neral principle, he was nevertheless bound, in justice and sound policy, to yield that general principle to particular claims of preference, if they were well founded; and such the claims of Mr. Boyd were. It was obvious that Mr. Morgan not only did not expect, but was not prepared for the loan; and then, with the resentful hope of disgracing his right hon. friend, he had proposed to Mr. Mellish to leave sealed proposals behind them. Mr. Mellish, however, disdained such a malignant contrivance, and refused his assent to it. It appeared to him, from all the facts in evidence in the report, that it was impossible that Mr. Morgan could have offered the terms he says that he thinks he should have offered. The whole mystery and confusion from the extravagant inferences that were made in consequence of his majesty's message. A very considerable misinterpretation had gone abroad upon the subject of that message, which was merely a sequence to the intimation given in the speech from the throne, and which might naturally have been expected at some period of the session. In consequence of this misapprehension, the stocks rose about 5 per cent., but in a few days the omnium decreased, and at present it was nearly the same as it was before the message. Mr. Steele concluded by expressing his entire disapprobation of the resolutions. arose other side had pointedly insinuated that I really was, to public competition as a gethe chancellor of the exchequer or at least his agents and colleagues, had made use of the distribution of the loan as ways and means to secure a majority in that House. This obliged all those attached by office to his right hon. friend, to feel anxiously disposed for an inquiry, and the committee was adopted on that ground. The loan, however, with all its circumstances, had undergone a very full discussion in the first instance in that House, and, after being approved of there, had passed into a law; since which, a committee had been appointed, for the direct purpose of inquiring whether any undue motives had operated in the transaction, by which the bargain was made; and, after ample deliberation, the committee were unanimous in their opinion, that no improper interference had taken place in the distribution of the loan by any person connected with government. The hon. gentleman had reduced the whole to a short question, viz. Whether the chancellor of the exchequer was justified in deciding in favour of Mr. Boyd? To this he would give a short answer That the chancellor of the exchequer, in doing as he did, had acted with a strict regard to justice, and an anxious desire to fulfil former engagements. In deciding so, he had broken no statute, infringed no rule of the House. The House, however it might generally approve, had not at any time passed a law nor voted a resolution, that, in making loans, competition was never to be departed from. It was the duty of the chancellor of the exchequer to negociate as he thought most adviseable, either by public competition or private agreement; subject, however, to the revision of parliament. The question, then, was, whether being unfettered, he was not right in acting as he had done? In this opinion he was persuaded there were few who would not agree with him. In some circumstances, a private contract might be much more beneficial to the public, than a bargain made on the principle of open competition. It was notorious that the loan last year was of a private nature; and that the House, after a very close investigation of facts, had approved of the measure. If it had been the chancellor of the exchequer's secret determination to give Mr. Boyd the preference, would it not have been absurd for him to have held out a competition so long as he had done? Attached, as he Mr. Pitt rose and said :-On a subject naturally so interesting to my personal feelings, as well as so important in a public view, I am anxious to address the House at a period of the debate, before their attention is more exhausted. And they will forgive me, when I am called upon to meet a charge of the most direct nature, in which my personal character as well as my official situation, as a trustee for the public, are materially implicated, if, even at the hazard of some repetition, I should advert to the points which press most closely upon my own immediate feelings. The hon. gentleman who has lately spoken (Mr. Francis) said, that if my answer to one point was satisfactory, he would withdraw his support from the charge against me. Though, in the course of what I have to say, I shall not be inattentive to his question, it cannot be expected that I should narrow my defence to that point. It cannot be sup- | avowing that it was his opinion, that the posed that from any recent declarations committee ought to have asked for no made by the gentlemen opposite, excul- lists, he discovers a strange coincidence pating me from all charge of personal between the names in the list of subcorruption, but accompanied by artful scribers, and the names of a certain resuggestions and fresh insinuations, I spectable body of merchants and bankers, should have forgotten that it was broadly assembled for a great object of political stated by those who moved for a commit- discussion; a coincidence which could tee of inquiry, that there was ground of not be the effect of accident. If this be suspicion that the distribution of the loan true, and the fact originated in design, had been employed for the purpose of most certainly that design must have corrupt influence. They exempted me, arisen from a corrupt motive; and if not indeed, from any charge of having for personal gain, that motive must have regulated that distribution from any resulted from a desire to obtain the means view of sordid gain to myself; and I of corrupt influence. then took the liberty to say, feeling as I did on the subject, that I was not obliged to them for the exception, or the sort of candour