hundred thousand pounds. To the accommodation fecured by government in the Hamburgh bills, he afcribed the preference fhewn to Mr. Boyd in the loan. Such a tranfaction as that of the Hamburgh bills had been declared, by the governor of the bank, of a nature fo bad, that, if it had taken place in the dealings of a private merchant, it would have been deemed a difgrace to his houfe. If the ruin of the French finances brought that country into a more negotia able ftate," he must congratulate the minister on having brought Great Britain into a ftate peculiarly fitted for negotiation."

Mr. Smith, in reply to what had been advanced, infifted upon the abandonment of competition. The point which had been conceded to the claim of Mr. Boyd, was certainly, he obferved, of great magnitude and importance; and the minifter was defirous to have it understood that he had received fuch conviction

on the subject as enabled him, with propriety, to make fuch a facrifice. Now, he defired it might be carefully obferved, that after all the converfations and reprefentations which had wrought this unwilling conviction, the minifter had repeatedly spoken of that claim in fuch terms as thefe; as a circumstance which had but recently come to his knowledge, but which" was entitled to fome degree of attention." Would he then fay that an impreffion on his mind, fo lightly fpoken of when warm and exiting in its full force, to perfons too who were entitled to the strongest reafons he could produce, and whom he must be defirous of convincing, could be the real, fole, and fufficient motive to induce him to furrender, and to justify him in furrendering,

the acknowledged benefits of com petition, and in concluding fuch a bargain as had been made? In conclufion, the refolutions which had been brought up by Mr. Smith, and which confifted of thirty-nine," were negatived; and two refolutions moved by Mr. Douglas were paffed, approving the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer.

The affair of the Hamburgh bills, which had been fo frequently alluded to in the debates refpecting the loan, produced, February 29, three refolutions from Mr. Jekyll, the rft. ftating the fact that 700,000l. were drawn in London in September 1795, on the treasury, in the name of W. Boyd, jun. bearing a fictitious date at Hamburgh, feve ral weeks preceding the time when, with the privity of the chancellor of the exchequer, they were drawn in London; and that the faid Boyd was not engaged in bufinefs in Hamburgh.-2. That the faid fum was paid to the paymafter general by order of the treafury, in direct, breach of an act of parliament of the 23d of George III. and that the bank of England could have refufed to discount the notes as illegal:-and, 3d, that the faid tranfaction was illegal and unconftitutional, and had brought the public credit into difrepute and fufpicion.

The motion was preceded by a fpeech from Mr. Jekyll, in which he obferved upon the fecrecy of this tranfaction. Secrecy, he faid, was the concomitant mark and badge of fraud. How the minifter came to be in want of fo much money fo early in September, and why he was not upon fuch terms with the directors of the bank as to obtain the money from them by way of anticipation, was not indeed the

queftion;

queftion; but that he was not, appeared from the evidence of Mr. Boyd, who fuggefted the mode by which government might be fupplied. Mr. Boyd had stated, too, that he expected no remuneration for this fervice to government. This, however, had not been the opinion of Meffrs. Giles, Mellifh, and Morgan. The first particularly underftood that a preference was to be given to Mr. Boyd in the loan. It was the opinion alfo of these gentlemen, that the mode in which Mr. Boyd affifted government in thefe bills, would have difcredited any private mercantile houfe, and fhaken the credit of any private individual. Another feature of fraud and collufion in the bills, was, that they were without ftamps, though inland bills of exchange. It was an axiom, legally admitted, that an appearance of fraud like this would vitiate any tranfaction ab initio; and the moment that a caufe had come into court refpecting these bills, when this defect was difcovered the whole would have been completely annihilated, the parties nonfuited, and the bills, with the right of action, fallen to the ground. Here were three fpecies of prefumptive fraud, -the fecrecy of the tranfaction, the antedating of the bills, and the draw ing of them on unftamped paper. Had they, indeed, been drawn at Hamburgh, no ftamp was neceffary; this, therefore, was glaring fraud. Had the holder of the bills been afked, where was the drawer? he muft ei. ther difgrace the paper and difcredit himself, or he must assert a fraudulent falsehood." The statute which this tranfaction violated, was paffed to prevent embezzlement, and to interpofe the bank as a falutary check upon the paymafter general." This had been grofsly evaded. When a tranfaction fimilar to this, in the 1796.

