of both might have been sold he says.

In his evidence on a subsequent day, he does, indeed, qualify what he before said; but, this qualification, instead of wealening, strengthens what was before stated; for, after having taken time to reflect on all the.difficulties of the times referred to, he positively says, "it was, nevertheless, al

ways possible to sell funded property, scrip, "&c. at a greater or less discount." He adds, however, that the best mercantile securities, bills of exchange of undoubted credit and solidity, and even the acceptances "of government and the East-India Con,

pany, when at LONG DATES, became, "in a great measure unavailable, that is to

say, that they could not be discounted at LEGAL interest." Now observe, all the pawns, lodged, or said to be lodged, by Boyd in the hands of Mr. Pitt and his accomplice, consisted of government or EastIndia securities. If, therefore, they had all been at long dates," the only harin that would have arisen to Boyd, if Mr. Pitt had refused him the loan, would have been, the payment of something more than legal interest; but, as it has already been stated, the securities were not at long dates," the "accommodation" having taken place on, the 9th of September, and of the bills about 11,000l. out of the 40,0001. being payable at the Treasury or at the Victualling Office on the 29th October, the 11th and the 20th of November, next following, which, as was said before, left them only from six weeks to two months to run. Sure am I, therefore, that I may safely appeal to the reader whether it does appear in evidence that it would have been difficult, and, "perhaps, IMPOSSIBLE, for Messts. Boyd and Company to have procured ad"vances upon the securities in their posses"sion;" and, I think, I may venture to encourage him to look confidently forward to the day, when this appeal will appear not to have been made in vain.--Should it, however, after all that has been said, be allowed, that the alleged necessity did exist, how does Mr. Pitt appear in his character of financier ? In his character of" first financier in the world," as his servile and now ridiculous flatterers call him, and in which character both himself and his adherents seem to have quite forgotten to provide an excuse for him? We may allow, that the "accommodation" to Boyd and Benfield was necessary; we may allow, that, such was the state of public credit, that money was not to be obtained upon government securities having six weeks or two months to run; we may allow, that the public credit was within 40,cool. of annihilation, and that so pressing was the exigency, that there was not, as is alléged, time either to inquire into the state of Boyd's affairs or to consult the cabinet; we may allow, that things were actually arrived at that point, when it became a question with the minister, whether he should break through all the laws inade as a check upon his conduct, whether he should withdraw money destined by act of parliament to the service of the navy and lend it, without interest, to members of that very house of parliament where the law had originated, and that, too, at a time that naval big change were daily dishonour money wherewith to

discharge them; when, in short, it became a question with him, whether he should suffer public credit to be destroyed, or destroy in effect, the constitution: it is possible to find men ready to allow all this, but, I think, that even such men would begin to doubt of the justice of the pretensions of the minister, under whose sway so lamentsble and disgraceful a state of things had arisen, and who began his career with this modest prognostication. How happy am "I in having to perform a task so different "from any of my predecessors! Instead "of expending the money of the people, "I shall have the great good fortune to di"minish their burdens; and, I am uncom"monly happy in flattering myself, that "my name will be inscribed on that firm "column, now about to be raised to public "credit, national faith, and national pros

perity."* Much did he say, on the same occasion, against the abuses in the expenditure of the public money; against fraudu lent contracts, and dirty jobs; and, I dare say, those who sat lifting up their eyes in ecstasy at his wonderous wisdom and more wonderous purity, would not have hesitated a moment to condemn, as a seditious libeller, any one who should have ventured to predict, that this same minister would, in the space of ten years, reduce public credit to such a state that, in order to prevent a public embarraSSment of a most serious and alarming nature," in order to prevent the danger of disabling the government from making another loan,t he would be compelled to resort to a gross violation of the law, and even to the lending of the public money, without interest, to members of parliament. Aye, would they! They would have condemned such a man as a seditious libeller; and, very likely, would have sentenced his work to be burnt by the hands of the hangman! But, if we should be willing to sacrifice the character of the financier in order to preserve that of the purist, we shall find our endeavours unavail ing for, by a reference to the Parliamentary proceedings of the day, it will appear, from Mr. Pitt's own declarations, repeatedly made, that, either he intentionally misled the House of Commons, or, be regarded public credit as being in no danger whatever, at the very time, when, according to his present representation, it was in a state the most alarming that can well be conceived.

