can be no scruple in saying, that that asser-" tion was directly hostile to a principle, which is almost self-evident, and which was distinctly laid down by Mr. Pitt himself, at the time when he introduced the act, in violation of which the money was withdrawn from the Bank to be lent to Boyd'and Benfield. Upon that occasion Mr. Pitt had to make to the House a representation of the injury, which the public suffered, from their money being held unnecessarily in the hands of divers persons entrusted with its collection and expenditure, and, amongst other instances, he mentioned, in a manner more circumstantial, that of the balances detained unnecessarily in the hands of the Receiver General of the Land Tax, of the loss arising from which detention he spoke as follows. "The Commissioners of accounts have endeavoured to form some computation of "the loss sustained by the public from the "detention of the money by the Receiver "General, and, for that purpose they called for for the quarterly returns made by him to the tax-office, whence it appears, that the average amount in his hands from the 5th of ર July, 1778, to the 6th of July following was 334,0611, the interest of which, at only " 4 per centum, being 13,362 l. a year; and this is the sum, which, it is imagined, the "public has paid for want of the use of their "money." As no one can deny, that the principle here laid down is strictly applicable to every case, where public money is unnecessarily detained or lodged, in the hands of individuals; so can no one deny, that, considered merely as to its use or interest, the public must have sustained an actual loss in consequence of the loan without interest (or, as it is termed by Messrs. Pitt and Long, the accommodation") to Boyd and Benfield. But, no," say they; if the 40,000 1. with which Boyd and his "accommodated," had associates were " remained at the Bank of England, it would have lain dead; it would have produced no interest, because the Bank Company pay no interest for money placed in their "custody." Supposing this statement to be true, and the argument to tend to the justification of Mr. Pitt, away, at once, go all the legislative provisions upon the subject; and; indeed, there must be great doubt, whether Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter are not innocent men; for, it cannot be denied, that public money lying at the Bank of England never produces any interest. Before, however, we pursue this point any further, let us hear, what iteCommittee, the "Selac Comme Melville calls it, has aid the O REEP 66 "explanations," of select persons, and par ticularly such persons as Lord Castlereagh, Sir Williaro Scott, Mr. Foster, Sir William Grant, Lord Duplo, and Mr. Leycester, all of whom being placemen and enjoying great public trust and emoluments, may naturally be expected to throw light upon darker parts of the subject. They say: "In the course "of our examination into this subject, we "thought it proper to inquire, whether, in "fact, any inconvenience had been sustained by the naval service, in consequence of "the diversion of this portion of naval me ney; and were more particularly led to "this inquiry, by the information, that an accepted bill for 10001, drawn upon the Victualling Office, from Martinique, hed "been presented for payment, and that on "the 18th of February, 1797, the day it "became due, the holder of it was told at "the Victualling Office, there were no ef fects, or something to that purpose; "there were many other bills in the same situation, and he must cell agcin ; ad "that the bill was not paid till the 1st of March, though he had sent it two or three "times for payment in that interval. Upga that further inquiry at the Victualling Office, "it appears, that on the 9th of February, "1797, the Victualling Office applied for 1 66 sum of 70,0001. at the Exchequer, for the payment of several bills, in which the b "in question was included; that on the "25th of the same month 47,000l. was re"ceived in part of the 70,000l. for that purpose; and that on the same day the "said bill, with many others, was assignol "for payment, and would have been di charged on that day, or as soon after 25 payment had been called for. In this in stance the delay of the assignment, a consequently of payment, appears to here " arisen from a delay in the issues from the Exchequer, and not from, a refusal of pay "ment on the part of the Treasurer of the "Navy; nor has it appeared in evidenod "that any delay of payment, has been ac 66 tually occasioned in other branches of the naval service by the advance in question "however such a practice might in pos 66 cases have been productive of a different "result.NO INTEREST was dend "ed from Messrs. Boyd and Company for "the money so advanced, and so repaid "BUT, it is to be observed, that