that dictated it. If they formerly asserted that, if the inquiry was gone into, the result would be, to establish the actual interference of corrupt influence; if such declarations were rash and unguarded; if they were dictated by the intemperate warmth of debate, or pushed beyond all bounds of justifiable discretion, and if they are now retracted as unjust and unfounded, I certainly have reason to rejoice in the progress which has been made, in consequence of the diligent and sober investigation of a committee, towards a decision so much more grateful to my character and feelings. Undoubtedly, there is no charge which can be brought against the transaction of the loan, there is no instance of neglect, there is no error of judgment, there is no want of prudence, which I should not most severely regret; but still I should consider such charges as light, compared with that which formed the prominent point, and the most weighty one in the present accusation, namely, that in the transaction of the late loan, I had acted on motives of corruption, partiality, and undue influence, to answer political and interested purposes, both within and without doors. I cannot therefore help remarking, that while the ground on which the inquiry was originally brought forward," that the loan had been employed as the means of corrupt and pernicious influence," is now professed to be abandoned, instead of being, as the House had a right to expect, either sub stantiated by proof, or wholly and completely done away, it seems to be but half retracted by the hon. mover of the resolution, and to be supplied by ambiguous hints and fresh insinuations. After The hon. gentleman who spoke last but one brings no such charge against me. His mode of acquittal is, however, somewhat singular. He imputes to me no motive of corrupt influence or undue partiality. He desires me to say nothing of the transaction relative to the Hamburgh bills, on which nevertheless some part of the resolutions is founded. The hon. gentleman, therefore, openly disclaims all accusation, while he supports the resolutions which contain the very charge he affects to disclaim, drawn up with all the art and address of the most cunning special pleader; and certainly no resolutions could be more ably drawn up, if the avow. ed purpose of them had been to censure and undermine any man's public and private character. The hon. gentleman's ability in the management of this point has been really singular. He acquits me of any intention of benefitting myself or corrupting parliament by means of the loan; but then insists that the loan was improperly made, and that it must have been so made for some undue motive or other; that is to say, he acquits me of two specific undue motives, and exhorts me not to speak in order that I may leave myself undefended against the suspicion of an endless train of indefinite undue motives, which ingenious insinuation and artful malice may think proper to raise against me. I do not deny that the nature of a transaction may be such as to afford ground for the suspicion of an undue motive, even though the motive itself may not appear on the face of the transaction. If the transaction therefore be pecuniary, there are only three motives which can be supposed to operate-personal emolument, prviate partiality, and public influence; and if after the most accurate investigation, strong evidence be brought to prove that none of these motives can be traced in the present transaction, I have some right to take to myself credit that no such motives existed, and that the charge has been fully refuted. before by my right hon. friend who spoke last. I therefore think myself entitled to the benefit of that opinion of the committee, as a full and decided testimony, that there was no distribution of the loan for the purpose of corrupt influence. As to the other charges of undue partiality to any individual for services supposed to have been performed to the government, it shortly resolves itself into the question, whether by the mode of settling the loan, I have contrived to enrich Mr. Boyd, by a sacrifice of the public interest? I am aware it has been said, that no such charge was meant to be conveyed; but why should such frequent allusion have been made to the Hamburgh bills, except for that express purpose? I shall not now enter into the nature of that transaction, as it will soon be brought forward as an object of separate inquiry. I will only shortly state the substance. In every loan bill, parliament inserts a clause holding out a premium for the prompt payment of the sums subscribed, foreseeing that government may possibly have occasion for the money before the instalments become due in the regular course of payment. Last year, though large sums were paid up, still the public exigencies were such as to render additional supplies necessary, and the terms offered were not sufficiently tempting to induce individuals to come forward with their money. Under these circumstances, government entered into a negotiation with a monied house to advance such sums as were wanted for the service. The aid of parliament at that time could not be had without calling it together at a great trouble and inconvenience, both public and private. In consequence of this, treasury warrants were offered; but Mr. Boyd said, that bills of exchange were more mercantile commodity; and, to avoid the expense of stamps, they were dated at Hamburgh, to make them foreign bills of exchange, they otherwise being inland and subject to a stamp. In the whole transaction, there was nothing on the part of government which gave Mr. Boyd an exclusive right, far less a discretionary power, to dictate the terms of a future loan. The bills themselves were nothing more than mere forms of security to those who advanced the money. The giving The hon. gentleman who moved the resolutions, stated, that the committee had decided that there was no ground