fairly be made the ground of censure, although the neglecting to investigate the business farther, betrayed rather a want of diligence. But the circumstance, however, of the right hon. gentleman's giving, credit to the statement of Lord Melville, although a matter of regret, was not a just foundation for blame. No, but if the evidence on the table was correct, as he had no doubt that it was, for it stood uncontradicted by any thing that came from Lord Melville himself when before the house, the guilt of the noble lord was in an inverse ratio to that of the right hon. gentleman. Without entering into the question, whether, if the amount of the transfers from the bank to the house of Messrs. Coutts, was bona fide for the purpose of carrying on the " details of office," such transfers would have involved a violation of the act, as was his own opinion, this surely would be no question that the transfers that were actually made, were contrary to its spirit and letter.

But however the right hon. gentleman might stand in this part of the subject, from his excusable confidence in the word of Lord Melville, he was very differently circumstanced with respect to the case of Jellicoe. Lord Melville's tenderness to that man might form, on the score of humanity and justice, some claim to the consideration of the lords of the treasury. But the complaint was, that the noble lord did, in his endeavour to obtain the writ of privy seal, state that which was not fact, and that the treasury board did act on misrepresentation without inquiry. Lord Melville, it appeared, stated in his memorial that Jellicoe's debt was contracted before he entered into office, whereas the fact was, that much the greater part of it accrued after he became treasurer of the navy; and still more that, after the indiscretion and debt of Jellicoe was communicated to Lord Melville, he continued to entrust him. Now there was this marked difference between the case of a noble friend of his (Lord Grenville), for whom it was impossible for him to feel any other sentiment than that of respect, and the case of Jellicoe, to which the right hon. gentleman professed to consider it quite analogous, that Lord Grenville, after the money was embezzled, reposed no farther confidence in the person who was guilty, and made no false statement, while, in the instance of Lord Melville, the conduct pursued was directly the reverse. The blame then which attached to the right hon. gentleman in the case of Jellicoe consisted in this, that he granted Lord Melville an acquittance upon false grounds, and in an unprecedented manner, for a debt due to the public. Now as to the forty thousand pounds lent to Mr. Boyd,

he

he considered this transaction contrary, not only to the sta tute law, but to the spirit of the constitution, and the principles of common sense. Nay more, there were on the journals several resolutions expressly condemning the misappropriation of naval money. Every man, therefore, must be aware of the impropriety of such a practice. Indeed he was one of those who always thought that the law should not be dispensed with by any power, unless where the necessity was so urgent that, to abftain from fuch difpenfation, would be a higher breach of duty than the violation of the law itfelf would involve. The queftion then was, whether the cafe of Boyd was such as to juftify a deviation from the general rule. When firft the 'reaton of this loan was ftated, it really ftruck him with furprise. It appeared a moft extraordinary tranfaction. What! that the credit of the government fhould be fuppo fed to depend on a loan of 40,000l. If the government really ftood in fuch a fituation, which was to be collected from the general arguments of the right hon. gentleman, when he stated as a reafon for avoiding inquiry, that if any delay took place, the evil might become remedilefs, then much as was generally faid about delicacy of commercial credit, public credit was ftill more delicate. The right hon. gentleman had stated that Boyd could not obtain money in the market for the fecurities he produced to government, "in confequence of the fcarcity of cath, and general embarraffment that then prevailed;" and yet, ftrange to tell, it was not above three weeks afterwards, when his majesty, in a fpeech from the throne, congratulated the country on the profperous ftate of its manufactures, commerce, and rapidly growing wealth. The precedent of fuch a loan was moft alarmingly mifchievous, and muft, if fuffered to be acted upon, establish a degree of arbitrary power in a minifter. What, if it thould be understood that a minifter fhall have the difcretion of advancing the public money to merchants, for their accommodation, upon any conception that he might form of their neceffity, or to prevent any poffible evil that his extravagant fancy might fuppofe, could there be any fecurity for our freedom? How liable would fuch practices be to interfere with the purity of that house, and even with the independence of the mercantile world. For it would be very unlikely that any merchant independent of minifters, would participate of fuch accommodations. There were many failures of great mercantile houses in the city at the time Boyd received this aid, and upon what