no intere "would have accrued to the public bad the "above sum remained in the Bank in com formity to the provisions of the Act. And why? Why, gentlemen Why is "to be observed? Especially as wề á dgment, or you stating in the last paragraph but one your Report, that you have deemed it consistent with your duty, to abstain from observations which might seem to convey a judgment upon any of the points in question? Your words are these: "Your com"mittee, duly considering the reference "under which their powers are derived, "have not felt themselves at liberty to come, to any specific resolutions on the merits of "the several transactions which have been "the subjects of their inquiry; they have " deemed it even more consistent with their DUTY, to ABSTAIN FROM OBSERVATIONS, which might SEEM TO CONVEY A JUDGMENT, upon any of the points in question."And yet, in the passage above quoted, not only an observation is made, but it is introduced with the words, it is to be observed." What is to be observed? Why, having stated the fact, that Mr. Pitt lent 40,0001. of the public money to Boyd, Benfield, and associates, without interest," it is Bank, or to augment those of Boyd and Benfield?. Soon after this " accommodation" took place, the Bank of England stopped payment. Sir Francis Baring calls it a bank ruptcy. And, in such circumstances, was it no injury to the public to lessen the means of the Bank, for the purpose of propping the credit of Boyd and Benfield? Did the publie los nothing by such a transaction? The smallness of the sum may be urged; but, not to say that this was, possibly, and even probably, only one sum out of many; to reserve our observations upon that topic till another opportunity, we must surely remark a glaring inconsistency in those who, one moment, represent this 40,000l. as the means, the effectual means, of preventing a great public mischief," and who, the next moment, speak of it as being a trifle almost unworthy of notice.But, that the sum of 40,0001. was, during the time it was in the hands of Boyd and Benfield, very much wanted to discharge public debts at to le observed," that the public would have Somerset House is amply proved by the rederived no interest from the said sun, if it turns, from the Victualling Board, of bills had not been lent to those individuals! That accepted there, not being paid when due, this is an observation will not, I think, be that is to say, being dishonoured, and liable to denied, and, whether it was intended " to be protested for want of money to pay them convey a judgment upon the point in ques- with. This is a very important branch of "tion," I am perfectly willing to leave the the subject.. It is here that we see some of red to deride; because, at present, we the worst consequences of the illegal transachave more to do with the tendency of the tions that have been so long going on in those observation than with its probable object-offices. We fiel, and we have long been 44 Certainly the public would have received no interest for the 40,0001. as long as it had lain at the Bank of England. But, would it have lain at the Bunk for as great a length of time as it lay in the hands of Boyd and Benfield? What a strange system must that be, which would have left this sum of Naval money dead at the bank for the entire space of eight months, that being the average term, during which the two loan-jobbers held the money! "Had the sum remained in the "Bank in conformity to the provisions of the "Act." Aye, very true, indeed, if the provisions of the act had rendered it necessary that this surn should remain in the Bank for eight months longer; but, there were no such provisions; and, in all probability, the sura, if it had not been lent to Boyd and Benfield, would, in a few days, have been expended in the discharge of naval debts, unless, indeed, Mr. Trotter had stood in Leed of it to disconat bills or purchase stock. -Let us suppore, however, for, argument's sake, that it would have remained in the Bank just as long as it remained in the hands of the loan-jobbers? What then? Was it no difference to the public whether it went to aguent the pecuniary powers of the feeling, ruin creeping over us; but, here we see how we are ruined. The Selac Coatée," as Lord Melville calls it, Ind been informed, that, during the time that Mr. Pitt was lending 40,0001. of the naval money, without interest, to two members of parliament," an accepted bill for "1,0001. drawn upon the Victualling Of "fice, from Martinico, had been presented "for payment, when it became due, and "that the holier of it was told, that there were no effects, or something to that purpose." We shall see, presently, that this was no singular case; but, we are told, by the Committee, in their report, that this non-payment of demands at Somerset