the subordinate lists of the sharers in the loan, should be produced. The hon. chairman, indeed, has always declared, that, in his view of the subject, the production of the lists was unnecessary and useless; but other members, as eager for the inquiry as himself, have expressed themselves very differently, and have rendered, as far as it could be obtained, such production absolutely necessary, either for the exculpation, or detection, of the persons charged as the agents in the corrupt distribution, and who, it was hinted, might be found by looking round the chancellor of the exchequer in this House. I proceed to consider, first, the supposed injury done to Mr. Morgan. That gentleman had been treated in all the previous debates as the principal dramatis persona. His evidence was first called for in the committee; and occupied much more of our time than any of the other examinations. The gravamen of which he complains is, that, on the faith not only of the general knowledge of the chancellor of the exchequer's adoption of the principle of competition, but also in consequence of direct communications from him, through the governor of the bank, by which he declared his intention that there should be an open competition in the present instance, he (Mr. Morgan) had determined to become a bidder, had opened a list, and had induced a number of persons to the amount of about 400, either to advance large sums of money to him, or to keep their cash unemployed at their bankers, in order to be prepared to make the usual deposit, in case he should be the successful competitor; and that not till the 25th November, the day when the different competitors, consisting of three parties, himself, Messrs. Mellish, and Mr. Boyd's party, went by appointment to Downing-street, to hear the usual preliminaries stated, he learned that the rule of competition was to be abandoned, and a preference given to Mr. Boyd; that this measure of the chancellor of the exchequer had occasioned a great injury to him and his subscribers, as they had not made any provision for the re-investment of the money which they had necessarily called in to make the usual deposit, and such payments as might be fixed for an early period. Such is Mr. Morgan's complaint, and that of a number of his subscribers, as set forth in their petition to this House. And I must here observe, that if the case had been as stated, and the chancellor of

the exchequer had, from sound reasons of public advantage, departed from a positive engagement with individuals, the consequence would have been only, that they would have been entitled to have received a compensation from the public, adequate to the injury they could have shown themselves to have sustained. The most positive engagement cannot be more inviolable than the right to the exclusive enjoyment of private property; yet it is often both wise and just in the legislature, to possess itself of such property, when the public good requires it, without the consent of the owner; compensation, in such case, being all that he can fairly claim or expect. The prayer, therefore, of the petition of Mr. Morgan's subscribers, that the bargain with Mr. Boyd should not be sanctioned, because of the injury they supposed themselves to have sustained, was absurd.

But what is Mr. Morgan's evidence on this subject? I will read it from the report. "On Friday, the 23rd of October, I understood from a conversation with Mr. Godschal Johnson, that it was his opinion Mr. Boyd would have the loan. In consequence of this, I told him I had no intention of forming a list, nor had made any kind of arrangement." After this he states himself to have fluctuated in his intention, and in his conjectures, concerning the preference that might be given to Boyd. On the 26th of that month, he saw the governor of the bank, and also on the 27th and 28th. On each of those days he stated, on the one hand, the general rumour concerning Boyd, and on the other, the fact that Messrs. Mellish were forming a list, which seemed to contradict the idea of a preference to Boyd, and also that he himself had been much applied to to open a list. The governor of the bank, he says, told him, on all these three days, that the chancellor of the exchequer had always said "competition," whenever he had spoken to him on the subject; but that still he (the governor) had great doubts on his mind-" there was a something, he did not explain that something, that Mr. Boyd and his party seemed to be confident." On the 27th, he told the governor of the bank he should make up his mind positively by the next day. On the next day, the governor expressed, in a very strong manner, his doubts-and that the loan would go to Mr. Boyd, and he (Mr. Morgan) would be disappointed. "There was

duct; and, if it is to be credited, what injury has been done to him? If we are to credit his recollection, in opposition to that of the governor of the bank, he was warned by that gentleman" that he would be tricked," to which, he says, he replied, "that he should do his utmost to be well prepared for competition, and, if he was precluded, it should not be his fault." With a clear persuasion that it was determined to preclude him, what possible motives can we assign for his preparation, or what effect could he possibly expect from it, except a pretext or clamour and complaint against government and a petition for redress to the House of Commons? But if he was not, were his subscribers injured? If he did not communicate to them his conviction, or the grounds of it, and they were not otherwise apprized of them, they were. But by whom? Not by the chancellor of the exchequer he had no communication with them-Most assuredly by their principal, Mr. Morgan. He inscribed their names in his list, encouraged their preparations, received 5 per cent. on the supposed amount of the loan from some of them-" and yet there were undoubtedly abundance of them, to whom he made no communication of the impression on his mind, that there would be no competition. To some,' says he, it is very likely I did communicate it, but in general, I observed as a rule, to say but little to any body, but to hear all from every body." That he did not communicate his impression to his principal subscribers, or even betray to them any thing like a doubt of intended competition, is confirmed by the remarkable testimony of the governor of the bank on this part of the case; who tells us, he was more on Morgan's, than on either of the other lists. We collect from him, that as he had never declared any opinion of his to Mr. Morgan, purporting that Mr. Boyd would have the preference on account of the money ne. gotiation, so Mr. Morgan not only never expressed to him that such was his own opinion, but so treated the subject of the loan in their conversations upon it, that he thought, to the last, that Mr. Morgan never suspected that Mr. Boyd would have a preference at all. "I believe," says he, " he always thought it would be by competition." Let us now, on the other hand, suppose, that the belief, of no competition and of preference to Mr. Boyd, was as strongly impressed