* On proposing the establishment of that grand source of popular delusion, commonly called the Sinking fund, on the 29th of March, 1786. - His own words. Sea

p. 965. Ibid

་་

66

The reader will remember, that it was nearly the middle of September, 1796, when, in order to prevent, according to Mr. Long, a great public mischief," the " accommodation" was given to Boyd and Benfield. Mr. Pitt has, in his evidence before the Committee, described the state of public credit to be such, that, had he not lent 40,000 1. of the public money to Boyd and Benfield," the embarrassment that it would "have occasioned to the public service would have been of a most serious and alarming nature," he has declared that it would have "affected the general credit of the country to a very great and serious extent''; and he has further declared, that if Boyd and Benfield had been unable to make good the instalments upon their share of the loan then in the course of payment, there would have been great danger of rendering the "fulfilment of any future contract to be "made with other parties, in a considera"ble degree precarious and uncertain." Indeed, public credit is exhibited in as deplorable a light as possible. One would think, at hearing this evidence, that Mr. Pitt and his friends were speaking of occurrences during the administration of some political enemy. Such is their present description of the state of public credit in the middle of September 1796. The parliament (a new one) assembled on the 27th of the same month; and, on the 6th of October, the -House of Commons, after a debate of some length, voted an address to the King, in which, though they spoke-parenthetically of some temporary embarrassments, congratulated his majesty on the state of the commerce, manufactures, and revenue of the country, as proving the real extent and solidity of the public resources, and as furnishe ing such means as might be equal to the great and vigorous exertions that were re"quired." Lord Morpeth, who moved the address, said: " that, as to our internal si“tuation, we had witnessed it for some "time past with joy and exultation, and had reason to congratulate his Majesty and the people at large upon our auspicious pros"pects in that respect." Sir William Lowther, who seconded the address, said: "If "we regard our finances, they are abundant "in the extreme, and such as are adequate to any emergency of the country." Little did these two honest gentlemen dream of the works which were at that moment going on between Messrs. Pitt, Boyd, Long, and Dundas! Mr. Fox having followed Sir William Lowther, and having expressed some fears as to the state of the national resources, Mr. Pitt, in his answer, said, that

༦

66

66

66

our resources" furnished, in a moment like "the present" [the very time he was lending to Boyd and Benfield]" a subject of peculiar congratulation and well founded confidence......These resources," said he, "have in them nothing hollow or delusive. They are the result of an accumulated capital, of gradually increasing com"merce, of high and established credit. They are the fruits of fair exertion, `of "laudable ingenuity, of successful industry; they have been produced under a system "of order and justice, while we, under many disadvantages, have been contend"ing against a country, which exhibits, in every respect, the reverse of the picture; a proof that the regular operation of these principles must triumph over the unnatu"ral and exhausting efforts of violence and "extortion.' Oh! how fine! How great! you might have heard the " young "friends" exclaiming from the benches at his back. The "regular operation" of his commercial principles did not "triumph," however; and we now know, to our cost, what it is to be left to the sway of a commercial minister,But, let us look at the picture he here drew of the credit and resources of the country; and, let us not forget, that this picture was drawn only about twenty days after he had made the loan, or given the accommodation," to Boyd and Benfield. How they must have hugged themselves! what difficulty they must have had to smother a laugh, when they heard the country gentlemen closing each period of the minister's harangue with a full chorus of, "hear! hear!" after the manner of the groaning responses during a methodist prayer! How Boyd and Benfield must have longed for the moment, when they could laugh out right! Many an evening must they have passed in jesting upon the credulous creatures, whose property, whose labour, and, in some cases, whose lives, they were, sporting with !Well do I remember the time when Mr. Pitt was mak-. ing these declarations in Parliament. I was then in America, and the friends of England, in that country, will recollect the exultation with which I repeated his asserticus, and circulated his reproof of those who dared to dispute the solidity of his system of public credit. Little did we imagine, that he was, at that very time, prepping up the system by the miser le expediens which are now brought to ht! Little did we imagine, that, in order to prevent a most serious and alarming" injury to public credit, he had, but a few days before, been compelled to lend public money

66