The Duke of Athol said, that no blame was ascribable to the chancellor of the exchequer for his conduct with regard to the Bank, and that the necessity for issuing the order of council, arose from various unavoidable causes. He should vote for the previous question, and not for the noble duke's resolution which was a truism; He could not help expressing his feelings at the violent language of the noble duke in the conclusion of his speech, a sort of language which he was persuaded the noble duke in the moment of cool reflection, would himself admit to be highly improper. Was he to be termed a slave of corruption and venality, because he had entertained political opinions different from those of the noble duke? The noble duke would not have used such language in any other place. Lord Grenville contended, that if the chancellor of the exchequer had given any assurance to the Bank, that no advances should be made to the Emperor without their previous concurrence, it would not have been what the noble duke had called it, the government taking the direction of the affairs of the Bank into their own hands, but it would have been a surrender of the functions of government into the hands of the Bank. Nothing so preposterous, however, was done. The chancellor of the exchequer might perhaps have overlooked the word "advances" in the application of the Bank, with respect to the knowledge of any new loan, and answered them generally, that he should communicate the matter to them without its being ever made a question that government should be restrained in private remittances to the Emperor; and accordingly Mr. Raikes said, that it was never meant of small sums to the amount of 50, or 100,000. The whole of this evidence it was to be recollected, was made up of minutes of conversations, made by the governor and directors; and he doubted whether a report of a gentleman's words, which had never been submitted to him, ought to be received as good and substantial evidence. There was no one fact to provethat the advances to the Emperor had either occasioned a run upon the Bank, affected the exchanges, or injured the credit of the country. The exchange had risen in our favour during the advances; and taking the public circulation at 34,000,000l. the private paper must be at least double that sum; so that to imathat a remittance of between | 900,000l. and 1,000,000l. could affect the country out of a circulation of 100,000,000!. was ridiculous. There was something so monstrous and extravagant in the proposition of a noble earl (Guilford), that the Bank should, by way of increasing their credit, on a given morning shut up their doors, and end their concerns, that he could not suppose he was serious in suggesting it; because it was evident that such an extraordinary step would end in the subversion of the government and the ruin of the country. The noble duke was, he believed, the first peer, who had ventured to attack the veracity of a report of a secret committee appointed from among themselves, and charge it with being drawn up with a view to conceal the truth to deceive and delude the House, and to screen the guilty from censure and punishment. His charges, however, recoiled upon himself. With regard to the gross invective and the extraordinary expression with which the noble duke had loaded the conclusion of his speech, he must tell the noble duke, that however fit such language might be for his audiences in Palace-yard and elsewhere, they were extremely unfit to be uttered before their lordships, or indeed in any other assembly of honourable men. It was not a new thing for the noble duke to assume it as an undeniable fact, that all the talents, all the judgment, all the truth, all the integrity, all the virtue, all the public spirit, and all the patriotism to be found in that House and in the House of Commons was confined to himself, the six or eight noble lords who acted with him, and about fifty or sixty gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, and that the majority of both Houses, and indeed the majority of the whole body of the people of England who supported the war, were devoid of all principle, actuated by motives that were base and mean, and the abject and venal slaves of his majesty's ministers. The Duke of Bedford said, that possibly the noble secretary of state might think he had reproved him severely, at least from his voice and manner he seemed to imagine so. The noble secretary was however mistaken. He had not felt it to be a severe reproof, and as long as he existed, he should hold it his duty to declare his sentiments on public matters with freedom, equally regardless of the noble secretary's reprehension, or his misrepresentation. The language he had held, and the terms he had applied, to the support which ministers had received in that House and elsewhere, through the whole of their criminal and disastrous career, were dictated by an imperious sense of his duty. So far was he from conceiving that there was no virtue in parliament, that he thought there was a great deal both in that House, and in the House of Commons There was a great deal of virtue in the people, as it was evident from their geneneral disapprobation of the measures of his majesty's ministers. The previous question was then put on each of the Resolutions, and carried in the negative. Debate on Mr. Grey's Motion relative to the Advances made by the Bank to Govern ment.] May 16. Mr. Grey said, that many considerations would have induced him to decline troubling the House with the proposition which he now rose to move, both of a personal nature, and because he had repeatedly seen the little interest with which the majority of the House received any proposition which came from those with whom they were not used to