something or another-he never mentioned what, that would be brought for ward to prevent its going to a competition." This is taken from the narrative which he at first stated to the committee, and which was afterwards deliberately read over to him, that he might correct any mistakes he or the clerk, in taking it down, might have fallen into. On the question, however, whether, on that very 28th of October, the governor alluded to any other motive as operating with the chancellor of the exchequer, exclusive of the last payment on the preceding loan not having been completed, he answers, "beyond all doubt whatever, and that was no part of it; particularly it was stated by the governor of the bank to me, that there had been an important money negotiation, amounting to 900,000l., in which it was understood that Mr. Boyd had greatly assisted the chancellor of the exchequer, and that on that ground Mr. Boyd would have the loan. This was stated not once, but repeatedly." Here, Sir, the House will perceive a strange contrariety between Mr. Morgan's narrative and his answers, on which I wish to make no harsher remark, than that he appears to be of so feeble and incoherent a memory, that little reliance can be . had on his testimony, in the investigation of the facts in question. But let us see the opinion he ultimately formed on the subject of the supposed exclusive preference, and the resolution he came to with regard to his own list. "I had private intimations, confidensial ones, that I could rely on, that Mr. Boyd's party were constantly assured of having the loan. The result of the several conversations with the governor of the bank, was an impression on my mind, that certainly and positively there would be no competition. From the 26th of October, when I first had the communication with the governor of the bank, until the 23rd of November, I never had an abatement of that impression." Here is therefore a positive conviction, that no competition was to be expected, and, of course, that all preparation by Mr. Morgan would be idleness and folly. How extraordinary must his conduct appear after this, when he tells us, that he determined, on the 28th of October-not to relinquish all idea of becoming a bidder-no-to make a list, which he opened publicly on the 29th. This is Mr. Morgan's own history of his own opinion, and of his own con

on the minds of Mr. Morgan's subscribers as on his own. This he strongly insinuates. "I did hear generally from all persons that that idea was understood." In that case they are as little injured as himself; and have nobody but themselves to blame, if, from want of reflection, or other causes, they really acted as if that had been to happen, the contrary of which they believed to have been determined upon. But, in truth, I must be permitted to say, that I cannot believe Mr. Morgan's account of his own conduct on this subject.

I will now proceed to examine the circumstances and nature of Mr. Boyd's claims, as they appear from the Report. In the month of October Mr. Boyd, who, with his party (as it is called, had contracted for the loan of the former year, says, he first heard, that a new loan for the service of this year, was in contemplation; and that, about that time, he stated to the chancellor of the exchequer. the right which he thought belonged to the contractors (not the subscribers), to object to the negotiation of the new loan. But he adds, that he did not state it, by any means, so fully, as in the conversation on the 24th of November; and in the joint letter from himself and Mr. Robarts of that date. Even in that conversation of the 24th of November, Mr. Boyd does not seem to have rested on any strong ground or recollection of positive engagement; for, when the chancellor of the exchequer mentioned that he did not recollect any such engagement, Mr. Boyd appears to have answered, that he understood the engagement to have been "either positive or implied." We may therefore presume, that, in what passed between them, he chiefly founded himself on the arguments which he thought arose out of the nature of the thing; and on that occasion he tells us, that the chancellor of the exchequer seemed "positively determined not to admit of the claim." From thence, till the 23d of November, he thinks he may positively affirm, that he had no farther communication with the chancellor of the exchequer on the subject.-This account corresponds both with that which has repeatedly been given in this House, and with the testimony of the governor of the bank, as well as with the whole conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer. For it is clear, that he acted up till the 24th of November, as he could not have done upon any intelligible and ex[VOL. XXXII.]

