all been honourable and honest, they would have been hunting up, and carefully preserving every scrap of paper appertaining to any matters at all connected with their lately occupied offices. The deed of destruction was, it appears, executed by Lord Melville, in Scotland, on the 18th of February, 1803, and by Mr. Trotter, in "London, on the 23d of the same month. Why take all this trouble in sending the deed backward and forward so many miles? Why such haste? After suffering the “useless vouchers to exist for two years and a half, why such sudden haste to destroy them; especially as Lord Melville came up to London in person in about a month after executing the deed, that is to say, in March, 1803; as we all recollect, to carry on the memorable negotiation for place; which was, in fact, a negotiation for turning out Lord St. Vincent, which negotiation, too, it is now not uninteresting to remember, did, according to the account of both the Pitts and the Addingtons, originate with Lord Melville! At only touching this point, what rays of light break in upon us, in every direction! All the mysterious occurrences of March and April, 1803, are at once cleared up. We now see the cause of Lord Melville's sudden return from Scotland; his journeys to Waliner Castle and to Sir Charles Middleton; while rumours were afloat of his being about to supplant Lord St. Vincent at the Admiralty, and of Lord St. Vincent's refusing to go out, though strongly urged thereto by Mr. Addington.

-That Lord Melville participated with Mr. Trotter in the advantage derived from the illegal use of the navy money is now past a doubt, notwithstanding all the decla rations of himself and Mr. Pitt to the. contrary. The extent only remains to be proved, and to render this proof difficult or impossible, the parties have. destroyed books, memorandums, vouchers, and documents of every kind. I defy charity itself to suggest a plausible reason for this complete destruction, except the consciousness of guilt and the fear of discovery; the fear that one of the parties had that the other might impeach him. When people settle an account current, and grant mutual releases, it is common to deliver up the vouchers, and to destroy them as useless; but, to destroy the account itself, the books in which it stood, and every trace of the transactions of the parties, never was done, or thought of, by innocent men. Lord Melville's answers before the Commissioners, with respect to a participation with Trotter, are now shown to have been evasive and quivocal, if not absolutely false; but, in his

letter, his famous letter to the Board of Com missioners, his letter, so exultingly brought before the House of Commons by Mr. Pitt, in that letter he positively states, that, previous to Trotter's paymastership, he never derived any profit from the use of the naval money; and yet it now appears, thrat, before Trotter's time, he had taken 10,0001. of the public money and kept it without interest. He may now, perhaps, think it fortunate, that, when he offered to swear, the commissioners did not take him at his word.That Lord Melville has repaid the principal of the navy money, which he applied to his use, has not been proved. Mr. Trotter no where says that he has. And, if he had, there would then have been no reason for the destruction of books and papers. He knew that Trotter was making great gains by the publie money; and, though the Right Honourable and Noble person might not have appropriated to himself any precise proportion of those gains, he took considerable sums of money from Trotter, whenever he had occasion for them. If the money was returned, why not tell us when and how. Though the papers and books are destroyed, there can be no difficulty in stating from what sources the money was derived which enabled Lord Melville to refund. And I ask any honest man, whether he thinks it possible, that Trotter should have forgotten all about the repayments, if those repayments had ever been made. Being asked, as to the 10,000 1. of the public money, which Lord Melville kept in his hands from the time that Trotter became paymaster; being asked, as to this sum, "Can you recollect any thing "about the repayment of the specific sum of "10,000l. which, at your commencing pay"master, Lord Melville acknowledged to

66

you, that he owed to the public?" He answers: "I do not." The result, therefore, is, that there is the strongest presumptive proof, that Lord Melville pocketed both principal and interest of all the sums at different times advanced to him, by Trotter, out of the public money. This is an opinion that every unbiased man must form from a perusal of the foregoing evidence, taken into view with the Tenth Report of the Naval Commissioners; this is the impression, produced and left upon the mind; and this impression no speeches and no votes will re

