"fice, and did not attend in parliament, at the time that promise was made "but, I am satisfied, that if great and un"exampled burdens had not been rendered necessary, the pledge would have been. amply fulfilled." That is to say, if the money bad not been wanted, it would not have been called for; which, as the promise was, that the money would not be wanted, was the same thing as to say, that if the promise had not been broken, it would have been kept! This, if not quite nonsense is certainly very near it; for, I can hardly suppose, that, notwithstanding what has recently come to light, he thought it necessary to declare, that the money had not been applied to other purposes than those for which it was raised.Of the Sinking out accumulating more debt. It is conso"ling and encouraging, that instead of ad"ding to our loans, we can raise by the "sinking fund, and the taxes raised within "the year, no less a sun than twenty mil"lions this year. This is a most flattering "picture of the state of our resources, and "the regular payment of near eight millions a year by the sinking fund, in spite of our"accumulated difficulties, is the best testi-Fund, unless I had been in a mood more mony in favour of public credit. The be"neficial effects of this system is needless "for me to insist upon, for they are felt in "the general prosperity, industry and com fort of the people."- "Surely," said Dr. Primrose, upon hearing a bombastical rhapsody about the cosmogony, or creation of the world, "Surely," said he, "I have "heard those very words before, and just in "the order which they have been now de"livered!" Whereupon, looking round in the face of the speaker, who should it be but Ephraim Jenkinson, who had formerly cheated him out of his horse Blackberry, at the fair, and who repeated, upon all such occasions, a set speech about cosmogony, which latter habit one cannot help calling to mind upon reading the above extract from the report of Mr. Pitt's speech on Thursday last; for, the very words contained in that extract, and in very nearly the same order, I will pledge myself to find, inserted in the parliamentary debates, as delivered by the same person, twice, at least, in every year for twenty years past, excepting only the years 1803 and 1801. To set about seriously answering such a statement would be to admit, that there is some one who may have been deceived by it. And, indeed, there may; but, who ever that deceived person be, he is hardly worth undeceiving. There is, however, one assertion that I cannot help noticing, as it appears to have been considered as a stroke of humour. Mr. Grey had, as was before observed, referred to the promise, made at the begin ning of the war, that the annual supplies would not exceed 26,000,0000l. to which Mr. Pitt answered: I was not in of 66 than commonly jocular, I should have taken no notice; but, I should hardly have refrained from making some remark on the reference made to the "comfort of the people," as a proof of the flourishing state of our resources. Upon this subject, I think I must have asked him, whether there being more than a million of paupers in England and Wales alone were a symptom of comfort amongst the people; and whether the mumber of paupers having been nearly doubled during his administration, were a mark of the salutary effects of his system!-There is something in the close of this part of his speech which rather alarmed me. He talked about "re= "solutions soon to be brought forward by "an honourable gentleman of ability and accuracy well fitted for the task;" and then, said he, "I shall be able to shew the "house, that the view I have taken of the "financial state of the country is by no " means delusive." This alarmed me; because, if there be any that can continue to puzzle the minds of men, and, of course, to prolong the delusion, and thereby to render it more fatal in its consequences, it is this annual batch of financial resolutions tendered by some one of the Opposition; in which resolutions all the principles of the minister are solemnly recognised, the point in dispute being, confined to some trifling more or less in the detail, which, if the principles be admitted, is entirely beneath the notice of any one whose mind is not nearly upon a level with that of a Jew broker. JAMAICA. Thus pressed for room, I can only request the reader to turn to page 947, where he will find a very important official relative to the affairs of this Island. paper Printed by Cox and Baylis, No. 75, Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Pow-Street, Cosent Garden, where Braer Numbers may be had; sold also by J. Badd, Crown and Mitre, Pall-Mall, VOL. VII. No. 26.] 961] LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE, 29, 1805. As when great Cox, at his mechanic call, MR. PITT'S CASE. (Continued from p. 939.) [PRICE 10D. The self-same pearls, in nice gradation, all The THIRD and last proposed head of discussions was, Mr. Pitt's conniving at the withdrawing of naval money from the Bank of England, to be lodged at the banking shop of Coutts and Company, and, of course, to be made use of for purposes of private emolument. By the partizans of Mr. Pitt, it has, all along, been asserted, that he knew nothing of the illegal proceedings of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. Mr. Pitt himself, however, appears to have been conscious of this mistake; and, to this consciousness we may, probably, attribute some part at least of that anxiety, which, on the 8th of April, he discovered with respect to the modification of the resolution of censure. That resolution states, "that Lord Mel"ville, having been privy to, and connived "at, the withdrawing from the Bank of "England for purposes (as acknowledged " by Lord Melville) of private interest or "emolument, to Mr. Trotter, sums issued "to him as Treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account at the Bank, according to the provisions of