plicable principle, if he had not really intended an open competition. It is clear he had no recollection of any thing which could bear the construction of an actual. engagement to Boyd's party; and that, from the manner in which their argumentative claim had been cursorily urged to him he did not thing himself obliged, and did not mean, to act upon it. Is it possible, if the case were otherwise, that on the 23rd of November, he would have commissioned the governor of the bank to tell the three parties, that an open competition was intended? What possible advantage could he have expected from such a declaration, if it had not been sincere? In October, however, he had thought it due to Mr. Boyd's party, to tell them, that he would send to them before any competition should take place, to hear what they had to say. With the impression he had of the inadmissibility of their claim, amidst the great variety of important occupations, in which, during the interval he was ne cessarily engaged, would it be extraordinary to find, that he did not fully recollect, or at least not fulfil this promise, till he was reminded of it by Mr. Boyd's letter of the 23d of the next month? Could he possibly have foreseen the trouble and incon venience which have arisen to himself and this House, from his not having taken an earlier opportunity of discussing their pretensions, undoubtedly, it is to be supposed, he would have sent to them sooner. But what difference that could have made to the public, or in the terms on which the loan was negociated, it is impossible to discover. If he had taken that course, and had referred to the governor of the bank, who had been present at the bargain for the preceding year, it appears, by the testimony of that gentleman, when he did refer to him, that he would have been reminded of a circumstance, which does seem to have amounted, in the governor's opinion, to something very like a direct engagement. For, in the conference between the governor, the deputygovernor, and chancellor of the exchequer, on the 25th of November,-the chancellor of the exchequer having asked the governor, if he recollected, whether at the meeting for the preceding loan, he had committed himself to any promise, conformable to Mr. Boyd's claim, theanswer was, "He thought Mr. Pitt had in some measure committed himself to such a promise, for that, on adjusting the days of payment for the then loan, one of [3 E]

like manner, Mr. Newland himself says, "It is understood, that an old loan shall be finished, before a new one takes place, and therefore, if the first payment on the new one were to precede the last on the former, the contractors for the former would have just cause to complain." The records of this House would prove the same thing. But Mr. Morgan says, that the case of his loan was an instance; for that, in that case, the contract for the loan of 1795 was brought forward before the last payment on his loan was made; and that he and his party did not entertain a thought of claiming any preference, although strongly solicited to be competitors for the new loan. Here two answers occur. In the first place, is the principle false, as applied by Mr. Boyd this year, because Mr. Morgan, under the circumstances of his case at the end of 1794, either did not see the application of it, or did not choose to avail himself of it? In the second place, the cases are not parallel. In the case in 1794, the contract was made, but the deposit or first payment was not to be made, and could not be made, till after the last payment of Morgan's loan was over; because parliament was not to meet time enough for the possibility of its sanction being given to the bargain, till after the last payment on the former loan. One would have thought the difference in the effect of the two cases, would have appeared so obvious as to be admitted. On the whole, can it be fairly contended, that, in a new case-with the species of engagement arising out of what had passed on the former occasion, and which seemed by the governor of the bank, who was privy to it, and by the report of the city in general, according to Mr. Mellish, to have been considered as a promise, with all the reasons urged by Messrs. Boyd in their letters and conversation, the nature and weight of which, the chancellor of the exchequer was to examine, not merely by his own judgment, but by his idea of the bona fide impression that they had made on the mind, and the effect they had had on the conduct of Boyd and his party-can it, I say, be fairly contended, that the chancellor of the exchequer could disallow the claim, consistently with the attention due from government to the equitable rights of individuals, in their transactions with them? Quærenda pecunia primum, and at the expense of good faith and justice, is a

maxim, not more sordid in private life, than it would be discreditable and dangerous in the concerns of the public.

The learned gentleman then entered into a defence of the chancellor of the exchequer's conduct in the transaction of the Hamburgh bills, and also of the terms upon which the loan was proposed and accepted. Having done which, he continued thus-There remains now only to consider the question of the time when the contract was made, compared with that on which the king's message was delivered. The summary of the charge on this head is, that both the intention of sending such a message, and the effect it would have on the funds, must have been foreseen on the 25th of November; that the bargain, therefore, should have been postponed, till after the delivery of the message, or the message delivered sooner and that it is clear, the bargain might have been postponed, because it was not brought before the House till the 7th of December; and the first deposit not required till the 10th. As to the in tention of delivering the message, the mere assertion-founded on conjecture

of those who make this objection, is met by the assertion of the person who delivered the message. When the chan. cellor of the exchequer tells us, that he did not know of his majesty's intention to send such a message at the time of the contract, is it candid, or is it possible, to refuse credit to that declaration? If it was not foreseen at the time when the contract was made, it could afford no reason to have induced a postponement of that contract. But it is said, the loan ought to have been deferred (as in former wars) till within a day or two of the time when it was submitted to this House, and then the message might probably have preceded it. The same motives which rendered it expedient to make the loan before the winding up of the former, made it probably expedient to conclude the bargain at the time when it was in fact concluded; and there seems no reason to doubt that it was the original intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to communicate it to the House immediately. One can easily discover a sufficient explanation of the interval which intervened between the bargain and the statement of it to parliament, in the urgency of the measures which occupied the attention of the House during that interval. Every body must recollect,