1796 (for here also, there are no books or memorandums), and the sum was 40,000 1. The story they tell is this: that, at the time above-mentioned, Boyd and Benfield were so hard pressed for money, that they were unable to make good an instalment upon a loan to government, unless somebody would lend them 40,0001. Upon the discovery of which Mr. Dundas generously offered to ac commodate thein with 40,0001, of the public money, in which offer Mr. Pitt concurred. Boyd and Benfield accepted the offer, received the money, kept it for nearly a year, and then returned it, without, however, the payment of any interest. There is a long story, as the reader will see, of the Right Honourable Charles Long, about going to Lord Melville and meeting Mr. Boyd afterwards at the Treasury and taking securities or pawns from him and sending the said pawns to Lord Melville and having some conversation with Mr. Pitt touching the premises.. There is, too, no very short story of Mr. Pitt himself about the mischiefs that would have arisen to the public from the failure of Boyd and Benfield; but, there is nothing said, and nothing can be said, to do away the fact, or to change its nature. From the evidence of Mr. Drummond, who was a partner of Boyd and Benfield, it appears that, with the pawns said to have been lodged with Lord Melville, the 40,000 1, could have been raised elsewhere; and, indeed, to talk of "great public mischief" to be apprehended from the want of 40,0001. is something too contemptible to deserve serious notice. With the jews, the money dealers, that vile race of men, who, to save what they call public credit, but which, in fact, is neither more nor less than a system by which they live at their ease upon the labour of the poor and upon the estates of the nobility, the gentry, and the clergy; with this race of men, amongst whom but too many of the merchants may be included, any act, no matter how grossly illegal, how flagrantly corrupt, will be excused, and even applauded, if it be committed under the pretext of preserving public credit, in comparison with which the honour of their wives and daughters is something too trifling to mention. But, with men of other minds, and, in spite of the baleful influence of the jews and their like, let us hope, that a majority of our countrymen are men of other: minds, the loan to Boyd and Benfield, will admit of no palliation. Mr. Pitt knew that he was conniving at a breach of the law, a gross violation of a law which he had taken great merit to himself for causing to be passed; and, as to the necessity for it; as to the " great public mischief" that he there

by prevented; that excuse vanishes into air, when we perceive, from his own acknow ledgment, that the loan was not of his own proposing, but that it originated with Land Melville. But, if we were to allow, that Boyd and Benfield could have obtained the money no where else upon their pawns; if we were to allow that the Treasurer of the Navy kept. the only pawn shop in London; and, if we were further to allow, that a failure occasioned by a want of 40,000l. would have produced a "great public mischief;" if we were to allow all this, and almost as much more as even the Right Honourable Charles Long could ask us to allow, where shall we look for a satisfactory reason for the secret manner, in which the busi ness was managed? It might, to use the words of that useful person Mr. George Glenny, relative to the wind bills, be necessary, for reasons too obvious to mention, to disguise the transaction from the eyes

66

of the public;" but, Mr. Pitt disguised it from the eyes of the cabinet. Why was this? Is it possible to suggest an honourable motive for it? Let the reader take a moment to consider this question, and, if he be not a jew, or something very much like one, I know what his decision will be Supposing, however, that the transaction was to be regarded as too" delicate" to be communicated even to the cabinet, and fit only for the bosoms of Lord Melville, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Long, Mr. Boyd, and the delicate Mr. Benfield; yet, some record of it should have been preserved, one would think. There was, indeed, no destroying of vouchers in this case, for, as it would appear, care was taken that none ever should exist! Finally, however, there remained no longer any pretext for secrecy upon the subject. The apprehension of the great public "mischief" was gone off; and, as if to deprive Mr. Pitt of all excuse, Boyd and Benfield, verifying the old proverb that what comes over the back goes under the belly, wind up their affairs with a statute of bankruptcy. Why not make the matter known then? Why not come to parliament and ask a bill of indemnity for an act declared to be so necessary to the salvation of the state, but withal so notoriously illegal What is Mr. Pitt's answer to this question ? Why, that it did not occur to him as " necessary!" And, will this answer sa tisfy the parliament? Will it satisfy the people? people? Will they not perceive, that it is by mere accident that any trace of this transaction has ever been discovered? Will they not perceive, that, from the first, it was evidently intended, that nobody but the parties themselves should ever come