House, this dishonouring of acceptances, arose, not from the money's being detained in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy or his inferiors, but from its not being issued, time, from the Exchequer. Here a little explanation is necessary, and not the less necessary for the cant phrases made use of in the public offices. We are told about the assigning of bills for payment, which means, the ordering of bills to be paid; and so on. To enable the roader to draw a fair and correct conclusion as to the point before us, it in no degree, proceed from the factorimot "dation" to Boyd and Benfield, because the money lent to them was not drawn from the Treasury for the use of the Victual ling Office, but for the use of some other des partment under the superintendance of the Treasurer of the Navy, I should like to know what departiment that was, and to be informed whether no bill was dishonoured there, for want of money, while such shame ful work was going on in the Victualling Department. The departiment, for the use of which the 40,000l. was drawn from the Treasury must, in such case, have been a very fortunate one; and Mr. Pitt must, temporarily at least, have been blessed with a sort of second sight, to be able to foresee that the money would not be wanted in its lawful department till his two members of parliament should have done with it! Strange system of conducting the expenditure of the Ivy! While one department is starving, another is smothering in its fat! While, or one side of the square at Somerset House, acceptances are daily and hourly dishonour is necessary to observe, 1. That all the money wanted for naval services is issued from the Exchequer, or Treasury, and, of course, under the authority of the Lords of the Treasury, of which Lords Mr. Pitt was, at the time referred to, the chief; . That the money is issued from the Treasury in virtue of memorials, or applications, from the perSous at the head of the Victualling and other boards respectively; 3. That when the Victualling Board, for instance, perceives that it shall want a sum of money to pay bills of exchange, &c. &c. and makes an application beforehand, accordingly, the money is, or ought to be, immediately issued from the Treasury and lodged in the Bank of EngJand, being placed, under the Victualling head, to the credit of the Treasurer of the Navy; 4. That when a bill of exchange, &c. becomes due at the Victualling Office, the money to pay it (which is, or ought to be, already in the Bank) is, or ought to be, received by the Victualling Board from the Treasurer of the Navy; and, of course, when the bill is presented for payment, it ought to be paid.This was the intentioned; on the other, money is so plenty that it of the law; and, agreeably to this intention, there would never have been but very small balances of the naval money in the Bank; not a farthing of it ever could have been sported with by Mr. Trotter or lent by Mr. Pitt to members of parliament without în terest; government acceptances would never have been dishonoured; and the immense increase of the price of all naval articles and services, arising from such a state of blasted credit, would have been avoided. Let not the reader imagine, however, that it was one bill of exchange only, that was thus dishonoured; for, upon calling on the Victualling Board for an account of bills in this situation, during the time that Boyd and Benfield held 40,0001, of the naval money, the Committee found, to their great mortification, I dare say, that, at the Victalling Of fice alone, there were, between June, 1796, and June, 1798, SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO ACCEPTED BILLS NOT PAID ON THE DAY THEY BECAME DUE, FOR WANT OF MONEY. Need we now doubt the truth of Admiral Markham's assertion, that, for many years past, one third part of the money raised for The services of the navy has been wasted: It is a pity the committee did not call for a list of the bills that were not dishonoured.But, though it cannot be denied, that this was a most destructive and scandalous course of proceeding; though it is evident, that it must have been, in the highest degree, injurious to the country; it is said, that it did; in can be lent for eight months together without interest! This must be quite unac countable to any one not of tire initiated. It is impossible to imagine any good reason why one department should be thus flush of money, while another is unable to pay, due time, an acceptance of twenty pounds. By a reference to the Tenth Report (Regis ter, p. 481), it will be perceived, that, in December in each of the years 1796 and 1797, there was a considerable sum of the naval money in the hands of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. In the former year there was 75,000l. and in the latter 