the 25 Geo. III. Ch. 31. has been guilty of a gross viola"tion of the law and a high breach of duty." Here it is evident, that the having been privy to, and connived at, the withdrawing of naval money from the bank, contrary to the act, and for purposes of private emolument, constituted, in the opinion of the mover of the resolution, the guilt of Lord Melville, which opinion finally appeared to be that of the house. When, therefore, we find, that Mr. Pitt was informed, duly informed, informed by the governor of the bank of England, so long ago as the year 1797, of the withdrawing of the naval money from ute bank to be lodged at a private shop; when we find that Mr. Pitt, did, in consequence of this information, neither take any steps to put a stop to the illegal practice, nor inform his colleagues of the cabinet, or any of them, of the information he had received; when we find, that the practices still continued in their full degree of flagrancy; [962 when, in short, we find, that there was a complete connivance on the part of Mr. Pitt also, we cannot be much at a loss with regard to the motives, by which that gentleman was actuated, when he so anxiously besought the house not to characterize such a connivance as " a gross violation of the law "and a high breach of duty."-By adverting to the amendments, which Mr. Pitt proposed to introduce into the resolution of censure on Lord Melville, we find that he was very strenuous in his endeavours to have the words " has been GUILTY of a gross "violation of the law and a high breach of duty" left out, and to cause to be inserted in their stead, "has acted contrary to the INTENTION of the law;" by which he obiously wished to convey, as the opinion of the house, that the connivance, in which it now appears he was a participator, arose from a want of knowing, or, at least, recollecting, what was the real intention of the law. This the reader should keep in mind; because, the proposition having been rejected by the house of commons, they, in effect, decided for Mr. Pitt as well as for Lord Melville, that the connivance did not proceed from any want of information as to the intention of the law. But, of this we shall have occasion to say more, after having stated the substance of the evidence of Mr. Raikes. That gentleman informed the committee (see the whole of his evidence in p. 809 to 872, present volume), that, in the year 1797, being then governor of the bank of England, he "told Mr. Pitt, then First "Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of "the Exchequer, that he had heard, at the "bank, that same morning, that the Trea 66 ple believe, that the intelligence came to him in a way that rendered it little calculated to engage his attention. "I have a general recollection," says he before the select committee," that Mr. Raikes took some "occasion to MENTION to me, that he be"lieved sums were drawn from the bank to a larger amount than he supposed to be necessary, &c. &c." Mr. Raikes's evidence is quite different from this. Mr. Raikes says positively, he told Mr. Pitt, that he had been informed by Mr. Giles, the late, Governor of the bank, and by Mr. Newland the Cashier, not that sums larger than were necessary" were drawn from the bank, but that the Treasurer of the Navy now kept his cash at Coutts's instead of keeping it at the bank, and that navy bills were now paid at Coutts's instead of being paid by drafts upon the bank; and this he expressly says, he reminded Mr. Pitt, was in violation of the act of parliament. "But," says Mr. Pitt, no memorandum, or "document of any sort was given to me.' To this let us, before we proceed further, add what, upon this part of the subject, he said in his defence in the House of Commons, on the 14th instant. "When gentlemen," said he, “ ́speak of the attention to be given "to any communication, it is surely not asking too much that they shall keep in "view the circumstances under which the "communication took place, the degree of It individual by whom it is communicated, "and the probability that what has been com"municated is consistent with truth. Now, with regard to this communication of "Mr. Raikes, I must be permitted to observe, that it was not made in his capacity འ of Governor of the Bank of England. It "was not given as a statement derived from "his own knowledge, but one obtained from the information of others. It was not ac"companied by any documents. It was not "repeated under circumstances more strik"ing than when originally produced. Tak"ing into view, then, all the circumstances "of the case, and calling the attention of the House to what appears in my evidence before the committee, I hope that there will be no reason found for supposing that "I have not in this instance fulfilled my "duty to the country in that confidential "situation which I then enjoyed, however "I may regret, that in consequence of what "has since appeared, the inquiry had not "been at that time more fully pursued." We can with difficulty distinguish here whether he means to call in question the general character, and the veracity in t particular instance, of Mr. Rakes. The House, he says, should keep in view the degree of authenticity which the information might be reasonably supposed to possess the character of the informant; the prolebility of the truth of his information. But the House knows, that the information wes true; and, it was for Mr. Pitt to discern. that there was a great probability of its being true, especially as he knew, that, at the suggestion of the person accused by Mr. Raikes, 40,0001. had been illegally withdrawn from the bank, in order to to "accommodate;" yes, to "accomm date" `two'members of parliament, just as the first session of a new parliament tras about to cominence. There were ** no do "cuments." In his evidence, he says that "no memorandum, or document of any sort "was given him." In his subsequent defence in the House, he says, "the informa *tion