مجھ

"elevation of the Commons House of Parliament, is; that they hold, the "strings of the national purse, and are " entrusted with the great and important "power, first of granting the money, and "then of correcting the expenditure.... "How humiliating, how miserable a picture "of parliamentary power is it now wished "to be exhibited! So then, all the power of parliament, with respect to the allevi"ation of national burdens, the redress of grievances, the reform of expence, the economy, the system, the elucidation of "office, is sunk into a disgraceful negative! One positive power, indeed remains; the odious power of taxing the people, when"ever the minister thinks proper. The "odious power of making them pay for his "wild schemes and lavish corruption. . "I earnestly conjure the House to use their "own eyes, and to consult their own un"derstandings; to return to a sense of their "duty to the people; to act like honest independent members of pa liament, and no longer implicitly pin their faith upon the sleeve of a minister, whose sole "object is to deceive and mislead, just as best answers his purpose." After this, I am aware, I shall hear quoted, the report of his memorable speech of the 7th of May, 1782, when, in calling for a reform of parliament, he represented boroughs as "sources

of corruption; as giving rise to an inun<dation of corrupt wealth, and corrupt "members, who had no regard nor con"nection, either for or with the people

of this kingdom." Then though I have already heard of it again and again, I shall once more, in order to impress it on my memory, and to shake my belief as to even his own confessions relative to his conduct after the information of Mr. Raikes, be reminded of this his declaration on the 8th of March, 1785: For my part I can see no reason "for passing over even the most trifling abuses, except laziness or pride; " and these are obstacles, which, I hope, "will never stand between me and my duty. "Nor can I conceive how, in the present "situation of this country, any person or

kr

persons, to whom the care of its interests "are entrusted, can justify to themselves to "omit any exertion, that may tend, even in "the most minute particular, to promote "that economy, on which the recovery of "the state from its present depressed situa"tion so much depends." I am aware, that, of all this, and of much more that might be referred to, I shall be reminded; and,

those who think, that these former profes sions of Mr. Pitt ought to make them now disbelieve the evidence of their own senses, may probably think themselves justified in excusing, in his conduct, that which always has been, and is to be, regarded as highly cri minal in any other man; but, those, who think, and I confess myself to be one of that number, that, when the practice of a man is found to be directly at variance with his solemnly promulgated and frequently repeated professions, the circumstance is calculated rather to increase distrust than to re-establish confidence; those, who, while they disbelieve the facts as I do, allow for argument sake, that there has no actual public loss di money arisen from the loan to Boyd and Benfield, that the loan was really necessary to prevent a great public mischief, and who contemplate, in the transaction, nothing but a secret accomodation, for whatever purpose, from a minister, to members of parliament, out of the public money; those who perceive, that if we once give a sancti va to an act like this, to a lending of the public money by the minister, without his consult ing either the parliament or the cabinet, and without any other ground of justification when the matter is by accident found out, than a necesessity, of which he himself is the sale judge; those who perceive, that, if we once sanction, either expressly or tacitly, an act like this, there is, in reality, no longer any check upon him, that every merchant and banker, whether a member of parliament or not, may be accommodated in his turn, that the parliamentary power of the purse is, in fact, at an end, and that the minister is, as to all practical purposes, the despotic ruler of the country; all those who see the matter in this light, and who prefer the honour of parliament and the durability of the constitution to the gratification of their private interests and their pas sions, will I am persuaded, whatever their feelings may be with regard to the person of Mr. Pitt, acknowledge the necessity of a decided censure upon his conduct.The

THIRD head must be postponed to my next It will, of course, embrace, incidentally, some remarks upon the coudret of LORD HARROWDY and Mr. BRAGGE as well as Mr. RAIKES.]