58,0001 These sums Mr. Trotter was employing ir discounting private bills in stock-jobbing; and in other speculations with Mark Sprott And, when we now perceive, that, at these very times, acceptances were dishonoured at the Victualling Office for want of money, are we still to be told, that the public sulfered no loss from the misapplication of itmoney. In December, 1796, for instance, Royd and Benfield had 40,000 1 of the na val money upon log without interest, and Trotter had 75,000l. of it at Coutts's er elsewhere; and, in that very month, one ti the naval departments was, and, perhaps, all of them were, daily and hourly dishonouring acceptances for want of money!” Oh, the duped, the cozened nation! We affect to laugh at our ancestors, who, according to an ingenious calculator, used to purchase annually two or three hundred bushels of the pairings of St. Bridget's toenails We speak of them as persons, who lived in the "if a duce his proof," Mr. Robson, now evidently alarmed for his safety, said, that the fact had come out in the warmth of debate; if the House was offended with that warmth, he was sorry for it; but he could prove what he had said. This pertinacity seemed to be too much for the patience of those high mettled gentlemen, Messrs, Vansittart and Dent, the last of whom now insisted upon the words being "taken down for the pur pose of affording the House an opportunity of considering what proceeding it might adopt upon this business, which was a very serious one." Here Mr. Dent, by sitting down, happily gave scope to the indignant patroitism of Mr. Addington, which threatened, if much longer pent up, to produce some bodily convulsion, "I understand said he," after some preface, "I understand the hon. gent. to say and abide by these words: THAT GOVERNMENT ACCEPTANCES HAVE BEEN REFUSED PAYMENT; that is to say, THAT A GOVERNMENT ACCEPTANCE WAS CARRIED TO THE SICK AND HURT OFFICE, AND THAT THERE PAYMENT WAS REFUSED. This is the assertion of the hon. member. I wish to know now, whether be adopts that sentence, or wishes to qualify it." Mr. Robson said, that it was impossible for him, in the warmth of debate, to be sufficiently guarded. "The matter," said Mr. Addington," is grave and serious. It certainly shall be inquired into without delay, and the result shall be made known to the House."--The reader will recollect as far as this declaration relates to himself, I believe the less is said about it the better; but that will not now do for the House. He must explain what is meant by the fact of which he has spoken." Mr. Robson, under the operation of apparent terror, acknow-what the result was. He will recollect, that ledged that the sum was of small amount. the matter was afterwards, by Mr. Addington himself, treated as farcical." He and Mr. Vansittari acknowledged that acceptances in great numbers had not been paid when due. But, the important statement during that proceeding is yet to be pointed out. We have now seen, that, at the Victualling Office alone, there were, in the space of two years, seven hundred and forly two acceptances dishonoured, that is to say, not paid when due, for want of money; but, in order to convince us, that the want of money did not arise from the naval money being drawn out of the Bank and used by Boyd, we are informed, that the delay in the payment of bills arose from a delay in the issues at the EXCHEQUER." Now, then, I beseech the reader to mark well the declaration of Mr. Addington on the 8th of March, 1802. "I am not disposed to de No, no," said Mr. Addington, rising upon his toes, the affair must not drop here. It is due to the House; it is due to the government. The credit of the country requires that this matter should be fully explained I understand the honourable gentleman to alledge, that government acceptances have been refused payment at a .public offices... that government acceptances have been refused payment at a public office ...is the expression. I call on him to state the particulars. Doctor Lawrence thought that the words could not now be taken down, other speeches having intervened, nor, perhaps, was there any necessity for it. Yes, replied. Mr. Addingdon, raising both head and voice, ". yes, the honourable gentleman has created the necessity. Ile does not yet state it as an inadvertancy of speech; an assertion hastily made; it is spoken advisedly, I am sure we should be making a miserable use of the forms of the House, if we decided, that they preclades from calling upon him to pro 66 ny" (this was four days after the taking down of Mr. Robson's words)., "but, on the contrary, am ready to admit, that the "bill alluded to was presented and not paid; but, such a circumstance is not peculiar to the present time. I can ASSERT, however, that there never was a single instance, in which