for sus picion of any corrupt interference; and thus, so far as their judgment went, had put their negative on that ground, on which the inquiry had originally been undertaken. The last speaker on the other side has stated, that he disliked the mode in which that committee was constituted. It might have been supposed that the committee, which afforded to every man who was actuated by jealousy, suspicion, by public zeal, or if such a motive could be supposed to insinuate itself, by private pique, an opportunity to state his sentiments, and to display his vigilance, was of all others the least liable to objection. It is rather singular that the decision of the committee, by which they negative all idea of corrupt interference, is the only one which the hon. mover conceives to be already so well recognized that he excludes it from that string of resolutions which he has presented as an analysis of the whole report. The hon. gentleman who spoke the last but one states, that he thinks on that point the committee have no right to give an opinion, and he has declared so this day for the first time. If there is any thing forcible in this objection, it certainly is very unfair to bring it forward now for the first time. Why was it not stated when the report was received? If the House had then thought that their committee had exceeded their powers, the report would have been re-committed. But why is that opinion expressed by the committee? They assign it as a reason for not having given aparticular detail of evidence, which by the resolution of the House they were required to give, and which they had declined to bring forward, on the ground that it was inconvenient to individuals. It is surely a little hard that gentlemen should first receive the whole of the evidence the committee thought right to report, and then not admit the excuse for the omission of that part of the evidence which was principally exculpatory of the person whose conduct was the object of cen sure. them was only an engagement on the part An hon. gentleman complains, that of government to make good the sums adthere was a want of notice of the inten-vanced for the public. Whether that ention to come to such a resolution in the com-gagement was executed on stampt or unmittee. Notice was however given the day stampt paper, whether written, on paper or on parchment, added nothing to the validity of the security. The particular manner of executing it, was such as was dictated by the necessary regard for secrecy. As to the case of a merchant, in whom it was affirmed such a transaction would be highly discreditable and suspicious, there was nothing in common between the conduct of a merchant in the management of his private affairs, and that of the government of a great country under the pressure of public exigencies. The comparison would not hold for a moment. It might reasonably be suspected, that a merchant resorted to such a mode of transacting business in order to supply the deficiency of his capital, and to support a fictitious credit. In the case of government, the sums were already voted; they were wanted for immediate service, and funds were provided to reimburse those who advanced them as soon as their claims became due. But was this a service of such magnitude, as to give Mr. Boyd such strong claims upon government as could be construed into a right to dictate the terms of the loan? Mr. Boyd never had entertained such an idea, and I confess that this part of the transaction was executed with the same liberality and zeal as every other service to government which he has undertaken to perform. It is supposed that, in order to reward Mr. Boyd, the most likely method I could devise was, to bestow upon him a loan of considerable extent. Is it probable that in order to reward him individually, a chancellor of the exchequer at a time of severe pressure should add eight or ten per cent to the public burthens of the year? All this, however, turns upon a question of evidence, and with respect to the evidence before the committee, it is a principle in human nature, that where persons give evidence in a case which involves their own interests and merits, their judgments will imperceptibly be biassed; and all such evidence requires to be weighed with the most scrupulous attention, and to be received with some qualification. I apply this principle equally to Mr. Boyd and to Mr. Morgan. How far Mr. Boyd had a share in the transaction of the Hamburgh bills, and how far that had any influence on the disposition of the loan, appears from the testimony of that gentleman himself. He declares that he formed no claim from that circumstance; that he had not the smallest expectation of any preference, nor [VOL. XXXII.] did he conceive that such an idea existed. And it is to be remarked, that Boyd's evidence was clear and consistent with itself; while Morgan's in many material points, was inconsistent, and not only contradicted by himself, but by every evidence that was confronted with it. After stating that the governor of the Bank had warned him of something, which was likely to secure to Mr. Boyd a preference to the loan, he had, Mr. Morgan says, upon being questioned, more particularly affirmed, that he had not mentioned what that something was. Afterwards he said, that the governor of the Bank described the transaction of the Hamburgh bills, as likely to secure a preference to Mr. Boyd. So much for Mr. Morgan contradicting himself. The governor of the Bank, upon being examined, expressly stated, that he had not mentioned a syllable about the bills; that he had only said, that Mr. Boyd had a claim from the loan of last year, which he conceived him to be too sagacious to allow to escape him. If I had determined to throw the loan, at all events, into the hands of Mr. Boyd, could I not have found some better mode of achieving my purpose, than that which I pursued? Should I have held out the system of