concur. In determining, however, to submit to the House the resolutions he was now about to move, he had yielded to the request of his friends, and to a sense of what his public duty imposed. Having been a member too, of the committee appointed to examine into the necessity and the causes of the order of council, and dissenting as he did on certain points from the majority of that committee, he felt himself called upon to explain the grounds upon which that difference of opinion was founded. He felt it to be a task which his public duty likewise imposed, to submit to the House resolutions of a criminatory nature against the chancellor of the exchequer, founded upon the proofs collected by the committee, and contained in their Report, and which amounted to a charge of guilt, and of misconduct which the House could not suffer to pass with impunity. He was aware that the duty of an accuser was always a painful and invidious one, and more especially was it unpleasant to those on whom the necessity was often imposed. In the line of conduct which he felt himself obliged to pursue, he was conscious he was actuated by no improper motives, and that he gratified no private views. Nothing but an imperious call of public duty could induce him to arraign, as he now did, the chancellor of the exchequer, of criminal misconduct, by which ‡ he had contributed to bring the Bank of England, and, along with it, public credit into that situation in which it was placed by the order of council. Before he proceeded to open the nature of his propositions, he would state the difference of opinion between him and, he believed, the whole of the committee. The object of its investigations comprehended two points the necessity of the order in council, and the causes by which it had been produced. It was upon the first point that the differ ence alluded to existed. He had thought that the order of council was neither proper nor necessary. This opinion was founded upon the closest observation of the state of the Bank, and a thorough conviction, that the interference of power was not the remedy by which its embarrassments could be obviated; that it tended to enhance the evil, and the difficulties of repairing it. The exact amount of the cash in the Bank had not been before the committee, but from the documents it possessed, it could be seen, that though the run upon the Bank had continued for another month in the same proportion, as during the same period before, the cash of the Bank would not have been so low as in the year 1783, when no application to government had been thought necessary; but when, even in the accelerated proportion of the last week preceding the order, and the two last days of that week, the cash of the Bank might have been sufficient for another week, and afforded room for employing expedients to procure farther supplies. His opinion of the mischievous tendency of the interference of government in the affairs of the Bank was so strong, that he could not subscribe to the opinion of the necessity for the order in council. The inconveniences which might have arisen from rejecting this expedient, were more easy to be repaired, than the fatal effects which arose from the principle of the interference of government to suspend the functions of the Bank. So much in explanation of his differing from the rest of the committee. The committee stated, that whatever might be the effects of other causes, whether progressive or likely to cease, the dread of invasion occasioned the drain which reduced the Bank to the ne cessity of suspending their money payments. What he imputed, however, as an article of serious charge against the chancellor of the exchequer was, that prior to this period the affairs of the Bank were so chancellor of the exchequer, with the stated at 90 millions, and the paper at 130 upon which he proceeded in viewing the reduced, that a drain, which in other circumstances would not have produced this effect, had, in this instance, occasioned the immediate necessity of stopping payment. Instead of taking measures to counteract this danger, the chancellor of the exchequer had accelerated the causes by which the event was ultimately produced. In support of this beavy charge, he called the attention of the House to the evidence on the table. At the end of 1794, and be ginning of 1795, the Bank, feeling the bad effects of the drain by foreign remittances which they had already experienced, became seriously alarmed at the consequences which might ensue from a new loan to the Emperor, and they made strong representations to the chancellor of the exchequer on the subject upon the 15th of January 1795. In this representation they likewise stated the inconveniences they felt from the amount of their advances to government, especially upon treasury bills, a species of security new, at least in the extent to which it had been carried dur-swer to the representation of the 15th of ing the present administration. The chancellor of the exchequer thanked them for this communication and promised to reduce the amount of advances on treasury bills, but said that this could not be done till after the first payment on the loan. The mischief of advances on treasury bills had been felt by the Bank; they wished to be indemnified for the sums they had advanced contrary to their original constitution and to the wise regulations of the statute of king William. Instead of an indemnification, however, a clause repealing the whole of the existing limitation was introduced into a loan bill without notice, or without explanation. The sum to which the limitation was desired by the Bank was 500,000l. but instead of this, every restriction was removed by a clause, which in passing might have justified a charge of remissness against the House, did