cafe of the Liverpool and Manchefter bills, had come before the lords, a very ferious doubt was entertained whether they did not a mount to forgery, and whether the parties concerned in the indorfement ought not to be hanged. "If fuch was the cafe when the indorfement only was fictitious, what was the cafe when the drawer and the place were both fiitious, the bills drawn on unftamped paper, and antedated?" What would be the fituation of the bill-holders, had the bank refused to difcount them? and what confidence could be placed in a minister who reforted to fuch means, and who, in a war like the prefent, might be frequently driven to the fame fyftem? Who could tell, when a bill was offered, whether it was a fair bill from the treafury, or a fictitious one from Boyd? The minifter had, he said, on a former evening, contended that there was no fraud, because there were fufficient affets. Had there not, he asked, a whole month elapfed after the laft payment of the loan of 1795, and before thefe bills were due? The bills were

drawn September the 10th; and fortunately fome of them ran to the 3d of February before they became. due. What was the actual cafe? If no new loan had been bargained for before December 10th when the first class of these bills became payable, an action might have lain against the accepter, the drawer, and the indorfer of these bills; but it fortunately occurs, that, on the very day when they were due, the depofit of 10 per cent. of the new loan is made, and thus Boyd pays himself out of his own fund. The fund was then leffened by the prompt payments and towards the latter end of the year the payments came in fact, or

G

the

the funds at that period would not have been half the value of the bills. Mr. Jekyll cenfured the want of forefight in the minifter, in not making the loan of 1795 nineteen inftead of eighteen millions; which would have precluded the neceffity of fhaking the public credit by coming in the middle of fummer for another million. The excufe for this had been, that, as parliament was not then fitting, and as it was neceffary to be fecret left the enemy fhould be apprized of the preffure of our circumftances, he was compelled to recur to this expedient. What would the emy fay now, but that the chancellor of the exchequer has been fo diftreffed for money, as to raife it, in concert with one Boyd, by forging bills, and that he had been guilty not only of fraud, but of a direct violation of an act of parliament?

Mr. Charles Long objected to the refolutions, and stated the tranfaction which they were defigned to reprobate. In August 1795, money was wanted for the public fervice, in anticipation of certain portions of the payments on the loan and lottery remaining unpaid, and which became due in November, December, and January. In confequence of this, application was made to Mr. Boyd, who, through a relation, his agent at Hamburgh, agreed to accommodate government. Secrecy was neceffary to prevent a fcarcity of money. Before this bufinefs took place, Mr. W. Boyd arrived in London; and the exigence of affairs did not allow of fending to Hamburgh in convenient time for a remittance of fuch bills as were wanted. The only irregularity was in antedating the bills, and dating them from Hamburgh; had they been drawn in Hamburgh, and fent to London, they would

have been perfectly regular. There was no fraud, he contended, in any part of the tranfation. From the account of monies paid into the exchequer, he afferted that there was more than fufficient to discharge the 700,000l. without anticipating the new loan. if, in complying with the orders of the lords of the treafury to pay this fum into the hands of the paymafter general, he had offended against the letter of an act of parliament, he had not offended against the fpirit of it. He knew there was no balance left in the hands of the paymafter general; but the regular mode was to pay it in his name. The engagement about the loan between the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Boyd he perfectly recollected.

Sir W. Pulteney vindicated the whole of the tranfaction. The fum wanted was, he thought, far from extraordinary, and was much better raised in the mode in which this bufinefs was tranfacted, than by convening parliament at fo unufual a time. With respect to the mode in which it was raifed, bilis of exchange were preferable to bonds or treafury warrants, which could not be readily transferred. It was certainly right that the minifter fhould give Mr. Boyd whatever fecurity he liked beft; and furely there was no crime in raifing money by anticipa tion from the bank, or from a private banker; confequently there could be no fraud. The 5 per cent. intereft required by Mr. Boyd was, he thought, very reasonable. This was not, he faid, as had been advanced, a new thing. In 1771 the bank of England agreed to advance 60,000l. on the fecurity of a West India eftate: the bank then never difcounted bills for more than two months. Bills in this cafe (Walton and Ellifon) were drawn

at

at two months. They were all dated and purported to be drawn at Edinburgh; but the bank knew the drawer conftantly lived in London. The bills were, however, renewed every two months, and the bank continued to discount them for two years. As to the bills being drawn on unftamped paper, had they been ftamped, government muft have been paid. It was only faving government the trouble of paying with one hand, and receiving with the other.