the * TREASURY (and there the credit of government resides) has been applied to for money, or where the money has been wanted for the payment of a bill of i exchange, that the application was disappointed. There never was an instance, either where it was in erpectation that money would be wanted, or of its falling due, or of bills being tendered, and the and the money wanted upon them, in which the money was not INSTANTLY advanced." Yet, after this solemn declaration from the prime minister to the parliament, as contained in the printed report of his speech, we now find, that, only in the space of two years, in one of the four departments of the navy, seven, hundred and forty two acceptances were not paid when due, and, by the Select Committee we are informed, that the delay arose from a delay in the issues from the Exchequer! After this, what and who are we to believe? Where can we place any reliance? Of one fact, however, we can have no doubt; and that is, if the 40,000l. lent to members of parliament without interest, had not been so lent, it might have gone to pay, in due time, some of the many bills that were dishonoured at the Victualling Office. No, say the partizans of Mr. Pitt, for the money could not, according to the act, be transferred from one department of the navy to the other. But, though we were to admit, that it could not as easily be transferred from one public department to another as from a public department to the purse of individuals; though we were to admit this, the admission, while it would be a strong instance of our disposition to concede, would not preclude us from asking, whether, the 40,0001. might not have remained at the Treasury, to be drawn out for the payment of bil's of exchange, instead of being drawn out in the name of naval services, and lent to Boyd and Benfield. Is it not, however, to trifle with, and almost to insult our own understandings, to suppose, for a moment, that this money was required out of the Treasury for naval services, or that it was drawn out with an intention to be applied to naval services, when we find the minister lending it, for an indefinite period, to individuals, and that, too, without interest, and without making any record of the transaction ?----- [I am compelled to break off here; but the subject shail be resumed in any next, and, in the mean while, I beg the reader to peruse, with great attention, the evidence, here below inserted, of Mr. DRUMMOND, the partner of Boyd and Benfield, which evidence clearly proves," that the loan which Mr. Pitt made of the public money to these persons, was not necessary to prevent a public mischief-See also, in this sheet, some curious remarks on the answers of Mr. Pitt to the questions of the Select Committee.] EVIDENCE OF MR. DRUMMOND. The following evidence of Mr. Drummond, a part. ner of Boyd and Benfield, was critted in the ha Number, for want of room. It was taken before the Select Committee on the 13th, 15th, and 17th ultimo. required 13th May.-Q. Were you partner in the firm of Boyd and Benfield? 4. I was, but not precisely on the same footing as the other partners; the house of Boyd and Betfield was established in the mouth of March, 1793. I became concerned with them on the 1st of January, 1794, and was announced to the correspondents of the house as a partner, but as between ourselves it was agreed, in consideration of my share of the profits being comparatively small, that I should be exempted from any participation of loss in the years in which a loss might occur, and also from any contribution towards the capital, I retired from the house on the 31st of December, 1798, in consequence of previous notice given by me to that effect early in that year. I never signed, or was to sign, their contract of partnership.-Q. During the time that you were a partner, did you take any active part in the concem of the house, by personal attendance to the business carried on? A. I did, but chiety under the direction of Mr. BoydQ. D you recollect the circumstances relative to the loan negotiated in November, 1795, at what periods the several instalments to be made on that loan were contracted for to be paid? A. I recollect that a loan was are in the month of December, 1795, which included a sum of 4,600,0001, lent to the Emperor of Germany, for whom the house of Boyd, Benfield, and Company, agents; the further som for the service t this country, I believe, was 18,000,000l.: the periods of instalments it is imposible tor me to state from memory, but they were publicly known. Q. Was the house of Boyd and Benfield joint contractors for that loan? 4. They were.-Q. Do you recollect any difficulty, from the state of the money market at any period before the t instalment was made, of completing the perment of any instalment of that lur? 41 were |