of April, p. 588, where, after having endeavoured to show the absurdity of believing, that there were no accounts kept, it was observed, that, there must be an account "somewhere; and, this account ought to be "produced, not written with fresh ink nor "in the hand writing of the parties. If it "cannot be produced, the books of Coutt's "and Co. ought to be regarded as full evi"dence of Lord Melville's having shared " with Mr. Trotter to the aggregate amount "of the sums placed against the name of ❝ the former in the mixtie maxtie accounts “of the latter." This point has now been settled. The account has been demanded; and it has been proved, if the above abstract be authentic, that "all VOUCHERS, &c. "have been DESTROYED;" and that, too, as it would seem, reciprocally, and even in concert! Of persons detected in having so acted every thing is to be presumed. What! destroy vouchers! For what? A mutual destruction of vouchers; that is to say, of evidences of transactions between the parties! Was there ever such a thing heard of before, except in cases of conscious guilt, accompanied with its usual associates, a dread of the consequences of detection and a want of confidence in the accomplice? Ma. PITT'S CASE, The Morning Post, of the date above-mentioned, and in the abstract before quoted, contains two passages upon the conduct of Mr. Pitt, which passages I shall extract, and then insert the remark made upon them by the ministerial newspaper, the SUN.The passages relate, 1st, to money said to have been borrowed by Mr. Pitt, as Chanceller of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury, from Lord Melville, as Treasurer of the Navy, and lent by Mr. Pitt to Boyd and Benfield, to enable them to make good an instalment upon a loan which they had made to the government; and, 2d, to information said to be given to Mr. Pitt, in the year 1797, of the mal practices of Messrs. Dundas and Trotter. The loan of 40,000l. which the committee "remark was decidedly against the law, was made under circumstances with respect to the state of the country of a very peculiar nature. Mr. Boyd represented, on his application to ministers, that he was under great pecuniary difficulties, and requested accommodation. This accommodation was granted, good security being given; and it being considered, as IS "stated in the evidence, that if the accom“modation were refused, the house of Boyd " and Benfield might have failed also. To prevent such consequences, which, if they "should occur, it would, according to evidence, be difficult to conclude a new loan "for the public service without a great loss, "Lord Melville, conceiving that the naval "service would suffer no inconvenience, "advanced the sum required. The security given by Boyd and Benfield, consisted of "India Company's bonds and bills, and also "of some government securities. The sum has been since repaid, but without in"terest." Without interest! But, this is a circumstance of no more importance than any other of the circumstances: the whole transaction, if truly represented in this abstract, is as dark as it can possibly be. Lending loan-jobbers money; the peoples' money; money already raised in taxes; to enable those loan-jobbers to lend that same money to the people! This is quite new; perfectly original, nothing like it, nothing bearing the most distant resemblance to it ever before entered the mind of man. But, only think of the " good security!" It con-. sisted of" India bonds, and also of some government securities." Well, then, why could not Boyd and Benfield, with these same securities, have got the morey elsewhere? That question I should like to have answered. Why could they not have borrowed the money of somebody other than Mr. Pitt? other than that same government whom they were going to lend it to? Was it that they could find nobody else generous enough to lend it them without interest ? That would have been no very foolish reason; but, surely, there must have been another. Where is the proof that they gave any security at all? Where is the record of their having given "good security?" When and to whom did they pay back the money It was returned to the Treasurer of the Navy; but who took it from Boyd and Benfield? Into whose hands did those worthy loan jobbers pay it? Upon this head the abstract is silent; yet, these are questions that require to be answered. This transaction, if it be truly described in the newspapers, seems to me to strike at the very root of public credit. People have hitherto regarded a loan as a bond fide bargain. They have never imagined, that it was not binding upon the jobber; and, that, if it did not suit him to make good his payments, the people were to make them good for him—If this abstract be correct, we can no longer have any faith in such transactions. There is no knowing to what a length these “accom“modations" may be carried: nay, there is no knowing to what a length they have been carried, for what is now come out 'is come out by mere accident. And, yet the writers in the Suy newspaper excuse, and even justify the conduct of Mrally upon the supposition, that it study worbed