was not accompanied with any do cuments." Much stress is laid, too, upon the circumstance of Mr. Raikes, the Governor of the Bank, not having given the information in his official capacity. "must," says he, in his speech above quoted," be permitted to observe, that the communication of Mr. Raikes was not "made in his capacity as Governor of the "Bank." The Select Committee, observe, too, in their report, that though Mr Raikes, at the time he gave the information, had occasion to hold official intercourse with Mr. Pitt by authority of the bank, he did not give the information, till "the official be"siness was over." This distinction is very nice indeed. He was the Governor of the Bank; he went to Mr. Pitt as Governor of the Bank; but the moment he began to talk of a violation of the law on the part of Lord Melville, he ceased to be, or, at least to be considered as, Governor of the Bank, though he was communicating information relative to the concerns of the bank with the treasurership of the navy! Could he, will any man say that he could, be considered in any other light than that of Governer of the Bank? The Select Committee, that st dulous committee, seem to have attached great importance to this distinction of chiracter in the person of Mr. Raikes. They asked him several questions touching the capacity, in which he was when he communicated the information. They asked him (see his evidence, p. 870 and 871) whether he had any authority from the bank to mention the matter to Mr. Pitt. * None, says he, I did it for the public good." Then, being asked, if he spoke merely as a 7 individual," I cannot say," replied he, loan-jobbers ask for an accommodation" out of the public money, he hesitates not a moment; asks for no proof of any public quite as an individual; I was Governor of "the Bank at the time I learned it at the Bank, and I mentioned it to Mr. Pitt, be-good that is to proceed from the grant; says "ing Governor of the Bank." And, upon being asked, whether he afterwards enquired, whether any steps had been taken, in consequence of his communication to Mr. Pitt, he answers: I looked upon it, that having made the matter known to the "Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was in the hands of the person most competent to "set any thing right that might be wrong "in the business." To be sure! But, then, who will deny that the communication was official? The fact is, that this miserable subterfuge has been hitched upon -the not a word to any of his colleagues; and, when the loan is made, thinks it not at all necessary to cause the slightest trace of the matter to be left any where in existence. “I should" (said he in his defence, on the 14th instant, speaking of the loan to Boyd and Benfield) I should certainly have felt "that I had deserted my duty to my Sovereign, to this House, and to the public, "if I had, for fear of violating a particular form, not possessed fortitude enough to do "what I conceived the highest interests, "not of this kingdom merely, but of En rope, required.' Now, supposing it not to have been clearly proved that public utility was a mere pretext for the violation of the law in this instance; supposing there still to be persons so weak as to believe, or so proffigate as to affect to believe, that the public credit was thereby preserved; supposing that the "highest interests" of this kingdom and of all Europe required a loan of 40,000l. to be lent, tecretly, by the minister, out of the public money, to two members of parliament just at the eve of the opening of the session; supposing a notion like this to have gotten complete possession of the brains of those wiseacres, who (from the gallery-I mean, of course) listened to the speech and applauded the "fortitude" of this political hero, in his noble defiance of " of " forms," which his modesty, doubtless, prevented him from calling laws; supposing this, yet, I think, that even these persons must wonder, and regret, that this sort of "fortitude" should have entirely failed him in the case of Mr. Raikes. Certainly he had, in this case, a clearly understood duty to perform towards the king and the people; but, we see, that, unfortunately, he did not possess fortitude enough to set "forms" at defiance. It was not in his official capacity that Mr. Raikes spoke. He did, indeed, tell him of the gross misuse of the public money; but, he did not expressly state, that he was authorised to tell him so; and, therefore, so tenacious was the heaven-born minister of "forms," that he could not act, or, at least, to any useful purpose; and, thus, the abuse continued to the end of Mr. Dundas's Treasurership, and, in fact, as we shall see, by-and-by, to the time that the son-in-law of Mr. Coutts happened to oppose the court candidate in the county of Middlesex! When Mr. Pitt is informed, and, in spite of all he can say or insinuate, credibly informed, that the naval money is withdrawn 66 wrong horn, it being no matter what Capacity Mr. Raikes spoke in, so that the person he spoke to was in an official capacity, connected with the expenditure, or custody, of the public treasure. If, indeed, the informant had been a persor, unknown to Mr. Pitt, or known to be a person who, from either his character or situation, was worthy of little notice; if he had been a man who, had brought a mere report picked up at a coffee-house or in a stage-coach; then one might have easily found an excuse for Mr. Pitt in letting the matter drop after a mere mention of it to Lord Melville. But, I think it quite impossible for any one to look upon Mr. Raikes in this light, even supposing his capacity as governor of the bank to be left entirely out of sight. All that was required in the informant, to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make a strict enquiry into the matter, was, that he should be a person known to be likely to speak the truth, and to have obtained tolerably accurate information as to the