they not find an excuse in the extraordinary manner in which the business had been managed. It was important, however, to observe the period at which the representation of the Bank for repayment of their advances was made. It was a month before the chancellor of the exche quer had made his arrangements for bring ing forward his budget, and when he had full time to settle every thing necessary to the accomplishment of the object which the Bank had solicited, and which he had promised to perform. On the 23d of February the budget was opened. The January, he had promised to pay off part of the advances due by government; by a new representation, on the 16th of April, he was reminded of his promise of pay ment from the first instalment of the new loan. What excuse then is he to make for this breach of faith? It was contained in his written answer to the last representation. He admits the propriety of the demand, but he says, " that in the multiplicity of business it was forgotten!" The chancellor of the exchequer, who boasted of more accurate estimates, and more complete provision for the public expense than any of his predecessors in office, quite omits an article of more than two millions, he neglects the demands of the Bank, he exposes to hazard the interests of the nation, and the excuse for all this is, that it was forgotten! He writes, that the demands of the Bank should be complied with out of hand, and that he should immediately give directions for partial payments to be made. The debt on treasury bills, however, continued to increase, and on the 5th of June 1795, the Bank represented that their debt on this head amounted to 1,210,000l. and on the 30th of July, they represent their determination to order their cashier to refuse payment of these bills when they exceeded a certain amount, but that they depended upon his promises to reduce its amount. In answer to this, the chancellor of the exchequer says, "that the warrants are nearly ready." Though the Bank represented on the 30th | of July, that the drain upon them was such as made it desirable for them to reduce their credits, they received a letter containing a new demand for advances on the consolidated fund. The Bank returned an answer, stating the inconveniences under which they laboured in consequence of these advances, and their determination to limit their amount, but agreeing to wait till November, on condition that measures should then be taken for their repayment. To this the chancellor of the exchequer returned an answer, stating, that he agreed to the conditions, and that he should take care they should be complied with. Notwithstanding this promise, the Bank are obliged on the 8th of October, to repeat their complaint, as the sums due to them were not discharged. They stated the drain in bullion and specie which had taken place, that the last advances had been made with great reluctance; and that if measures of caution were not pursued, the most fatal consequences were to be apprehended. They represented the loan to the Emperor as a drainwhich could not be sustained; and when, in answer, the chancellor of the exchequer said, he had no intention to bring forward an imperial loan, the intimation was received with the utmost satisfaction by the governor of the Bank, who said that if another took place it would go near to ruin them. The chancellor of the exchequer likewise added, that the bills from abroad would continue two months longer, and no more. Amidst repeated representations, renewed promises, and uniform breach of faith on the part of the chancellor of the exchequer, the meeting of parliament on the 29th October 1795 arrived. The Bank again state their alarms, and press for payment. In November they represent their fears from the drain which had taken place for foreign remittances, that they should be obliged to refuse any advances, even upon the vote of credit. To this the chancellor of the exchequer answered, that there was no intention of any imperial loan, and that he should abandon every consideration that was inconsistent with their security. On the 7th of December, the financial arrangements for the year were brought forward. Again the distresses of France are contrasted with our flourishing situation. Upon that occasion, the chancellor of the exchequer justly observed, that our prosperity rested upon a steady adherence to the financial principles which our ancestors had estab[VOL. XXXIII. J lished, and by accompanying the vigorous efforts we were bound to exert at present with salutary provisions for the future. Was not he bound then to make some provision for the demands of the Bank and for the security of our regular system of finance, which his neglect threatened to overthrow? He had failed in his former promises of payment: here again he had neglected to make any provision for the Bank. In consequence of another application, however, he informs the Bank that he should make a payment of a surplus to a certain extent, out of funds which he had destined for other purposes. Last year he had charged the chancellor of the exchequer with having diverted the grants of parliament in contempt of the act of appropriation; here, in answer to the Bank, he avowed his neglect in making provision, and his determination to discharge part of their advances from funds, which not he but parliament had destined for other services. He now came to the period when a new loan was made, the main object of which was the payment of the advances made by the Bank. The reason then assigned for this measure was, that it would relieve circulation, and enable the Bank to enlarge their accommodation to commerce. From the evidence of Mr. Bosanquet it appeared, that part of the sums for the payment of which this money was granted, had not been