principle

principle should aid be granted to one house, and refused to another? If it were really necessary to lend the public money, why not apply to parliament for its concurrence, as in the case of the West India merchants, some years ago? Nothing of the kind should be done without an act of parliament: the consequence of permitting it must be obvious. It was very justly asked, if the right hon. gentleman felt the necessity of the case to be so strong, that he was confident of justification, why did he not apply to parliament for an act of indemnity? but the right hon. gentleman said, that he could not, at the time the loan was made, without a disclosure that must defeat the object in view. This was an argument, however, that did not avail after the temporary embarrassment of Boyd's house had ceased, when they had become so flourishing as to be entrusted by government with a large sum of money to be remitted to the Cape of Good Hope. It would have been no disgrace to Boyd's house to reveal the circumstances of the loan at that time. But after the total failure of the house no motive of delicacy could be pretended to exist. In the part of the right honourable gentleman's speech which referred to this point, he could not help observing, that there was much to complain of and even to deplore. The right hon. gentleman declared, that he felt no compunction for the act. There was really something very extraordinary in the declaration, that a minister who violated a law for pur poses of private expediency felt no burthen on his conscience, that he who was entrusted with a principal office in the execution of the law, should reflect, without pain, on a gross breach of its provisions. The thing was not, as his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had truly stated, to be heard without surprise and indignation in any government of law, but particularly in this country. The right hon. gentleman had stated, at one time, that when the bankruptcy took place the act of indemnity did not occur to him. But why did it not occur to him? If the right hon. gentleman were not in the habit of making such use of the public money, which he was not inclined to believe, and that this was the only case that had been detected, one would naturally suppose that the indemnity should have occurred to him, and it was a bad symptom of his government that he was not anxious to obtain it. But it might be said that he considered the application to parliament unnecessary, as he hoped the transaction would remain a secret. this hope, if the right hon. gentleman entertained it, he had been disappointed, and he trusted that this would serve as an example

In

example that the transgression of the law was not likely to remaina secret, for after nine years concealment, the malversation before the house was brought to light. Indeed, the misappropriation of the public money was a thing that was never known to have escaped detection, at some time or other. With the exception of the 20,00ol. mentioned by Lord Melville a few nights since, that was a case perfectly sui generis. But the fact was, that the loan of the 40,000l. being known to many persons, was not likely to remain a secret, and as a secret precedent might operate considerable mischief. For what might be the consequence on a successor of the right hon. gentleman, who, from his example, might be induced to make similar loans? Such a successor might be told, "Mr. Pitt, who was represented by his friends, and was admitted by his enemies, to be perfectly free from personal corruption, lent 40,cool. of the public money to accommodate an individual, how can you hesitate to do the same?" So much as to precedents in secrecy, which really might be more dangerous than public precedents. However, the idea respecting money did not apply to the resolution before the house, for, although this act was secret before, it was now become a matter of publicity; and, therefore, some proceeding to guard against the operation of such a precedent ought to be adopted.

In considering the course that ought to be adopted on this occasion, it was his desire to distinguish the motive from the act. He had already said, that he acquitted the right hon. gentleman of any degree of personal corruption, and of course did not mean to impeach his motive in this transaction, but his object was to provide against such an act growing into a precedent; and he really thought that in candour the right honourable gentleman himself would admit the propriety of such a provision. If the house should proceed beyond that, if any censure should be pronounced, it was his wish that such censure should be as mild as words could convey; for nothing appeared more essential in moral justice than to keep a marked line of distinction between the different degrees of delinquency in the distribution of punishment, that crimes of high enormity should not be confounded with those to which but a slight degree of blame was attributable. It was in his judgment as culpable to apply severe censure to a slight delinquency, as to suffer a flagrant offender to escape with impu nity. He particularly wished, that under existing circumstances, the house should keep in view the distinction he alluded

to. It was far from his intention, or that of his hon. friend, to follow the course of those proceedings from any thing like party feelings. He trusted that the house and the country would do justice to the motives that actuated their prosecution of great pubiic delinquency, and separate these motives altogether from any thing like party animosity. With respect to the different modes of proceeding recommended in this case, the hon. gentleman declared that, if his honourable friend's propositions should not be adopted, he would prefer a bill of indemnity, in the preamble to which the sense of the house might be so fully and strongly expressed as to guard against the precedent complained of.

Mr. Sheridan rose to ask a single question, which was, whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lascelles) who moved the counter-resolutions would consent to ground a bill of indemnity upon them, should they be acceded to by the house.

Mr. Lascelles replied in the affirmative, in case the house would admit the resolutions as a preamble to the bill.

Mr. Grey had no desire to attack the character of the transaction, but was still anxious to secure the country from the precedent. He would vote for a bill of indemnity, with, however, an application to the case.

Mr. S. Thornton was in favour of the proposition of Mr. Lascelles; and at the same time took an opportunity of defending the right hon. gentleman in the case of Messrs. Boyd and Benfield, and the situation of that house at the period referred to.

Mr. Dillon agreed with the resolution proposed by Mr. Lascelles, if that resolution was to be followed up by a bill of indemnity.

Mr. Canning said two things were necessary: first, to characterise the transaction itself; secondly, to prevent its appearing as a precedent. These the resolution proposed by his right hon. friend effected, and they could not depart from a single iota of it.

Mr. Windham thought it an unfair return for the moderation and candour admitted by gentlemen on the other side to have been exhibited by the honourable mover, and by his honourable friend (Mr. Fox), to force them to seem to approve of what they had not investigated.

The Attorney General admitted that the hon. gentleman who made the original motion had acted with the greatest moderation, and that the candour displayed by the other honourable

gentleman