competition? Should I have deliberately announced my intention for that purpose, and have invited competitors when I was aware that the result could tend only to beget animosity and disappointment? Should I have expressed my reluctance to the claims of Mr. Boyd, and yielded to them only upon the conviction that they were well founded? If nothing was got by the intention which I at first announced of a free competition, but increasing difficulty, and accumulat ed embarrassment, as to the mode in which the bargain was ultimately settled, is not this internal evidence better than any parole proof that can be adduced, that I was sincere in the month of October, when I first announced that intertion, and that I had formed no determi nation to benefit Mr. Boyd, by giving him a preference? I had not then examined his claim, because it had not then been stated to me so distinctly, and because it had not been brought to my recollection by the governor of the Bank. If, then, I was under the influence of error it was because I carried the system of competition strong in my mind, and because, looking solely to that, I neglected, in the first instance, to attend sufficiently [S G] to the claims of Mr. Boyd, and kept them | But was the consideration of the manner back longer than, as it afterwards ap- in which his cause was urged, to have any peared to me, in justice I ought to have influence on my mind in the decision on done. As to the injury which Mr. Morgan the justice of his claims? I now stand and his friends may have suffered, from here accused. I have been placed in the having prepared their money in order to high situation of a judge, and now I ap bid, that surely cannot be seriously in- pear in the more humble one of a person sisted on, while it is recollected that the accused, and defending himself against a final adjustment of every loan is matter of foul charge. It has been said, that I was so much uncertainty, and connected with bound to pay no attention to the claims so many collateral considerations. No of Mr. Boyd for a preference, because communication from the Bank, as to there was no express agreement, no specompetition, ever took place, except with cific terms of engagement, for that purrespect to Mr. Boyd. How could Mr. pose. Gentlemen seem to think that Morgan contend, that he had sustained unless government be bound down by speinjury, from having prepared his property cific terms, an engagement of this sort to qualify himself to be a bidder, when entered into by them should not be abided he stated, that, till the 23d of November, by. Might there not, however, be some he never began to doubt that there would common understanding, some implied be a competition. His own account of condition, some strong and clear construchis information on this subject was rather tion, equally binding on the minister of whimsical; it came from a confidential the country to the observance of the claim friend, of whom he knew nothing, who in point of honour and justice? No perinformed him that he had heard, from a sonal inconvenience shall ever induce me third person, that Boyd was sure of the to depart from the terms of what I consiloan; and yet, though his information led der an honourable dealing, when a claim him to know more than the rest of the is made founded on the nature of things, world, he went on with his speculations, and a practice recognized by constant and never doubted that there would be a usage. Had there been an express agreecompetition till the 23d of November; ment, it would have unquestionably been he therefore would not be responsible for presented to my recollection; but this any loss that the parties might sustain was no reason why an explanation profrom such speculations. All lists or plans perly understood, and clearly made out, that were handed about were merely spe- should not receive its due degree of atculations, particularly Morgan's; and if tention. In transacting all loans, there the parties have sustained any injury, it must be preliminary points of conversalies entirely with him and themselves. tion; a good deal of discussion naturally takes place, some particulars of which are committed to writing, while others are sufferred to pass more loosely. In the loan of 1795, it was proposed by the. contractors that there should be no payment on any new loan till February of the succeeding year; to which I readily assented, not conceiving that the exi gencies of the public service would re.. quire any money to be advanced before that period. Of this promise I was reminded by the governor of the Bank of England, and I was the more confirmed. in its propriety, as I found that no new loan had taken place in such circumstances, even where no assurance direct,. or by implication, had been given. The next point is the nature of Boyd's claim and the impropriety of departing from the system of competition. As to the claim of Mr. Boyd, it has been proved that I, at first, testified strong prejudices and great reluctance, which were not overcome till it was brought forward in a shape in which it was no longer controvertible; that I admitted the principle of competition, and receded from it only when fair and just grounds were adduced on the part of an individual to warrant a deviation from the general system. Here a great deal of minute criticism has been displayed by gentlemen on the other side, with respect to Mr. Boyd's letter. I was in the situation of a judge trying a cause between Mr. Boyd and the public; acting as a trustee for the latter on the one hand, and called upon to decide on the justice of the claim of an individual on the other. The claim of Mr. Boyd might have been asserted too strongly. Mr. Pitt then, noticed the connexion in which contractors stand with government, distinct from the scrip-holders, and which gives to them particular claims. Contractors had, in the first instance, to treat with ministers, and were immediately. |