in the above-quoted abstract. We," say they, in their paper of the 28th," under"stand that Mr. Whitbread's motion against "Mr. Pitt is to be grounded upon the fact "of a sum of forty thousand pounds having "been advanced to Messrs. Boyd aud Ben"field, a measure which, from every thing we have heard of the circumstance, was completely justified by the pressure of the case, and the omission of which might "have been attended with consequences highly detrimental to the public interest." * 46 on such details in any other way; that in "his conversation with Lord Melville he "did not advert to the provisions of the act 66 which forbid such transfers, nor did it eecur to him that drawing from the Bark "such sums of money in such a way for the purpose of carrying on the details of of fice, was an illegal practice-Relying ou the rectitude of Lord Melville, from "the opinion he entertained of him, he "made no inquiry as to the necessity of the practice, and was so far satisfied with the general statement given by that noble' ford, that he did not think it necessary to "communicate the circumstances of the case to any other of his Majesty's ministers, or to take any further steps on the subject. "He had no knowledge or information of "any naval money, the 40,000l. excepted, "being applied to other services, except "from the communication of Mr. Raikes, "until after his retirement from othicé Ar "was acquainted of it by Lord Harrowly. 04 66 That noble lord told him that he thought the practice very singular, and was therefore taking steps to put a stop to it."Now, supposing this abstract correct, how will the reader account for Mr. Pitt's conduct? And where is the man, who has any regard for his character, that will dare to offer an excuse for it? There is no room for comment here; but, I cannot conclude, without ask -There is no crime which these writers would not justify. It is an infimy to the country, that such sentiments should be endured by the public.The passage relating to Mr. Raikes's information to Mr. Fitt is as follows: "The committee state, that they do not find any representation on this subject was made to the Lords of the "Treasury, but that it was represented to "Mr. Pitt, as appears from the evidence of "Mr. Raikes, and the admission of Mr. Pitt "himself. The Report states, that some "time in the year 1797, Mr. Raikes, Go"vernor of the Bank, had an official inter"view with Mr. Pitt. After official business was at an end, he told Mr. Pitt, in "conversation, the manner in which the public money was drawn from the Bank by the Treasurer of the Navy; that he had heard the treasurer (Lord Melville) kept cash at Coutts's, and that navy billsing, whether it was possible for Mr. Pitt to were paid by drafts on that house, instead "of by drafts on the Bank. Mr. Pitt "thanked Mr. Raikes for his information. "Such Mr. Raikes, in his evidence, states "to have been the purport of the conver"sation, but, from the length of time that "has since elapsed, he is not sure as to the -Mr. Pitt adruits the general import of the conversation as stated by "Mr. Raikes, but differs with him as to "the terms. He don't undertake to recollect "with accuracy, but states it in substance "to have conveyed to him an impression "that sumps were drawn from the Bank and carried to a private banking-house, to a larger amount than was supposed necessary; that he took an early opportunity "of stating to Lord Melville the informa"tion he received from Mr. Raikes; and 66 "terms. think lightly of the information of Mr. Raikes, and whether it was possible for him to have forgotten the act of parliament, the end and object of the act of parliament, which had been violated? But, let us only take a few dates. In 1797 Mr. Pitt was first informed of the practices of Messrs. Dundas and Trotter; in 1800 he was more fully informed of them by Lord Harrowby; in 1804 he, nevertheless, places Lord-Me! ville in the second office of the state, and in one having the command of that in which he had, to Mr. Pitt's knowledge, before violated the law; he, at the same time, seeg Mr. Trotter restored; and he advises the king to bestow upon Lord Melville a grant of 1,500l. a year for life, in addition to b already enormous income from the public purse! -[This subject will, of course, be revived, when we shall have the report and evidence before us. What I have here said, is merely upon a supposition that the abstract so often quoted is correct, and for the purpose of protesting against the scandalous sentiments promulgated in the ministerių papers.] Printed by Cox and Baylis, No. 75. Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Bow-Street, Caveus, Giden, -where former Numbers may be had; sold also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre, Pall-Mail Vol. VII. No. 23.] LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE, 8, 1805.