And any knowledge of the matter? And will not the most ingenious man in existence find it very difficult to ascribe this intention to any honourable motive? Upon this point it is that the decision of the parliament will be important indeed; for, it appears to me, that, if Mr. Pitt's conduct, in this instance, escape censure; if it be not severely reprobated, a licence will be, by implication, henceforth granted to every minister, and every person entrusted with the public money, to dispose of that money in whatever way he may choose to regard as calculated to prevent "public mischief." The parliament may, and, probably will, continue to pass appropriation laws, but the minister will choose in what cases they shall, or shall not, be obeyed. He may think, and, doubtless, he will think, that the most effectual way to prevent public mischief is to keep him in his place, in which opinion he will be joined by all his dependents; and, he must be a very dull man indeed, if the means of prevention do not readily present themselves to his mind. The low sneaking work of bribe, ry will, indeed, be completely at an end: it will be entirely supplanted by the handsome and gracious act of a loan without interest. With the power of making such loans to members of parliament (as Boyd and Benfield were) without consultation even with the cabinet, without putting upon record, any where, any memorandum of the transaction, and with a precedent for impunity in case of accidental detection, what man, who has sense enough to count the hobnails at the Exchequer, need hereafter be afraid of losing his place as prime minister of England? To talk of the urgency or peculiarity of the case is perfect nonsense; for, if this precedent be established, the minister will be constituted the judge, and the sole judge of the necessity of lending the public money to individuals, and that, too, without interest. Unequivocal censure, therefore, or complete justification, must be pronounced. There is no middle course. It is impossible for us so to express our opinion as not to pronounce a clear and decided censure upon Mr. Pitt, without acknowledging that every prime minister, be he who he may, is, in spite of all laws to the contrary, at perfect liberty to lend the public money, (without making any record thereof), to individuals, when such loans are necessary to prevent public mischief, of which necessity he is to be the sole judge. I am aware, indeed, that, in objection to this argument, it may be observed, that I do not advert to the peculiar circumstance of the " accommodation" having, in this instance, been given by a heaven-born minister; by a person, whose political power arose out of his ten-thousandtimes repeated professions of purity; who, for many years, spoke of little else than of reforming parliament, of cutting corruption up by the roots, of hunting out and punishing abuses in office, and of husbanding the public money to the last farthing. I am well aware that it will be insisted, that, to a person, so immaculate, may safely be allowed privileges, which it would be extremely unwise to trust in the hands of men of mere mortal origin; and that, for one of the Wicked to attempt to give "accommodations," to make loans of the public money to members of parliament, and especially without interest, would be a direct usurpation of the rights of the Saints. I am aware, that particular instances of Mr. Pitt's superior purity and of his anxious care of the public property will be pointed out to me. I know I shall be referred to those more than mortal strains, with which he began his oratorical career, by which he obtained that sublime appellation that placed him above all his predecessors as well as his contemporaries, and which either raised him above, or sunk the people of England beneath, the character of manhood. I shall be bidden to lock back to the day when he first opened his lips in parliament; when he so earnestly besought his hearers to remember, that it was their "immediate duty, as the Commons House "of Parliament, to guard the lives, the li"berties and the properties of the people; "that the last obligation was the strongest ; "that it was more immediately incumbent upon them to guard the properties, because they were more liable to invasion, by the secret and subtle attacks, of influence; that it was an unaccountable species of reasoning to talk of the sum "being insignificant in comparison to our expenses, and that our expenses were so "enormous that it was ridiculous to attend "to little matters of account, as if, because we had spent so many millions, thousands were beneath our consideration." From this dawn of heaven-descended purity, which broke in upon the benighted aisles of St. Stephen's on the 26th of February, 1781, I shall, doubtless, be led to his second public oration, which was made on the 31st of the following month, and in which he thus burst forth, upon the subject of abuses in the expenditure of the public money: "What is it "that gives the House of Commons its 66 "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 understandings; to return to a sense of their duty to the people; to act like honest "independent members of parliament, 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 tri fling 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 persons, to whom the care of its interests those who think, that these former professions 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 criminal 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's sake, that there has no actual public loss of money arisen from the loan to Boyd and Benfield, that the loan was really necessary to prevent a great public mischief, and who s 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 sanction to an act like this, to a lending of the public money by the minister, without his consulting either the parliament or the cabinet, and without any other ground of justification whet the matter is by accident found out, than x necesessity, of which he himself is the sole 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 passions, 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 conduct of LORD HARROWBY and Mr. BRAGGE as well as Mr. RAIKES.] 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 miglit be referred to, I shall be reminded; and, The IIId. Vol. of the PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, contains all the first TEN REPORTS of the Naval Commissioners. ERATUM in the last No. p. 817 1. 4. for on me read me on. Printed by Cox and Baylis, No. 75, Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Bow-Street, Covent Garden, where former Numbers may be had; sold also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre, Pall-Mall. VOL. VII. No. 24.] 46 JUSTICE SHALLOW. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE, 15, 1905. [PRICE IOD. It is well said, Sir; and it is well said, indeed, too. Accomodated! It is good; yea, indeed, is it: good phrases are surely, and ever were, very commendable Accommodated! It "comes of accommodo: very good; a good phrase! -BARDOLPH.Pardon, Sir, I have heard the "word. Phrase, call you it?. By this day. I know not the phrase: but I will maintain the word to be a "word of exceeding good command. Accomodated; that is, when a man is, as they say, accommodated: "or, when a man is,. . . . . . being, whereby, ...... he may be thought to be accommodated; "which is an excellent thing." 