matter in question. There was no official capacity required. His capacity of one of the people gave Mr. Raikes a full right to communicate the information, and any one of the many capacities of Mr. Pitt rendered it his bounden duty to make an enqury into its truth. But, there was no memorandum;" there was no document of any sort," accompanying the information. And, what would have been the use of documents? Of what could they have consisted? In the case of Boyd and Benfield Mr. Pitt wanted no documents to induce him to act! Nay, "it did not occur to him as necessary to make, or cause to be made, any record, or minute of the transaction, How differently the mind of this gentleman appears at different times and under different circumstances! But, so it is, they say, with all your heaven-born gentlemen. When a couple of from the Bank, in violation of the law, and to the manifest risk and injury of the public, he is as cold as death; cannot move for want of official authority in the informant ; waits for documents, as a constable or jailor does for his warrant or writ, and without them, cannot stir an inch. But, when the interest of Boyd and Benfield is the object; when he is asked to lend them a sum of the publie money, he waits not a moment for any thing, calls for no official authority, for no documents to prove the truth of their statements, dashes, at once, through all the laws that stand in his way; and this he has the confidence to cite as a mark of his "* for titude," of his Camillus-like devotion to the safety of his country! It would, he tells the House of Commons, have been "de serting his duty to his Sovereign, to that "House, and to the people" (to the people!), if he had not set all law at defiance in order to serve the public by lending the public money, without interest, to members of parliament; but, when he was called upon to serve the public by putting a stop to the misapplication of its money, his duty compelled him to wait for formal official information accompanied by documents! A people so insulted, and so tame under insult, as the English now are, exists not, and, I believe, never has existed, in the world! What empty assurance does it discover in such a people to affect to pity the French; and, sometimes to reproach them with their baseness in submitting to the insolence of Buonaparté! If the French submit to insult, they can apologize to themselves, that they submit to a great military chief, not a sashencircled commander of volunteers or of catamarans. Posterity will never blame the French for bearing patiently with the man, who has so widely extended their dominions; who has added so immensely to their power and their fame, and who has brought their ancient rival to their feet. What, therefore, will be the judgment of posterity, as to the tameness with which the English have born, and still bear, language, like that above described, from Mr. Pitt, we can be at no loss to determine. But, let us hope, and confidently expect, that we shall not leave it to posterity to decide this question. Let us hope to live to see the restora tion of our ancient character. The next excuse for not instituting an inquiry, in consequence of Mr. Raikes' information, is, that, at the time the information was given to Mr. Pitt, he did not particularly advert to the provisions of the act of parlia ment, and it did not occur to his mind, * that drawing such sums of money as were necessary for carrying on the details d the service was an illegal practice." Suc was Mr. Pitt's statement before the Seler: Committee. It will be seen presently, the it was impossible for Mr. Pitt to have conceived, from, the information of Mr. Raikes, that the withdrawing from the bank was confined to such sums of money as were necessary for carrying on the details, et "the service." It will be shown, that it was quite impossible that he should have conceived such a notion from what Mr. Raikes told him; but, first, we must remark upon the circumstance of his not having particularly adverted to the provisions "of the act," and of its" not occurring to "his mind that the practice was unlaw ful; which, with an addition worthy of notice, he thus repeated in his defence in the House of Commons, on the 14th instant. "The honourable gentleman thinks it extraordinary that I should not have kept "in my recollection that the practice of withdrawing money from the bank and placing it in the hands of a private banker was contrary to the provisions of an express act of parliament. In my evidence "before the committee, I did not say that "the act of parliament was not in my re"collection, but only asserted, that I might "not, at that time, have particularly ad "verted to all its provisions. I will not now enter into any controversy as to the "real construction of the act, but undoubtedly it is a grave question, whether the 6& meaning of the act is, that even when "the money is bona fide drawn out of the "bank for purposes strictly naval, it may "not be lodged in the hands of a private "banker for the greater facility to be given to the public service." This " graze question" Mr. Whitbread will now do well to keep his eye upon; for, he may rest assured, that none of the arts which perverted reason affords, will be wanting to endeavour to make it appear, that, the strict letter of the law has not been violated by Lord Melville, he and his paymaster having always taken care, to draw the money out of the bank by the means of those documents named and detailed in the act of parliament, and the act not having positively and specifically prohibited the employment of the money for other than naval purposes after is was drawn out for naval piaposes... Bat, the point to which we must now return, is, Mr. Pitt's excuse of not having, at the time Mr. Raikes gave him the information, “particularly adverted to the provisions of "the act;" and, here we must not forget, that Mr. Raikes, at the time when he held |