‚ì PRICE 10D Where the supreme authority, not content with winking at the rapacity of its inferior instruments, is so "shameless and corrupt as openly to give bounties and premiams for disobedience to its laws; when it will "hot frust to the activity of avarice in the pursuit of its own gains; when it secures publie robbery by all the careful, jealousy and attention, with which it ought to protect property from such violence; the com-' monwealth then is become totally perverted from its purposes; neither God nor man will long endure it; nor will it long endure itself; for, in that case, there is an unnatural infection, a pestilential taint fermenting in the constitution of society, which fever and convulsions of some kind or other must throw off.", -BUREE. Speech on the Nabob of Arcot's Debts, 28 Feb. 1785. $33] LORD MELVILLE & MR. PITT'S CONDUCT. [834 took place between the Addingtons and Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, which coalition Mr. Pitt himself solicited by means of aletter conveyed to Mr. Henry Addington The Report of the Select Committee, upon the matters relating to the conduct of Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, was laid before the-through Lord Hawkesbury; that this junc House of Commons on the 27th ultimo: it has since been printed by order of that House, and is now published for the information of the people.The Report of any committee, appointed for a purpose like the present, is, comparatively, of little importance, when the whole of the minutes of the Evidence accompany it, the report itself being merely a summary of the evidence. It is, indeed, something of the nature of the summing up of a judge, at the close of an examination; but, it is less necessary, because the jury have no minutes of the evidence, which, in the present instance, we have: and, if the summing up, and explanations of a report of a committee may, in any case, be dispensed with, they surely may in. this case; éspecially when we recollect all the circumstances, under which the committee was formed. The evidence, therefore, or, at least, as much of it as I have room for, and all of it that is very material, I am now about to insert; and, to every part of it, I beg leave to beseech the attention of the reader, reminding him, at the same time, that, in order clearly to understand, and justly to decide upon, the case of either of the persons, who now stand accused before him, he must keep in his view the whole history of the prosecution, from the first examination of Trotter to the notice of the motion to be made next Tuesday by Mr. Whitbread. He must bear in mind, that it was in May, 1804, that Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt turned out the Addingtons, loading them with every species of reproach and contempts that soon afterwards, June, 1801, Mr. Trotter was first examined by the Naval Commissioners; that Lord Melville was written to by those Commissioners in June, 1804, and was examined by them on the 5th of November, 1804; that almost immediately after that examination a coalition " tion, so formed, so sought for, so humbly solicited, by Mr. Pitt, with persons whom he had turned out under the charge, openly anđ distinctly made, of incapacity and imbe"cillity," excited very great and general surprise, and was never satisfactorily ac counted for, till the Tenth Report of the Na val Commissioners discovered in how great need Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville might stand of friendly comfort. When the reader hus thus refreshed his memory as to the occurrences preceding the printing of the Tenth Report! let him look back to the conduct of Mr. Pitt previous to the discussion of the 8th of April, when the resolution of censure upon Jord Melville was passed; let him not forget that it was Mr. Pitt who brought forward the pros. position for receiving the Letter, which Lord Melville wrote to the Naval Commissioners: after the printing of the Tenth Repost; let: him not forget, that it was Mr. Pitt, who dise puted the ground, inch by inch, for Lord' Melville on the 8th of April, after he had read, over and over again, the proofs of Lord Melville's conduct; let him not forget, that it was Mr. Pitt, who opposed, on the 10th of April, the motion for an address to the King to remove Lord Melville from the privy council, and that, at a subsequent period, he notified to the House that he had advised the King to dismiss his Lordship, because be. had learnt that the House wished it, and because he was convinced, that any attempt on his part to prevent an address to the king would prove abortive. Let the reader mot forget these things; and, let him remein ber; moreover, that when a motion was made for the purpose of forming a SELECT COMMITTEE to inquire further into the matters brought to light by the Tenth Report, that Mr. Pitt moved and carried an ainendment, so restraining the powers of the sid committee as to render it very difficult for them to touch upon any point, calculated further to develope the transactions between Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter.As to the case of Mr. Pitt himself, let it be remembered, that, though Lord Melville was the man who drew up the law, which has now been violated, it was Mr. Pitt who caused it to be drawn up; it was Mr. Pitt who introduced it to the House of Commons; it was Mr. Pitt who boasted, who bragged, of its