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 saine, and upon that evidence every free man will, at all times, have a right to argue, and to pronounce his judgment; and, if his arguments 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 Boyd 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 allowed, and, indeed, it could not be denied, that he had connived at a violation of the law, in withdrawing 40,0001. of the naval money from the Bank of England for purposes not naval; that, in defiance of another law, he had connived at the application of this money to purposes to which it had not been appropriated by parliament; and that, he had connived at the lending, and had participated in the lending, of the said 40,0001. of the public money, and that, too, without interest, to two private individuals, who are well known to have been, at the time, members of parliament. All this stood proved in the evidence, and was, therefore, acknowledged by the Rt. Hon. gentleman's 66 [898 advocates. But, say they, though we make this acknowledgment, we insist, that no actual loss has arisen to the public from the accommodation 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 pullie mischief," the accommodation was an act highly laudable 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 cabinet, without making any record of the transaction, at the time, and without having, at any time since, made the matter known to parliament, in an application for a bill of indennity; 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." 66 Το 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 money, or, in other words, to cause it to sustain a loss. It will be remembered, that, in the debate of the 8th of Apri, Mr. Pitt contended, that 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. Fitt was, by anticipation, purposely providing an arguiment in behalf of the First Lord of the Treasury, is what we cannot positively say; but, there can be no scruple in saying, that that assertion 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 en"deavoured 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 the quarterly returns made by him to the "tax-office, whence it appears, that the ave "explanations," of select persons, and particularly such persons as Lord Castlereaghi, Sir William Scott, Mr. Foster, Sir William Grant, Lord Dunlo, 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 money; and were more particularly led to "this inquiry, by the information, that an accepted bill for 10001., drawn upon the "Victualling Office, from Martinique, had "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; that "there were many other bills in the same "situation, and he must call again; and "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. Upon "further inquiry at the Victualling Office, "it appears, that on the 9th of February, "1797, the Victualling Office applied for a "sum of 70,0001. at the Exchequer, for the payment of several bills, in which the bill "in question was included; that on the "25th of the same month 47,0001. was re"ceived in part of the 70,0001. for that 66 purpose; and that on the same day the "said bill, with many others, was assigned "for payment, and would have been discharged on that day, or as soon after as payment had been called for. In this instance the delay of the assignment, and consequently of payment, appears to have " arisen from a delay in the issues from the Exchequer, and not from a refusal of payment on the part of the Treasurer of the Navy; nor has it appeared in evidence, "that any delay of payment has been actually occasioned in other branches of the "naval service by the advance in question, rage amount in his hands from the 5th of "July, 1778, to the 6th of July following was 334,0611. the interest of which, at only "4 per centum, being 13,3621. 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; for "if the 40,000 1. with which Boyd and his "associates were "6 "accommodated," had "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 the Committee, the "Selac "Commatée," as Lord Melville calls it, has said thereupon; because the judgment, or " however such a practice might in possible cases have been productive of a different "result.-NO INTEREST was demand"ed from Messrs. Boyd and Company for "the money so advanced, and so repaid; "BUT, it is to be observed, that, no interest "would have accrued to the public had the "above sum remained in the Bank in con"formity to the provisions of the Act." And why? Why, gentlemen? Why is it "to be observed ?" Especially as we find you stating, in the last paragraph but one of 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 committee, 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 86 66 to convey a judgment upon the point in question," I am perfectly willing to leave the reader to decide; because, at present, we have more to do with the tendency of the observation than with its probable object.Certainly the public would have received no interest for the 40,000l. as long as it had lain at the Bank of England. But, would it have lain at the Bank 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 sum should remain in the Bank for eight months longer; but, there were no such provisions; and, in all probability, the sum, 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 need of it to discount bills or purchase stock. -Let us suppose, 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 augment the pecuniary powers of the 66 Bank, or to augment those of Boyd and Benfield? Soon after this accommodation" took place, the Bank of England stopped payment. payment. Sir Francis Baring calls it a bankruptcy. 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 lose 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 40,0001. 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 40,000 1. was, during the time it was in the hands of Boyd and Benfield, very much wanted to discharge public debts at Somerset House is amply proved by the returns, from the Victualling Board, of bills accepted there, not being paid when due, that is to say, being dishonoured, and liable to be protested for want of money to pay them with. This is a very important branch of the subject. It is here that we see some of the worst consequences of the illegal transactions that have been so long going on in those offices. We fel, and we have long been feeling, ruin creeping over us; but, here we see how we are ruined.- -The "Selac "Commatée," as Lord Melville calls it, had been informe, that, during the time that Mr. Pitt was lending 40,000 L 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 holder of it was told, that there were no effects, or something to that pur pose." 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, ayʊse, not from the money's being detained in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy or his inferiors, but from its not bring issued, in 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 reader to draw a fair and correct conclusion as to the point before us, it |