The IIid. Vol of the PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, Contains all the first TEN REPORTS of the Naval Commissioners.

ERATUM in the last No. p. 917 1. 4. for en read me on.

VOL. VII. No. 24.]

897]

MR. PITT'S CASE. (Continued from p.

"

.)

Before this sheet reaches the public, the case of Lord Melville will, as far as appertains to the House of Commons, have been decided upon; and, probably, the case of Mr. Pitt also. But, that consideration ought not to prevent us from pursuing our inquiries; for, whatever may be the reports of committees, or the votes of either House of Parliament, the evidence will still remain the same, and that evidence upon every free man will, at all times, have a right to argue, and to pronounce his judgment; and, if his ar giments be sound, if his judgment be just,. let him not despair of seeing the day when its justice will be universally acknowledged. In the preceding sheet some observations were offered upon the case of Mr. Pitt, as far as related to the accommodating" of Loyd and Benfield, two loan-jobbers and members of parliament. It was intended, here, to enter upon the remaining head of inquiry, to wit, the conduct of Mr. Fitt relative to the information given him, in 1797, by Mr. Thomas Raikes, then Governor of the Bank of England, and by Lord Harrowby, in 1801 and 1802. But, previously, we must now examine, somewhat in detail, a fact or two, which, to obviate all cavil against the main argument, were before allowed to pass, if not undenied, at least uncontroverted. By the defenders of Mr. Pitt it was lowed, and, indeed, it could not be denied, hat he had connived at a violation of the aw, in withdrawing 40,0001, of the naval money from the Bank of England for puroses not naval; that, in defiance of anoher law, he had connived at the application f this money to purposes to which it had ot been appropriated by parliament; and hat, he had connived at the lending, and ad participated in the lending, of the said 0.0001. of the public money, and that, too, ithout interest, to two private individuals, Who are well known to have been, at the ne, members of parlian.eut. All this stood roved in the evidence, and was, therefore, knowledged by the Rt. Hon. gentleman's

[898 advocates. But, say they, though we make this acknowledgment, we insist, that no ac tual loss has arisen to the public from the ac commodation to Boyd and Benfield; that, the accommodation prevented the failure of the house of which those two men were at the head, and that, as such failure would have produced a great public mischief" the accommodation was an act highly landas ble in Mr. Pitt. It has been shown, that, if we were to take these assertions for granted, there remains to be accounted for the extraordinary conduct of Mr. Pitt, in giving the accommodation without consulting the cabi net, without making any record of the trans action, at the time, and without having, at any time since, made the matter known to parliament, in an application for a bill of indemnity; from which it clearly appears, that had it not been for the accidental detection of the deed by the Naval Commissioners, no trace of it ever would have met the eye of parliament. What we have to inquire into now, however, is, whether any "actual "loss" arose to the public from the accommodation to Boyd and his partner; and whether that accommodation was necessary to prevent" a great public mischief."

To say that any part of the public money. can be lent, and without interest too, and that no loss shall arise therefrom to the public, is, upon the face of it, an assertion not to be believed; because, it must be obvious to every man who has the least knowledge of money transactions, that the use of money is, in fact, money; and that, to deprive the public of the use of any part of its money is, of course, to deprive it of a part of its mo ney, or, in other words, to cause it to sustain a loss. It will be remembered, that, in the debate of the 8th of April, Mr. Pitt contended, hat the public had sustained no loss. by the use which Lord Melville had suffered to be made of the public money. Whether, in making this assertion in behalf of the Treasurer of the Navy, Mr. Pitt was, by anticipation, purposely providing an argument in behalf of the First Lord of the Treasury, is what we cannot positively say; but, there