Mr. Grey asked what was the amount of the deficiency fo lightly treated? and what were the circumftances attending this tranfaction? When the budget was opened in February, eighteen millions, a fum exceeding any former loan, were borrowed to provide for the eftimates of the year; the land and malt-tax, a vote of credit for two millions and a half, and the loan on exchequer bills, were put into the hands of the executive government. In September, money was wanted to carry on the war; yet the worthy baronet wondered that the minifter had erred fo little in his calculation. The money raised by thefe bills was faid to be merely the anticipation of fums to be paid in upon the loan at the ufual period of inftalment; yet in Auguft fifteen millions eight hundred thoufand pounds of the loan had been paid up; a fum fully equal to what could reasonably have been expect ed. The house ought to recollect what was the conftitutional object of the vote of credit, the exchequer bills, and the prompt payment of the loan. If the minifter erred fo egregiously as to require fresh fupplies before half the year had elapfed, if he raised money by anticipation, in a way wholly unknown, and at a rate of intereft altogether unfanctioned by parlia

ment,-he violated the laws of the land, to which he was amenable. A difcount of three per cent. was allowed for the prompt payment of the loan. On the advance of Mr. Boyd, 5 per cent. was given. Minifters had then violated the laws of the land, the very act of parliament by which the loan was made, by giving a rate of intereft for the anticipation, for which a discount of 3 per cent. was allowed by act of parliament. This, too, might be in addition to the legal difcount. This advance was obtained from Mr. Boyd, the contractor for the loan; and the public might be paying 8 per cent. on the laft payment, while he advanced, for the accommodation of government, what was again to be paid as part of the loan. While 8 per cent. was gained by Mr. Boyd, the dif count allowed by parliament could have no effect, while the fuperior inducement of 5 per cent. was prefented to with-hold it. Suppofing a change of miniftry, and certain fervices fecured by the act of appropriation had required the fupply of the money, how would the bills have been paid when they became due? Would another chancellor of the exchequer have been authorized to divert the money in the treasury to the payment of bills antedated, drawn really in London, though affuming to be at Hamburgh, impofed upon perfons ignorant of the truth, who would not have been able to recover payment?. The cafe of Walton and Ellifon was, he said, by no means in point. He wished, as had been stated, that the enemy, from finding an individual was able to fupply the exigencies of government, might be infpired with a favourable idea of our finances; but as a member of parliament, he was not bound to acquiefce in any thing irregular or illegal, becaufe it was G 2

faid

faid that he would difclofe our refources to the enemy. The expedient of antedating the bills from Hamburgh was, he faid, by no means adopted on account of Mr. Boyd, jun. having arrived here, nor was fuggefted by it, as there was no intention, no arrangement, to draw bills from Hamburgh pres vious to that event. As to the mat ter being confiftent with the fpirit though not with the letter of the law, minifters were bound to act according to that letter; and, if they found it inefficient, to apply for a legislative remedy. It was, how ever, irregular, and inconfiftent with the fpirit of the act; for a fum of 2,000,000l. had been paid to the bank for the paymafter general's department, and not fent to the accomptant general's office.

The attorney general thought the bills were to be looked upon as paper that bound the government to have them duly honoured, and that the holders would be entitled to recover from any new adminiftration. The folicitor general, however, who perfectly approved the tranfaction, doubted whether any action could be brought by the holder of fuch bills. Mr. Jekyll pointedly ridiculed this inconfiftency; and observed that the bills were not only fictitious, but that the law provided no remedy refpecting them. The previous queftion, which had been moved by Mr. Long, was carried by a majority of 85. On the fecond refolution, the ayes were 8, noes 108.

During the time employed in the bufinefs of the loan and the Hamburgh bills, the third reading of the vote of credit bill for 2,500,000l. was oppofed by Mr. Grey, who obferved that the intention of fuch a vote was to enable the king, during the recefs of parliament, to de

fray any extraordinary expences which may not have been provided for by the yearly estimates; but that the application of this fum to debts previously contracted destroyed the intention, and was a dangerous innovation on the house of commons. From the year 1756, no vote of credit had paffed till a few days previous to the clofe of the feffion. From the early period at which this appeared, and from the anfwer given on a former day (by Mr. Rofe) that delay would be attended with danger, he fufpected the house was not called upon for profpective but past services. In the war of 1750, and that with America, one million only had been demanded on a vote of credit. By granting money in this random way, the houfe, he obferved, deprived itfelf of its peculiar prerogative to guard the public purfe. If the fupplies were inadequate for the purpofes they were defigned for, let minifters ftate the estimates in a formal and conftitutional manner. Minifters, he averred, could not defend the bill either on grounds of expediency or conftitutional duty; he fhould therefore move for deferring the third reading to "that day three weeks."

It was contended by the chancellor of the exchequer, that the vote of credit was given for such extraordinary expences as attend the war. He allowed the vote commonly paffed at the time that had been stated; but when extraordinaries could be forefeen, it was more proper to state them in the committee of ways and means; and it was found more agreeable to eftablifhed precedent, than to wait till the clofe of the feffion. The prefent mode certainly afforded parliament the beft opportunity for inveftiga tion. It was certainly the leaft ob jectionable