paid off. The Bank were creditors suing for the payment of a debt due to them, and they did not wish to convert a floating debt into a permanent one. He was astonished when he heard it said, that the Bank, who had so earnestly solicited government for payment of their advances, did not avail themselves of the means of payment. The evidence of every other director examined, proved that they had pressed for payment of the very sum which he complained of as left undischarged; that the clause in the loan bill which had been quoted, had nothing to do with the subject, and that the solicitations of the Bank for payment of it still continued. Three budgets having elapsed without provision being made, the Bank had an interview with the chancellor of the exchequer on the 24th of May 1796, and found him impressed with the justice of their applications. On the 25th, he wrote them, that after the second payment on the loan of seven millions, their demands should be attended to, that he was obliged to be present at [N] the election at Cambridge, but would pay | 300,000l. and continued to draw, till the attention to their application on his return. sum of advances was 1,000,000l. But if On his return from Cambridge the Bank good faith be necessary to public dealings, waited on him. Their advances were will the House allow such flagrant breach now as high as before, and they were ur- of it to pass with impunity? If the meagent for payment. The chancellor of the sures of the minister materially contriexchequer assured them that something buted to the fatal event which public creshould be done, and coincided in opinion dit has felt so deeply, shall not the House that the amount of their advances ought to rescue itself from the charge of being his be kept down; but as the anxiety which accomplice, by punishing the person to he expressed for keeping down this whom the guilt is to be ascribed? That amount was uniformly followed by a fresh it did materially contribute to that event, demand, this was immediately succeeded he would contend. All the Bank direcby an earnest request of new accommo- tors agreed in stating, that if the advances dation. The The Bank remonstrate, and to government had been discharged, the comply with reluctance, from a fear that stoppage of the Bank might have been their refusal would be attended with a prevented. The Bank of England was a greater evil. The situation of the Bank bank of circulation. To the support of became still more critical. The chancellor such a character, it was essential that it of the exchequer had received such hints as should pay on demand. It, therefore, must have sufficiently apprised him of ought to be always prepared. If necesthat situation. Still their solicitations sary, it must have cash to answer all its were neglected, his promises were broken, notes. Circulating medium was a fashionand the sum of their advances continued able phrase in the present times, and he was to increase till the fatal period when the afraid that what was said to be a want of order of council was issued. Amidst all circulating medium was a want of capital. the representations which he had received The amount of the exports was no proof from the Bank, the chancellor of the ex- of the flourishing state of the country. chequer continued to persevere in the War necessarily created a demand for very measures which accelerated the mis- certain articles: the individual manufacchief. With regard to the effects of the turer was enriched, but the country redrain occasioned by the imperial loan, ceived no return for what was sent abroad the evidence upon the table was full of on this account. The national capital the remonstrances made by the Bank to was not supplied and recruited by such the chancellor of the exchequer. On the exports they only enhanced ruin while 16th of February 1796, they represented, they seem to indicate prosperity. Here that a farther perseverance in foreign re- Mr. Grey read a quotation from Smith's mittances would be fatal to the Bank. Wealth of nations in support of this docThe chancellor of the exchequer assured trine. It was the opinion of Mr. Thornthem that no loan should be sent to the ton and Mr. Boyd, that the Bank should Emperor, unless circumstances materially have extended their discounts, and inaltered. With this the Bank were satis- creased their paper. If an opinion of the fied, because they understood the assur- latter gentleman was well founded, then had ance to extend to remittances of every the bank committee greatly deceived the kind. The representation to which this public in their first report. It was said by answer was made comprehended both this gentleman, that the sums discounted loan and advances, and Mr. Bosanquet by the Bank were not to be taken as says, in his evidence, that the answer of debts of which they could compel paythe chancellor of the exchequer was dis- ment, but that they were put into the ingenuous if it did not apply to both. If situation, by fresh issues, still farther to what passed at the conversation which accommodate the person who had bills in took place on this subject was admitted, this situation. If so, could the sums it was disgraceful in the chancellor of the which the Bank had discounted be taken exchequer to return so deceitful an an- as assets? Could a bill brought for disswer. It was understood to apply to count by persons who should require every kind of remittance; and if it was fresh discount when it became due, be not so meant, it was not only disingenuous considered as a fair bill? He would apbut fraudulent. What was the fact how-peal to Mr. Thornton whether such a bill er? Colonel Crawford had, at this would be taken? Such an opinion, howtime, drawn bills to the amount of ever, was evidently erroneous; and to |