salutary tendency; it was Mr. Pitt who explained its meaning, and who promised the Commons, that, in future, all the naval money would ite at the Bank of England till the very moment it was wanted for the service of the na ry. Let this important fact be kept in mind, while the reader is going through the evidence of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Raikes, and Lord Harrowby; and, I beg him to mark well the language of the answers of all these persons, as well, indeed, as of all the others that were examined.As to the Committee, when the reader recollects how it was formed and composed; when he recollects, that it was formed by ballot, that is to say, by lists sent round to the members, whereby he who has a majority in the House is sure to have whatever members he chooses upon the committee; when the reader recollects this, and observes, besides, who were the persons composing a majority of the committee, he will be satisfied, that there has been, on the part of the committee, no partiality shown against Mr. Pitt and his illustrious friend.- The heads, under which the subject divides itself are THREE; to wit; 1. The participation of Lord Melville with Trotter in the profits made by an unlawful use of the naval money: 2. Mr. Pitt's conniving at the withdrawing of naval money from the Bank, and his unlawfully lending a large sum of the said money, to two loan jobbers, named Boyd and Benfield, the latter of whom is the famous Paul Benfield, whose memorable transactions, in the years 1734 and 1785, are recorded in Mr. Burke's Speech upon the debts of the Nabob of Arcot: 3. Mr. Pitt's conniving at the withdrawing of naval money from the Bank of England to be lodged at the banking House of Coutts and Company, and, of course, to be made use of for purposes of private emolument.-These are the THREE HEADS, to one or the other of which all the evidence I am now about to lay before the reader will be found to relate. He should keep them as distinct as possible in his mind. He will find the evidence a good deal mixed, of course; but, though I shall scarcely refrain from subjoining some few observations, I cannot help expressing my firm conviction, that nothing more will be necessary than a sober and impartiale rusal of the evidence itself, as here giventy me. The whole, however, must be read. i must be read, too, with care, and withou losing sight, for one moment, of the circum stances above. pointed out: When the reader has taken a few minutes to refreshi memory as to those circumstances, let him sit down to the perusal; and, above all things, let him first banish from his mind every party propensity. He, doch less, will, and he ought, to her, that my fixed opinion is, that Mr. Pitt's system of administration is hostile to the well-being of England; and, of course, that I earnestly wish to see that gentleman no longer in power; but, I trust, that no one will impute to me a desire so base as that of seeing him sink undeservedly covered with the infamous charge of having connived at peculation, of having winked at the plun dering of the people and the sovereign, who had confided to his hands the guardianship of their treasure. it is difficult, when the temptation presents itself, to avoid taking advantage of circumstances favouring one's views of general hostility; and, therefore, though, during the whole of the discussions connected with this subject, I have endeavoured to detach my mind from all extraneous considerations, any reader, who may happen to place, generally, reliance upon my opinions, will, in this particular instance, do well to be upon his guard against them. Indeed, my opinions ought here to have no weight with him. It is the fact and the rea soning: these cannot be affected by the source whence they proceed; and if in these there be found no ground to condemn Mr. Pitt, I ought to wish, and I hope I do not deceive myself in declaring that I sincerely wish, that he may stand clearly acquitted in the eyes of all mankind. Lord Melville, to what amount, and at what -Q. By what authority or power could Mr. Wilson issue such 40,0001,? 4. I left him in possession of drafts upon the Bank of England, signed by myself as attorney to the treasurer.- Q. Were those drafts filled up by yourself for certain sums, or your signature left to blanks in Mr. Wilson's possession? A. My signature was affixed to blanks left in Mr. Wilson's possession, and which I found necessary to carry on the business of the Pay Office, to prevent the accident, in case of my illness or occasional absence, of the cashiers making unexpected or sudden demands for the public service.- Q. Were the blanks for the names as well as the sums 1803, when I was out of office.—Q. On left? A. They were. -Q. Had you com- ment? A. I kept regular accounts of all my money transactions with Lord Melville, but having closed and settled the whole of them, and a mutual release having passed between us, I have not thought it necessary to preserve any documents respecting my transactions with his lordship.- Q. Are those. documents in existence? 4. They are not, as far as I know.-Q. When were they |