tive, he thought the Houfe would be flow to countenance the liberality of Chancellors of the Exchequer to perfons with whom they might have made bargains. The hon. Gentleman then entered into a detailed account of the variation between the original contract and the refolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, and between the refoJution and the provifions of the bill, in order to prove that the difference had not arifen from any mistake, but from the difcretion of Parliament exercifing the right faved to it in the original contract of approving it in the terms ftipufated or otherwife, the whole being only a provifional bargain fubject to the approbation of the Houfe.

Mr. Burroughs thought that the only question which in this cafe was to be decided, was the true construction of the decifion of the Houfe of Commons at the time mentioned. The loan was originally contracted for at the proposal of the Bank, and the terms of it were to be found in a printed paper in 1796, On the 8th of December in that year, a refolution of the Houfe paffed, approving of the propofa!, except in two inftances; the one refpecting annuities for life, and the other with refpect to notice to be given previous to repayment. We fhould in this cafe look to the sefolutions of the Committee, rather than the act itself, otherwife what was to become of the good faith which ought to fubfift between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who contract with him? He begged to know whether the three months notice in these refolutions were to be deemed concurrent, or fuperadded to the two years? He could not approve of the alteration which had been' made by Parliament for fubftituting fix months inftead of three. Due notice ought at least to have been given to the fubfcribers, that fuch an alteration was intended to be introduced into the act, which was to pafs upon the original articles of agreement. There were in the act two moft important departures from the refolutions of the Committee; the one was fubftituting fix months in place of three months notice to be given by the holders; and the other was, that thefe fix months were to be fuperadded to the two years after the ratification of peace. Such at leaft was the conftruction put upon the act by the Attorney General. He did not argue the point upon the footing of liberality in the House, but upon its good faith'; and, therefore, it was the duty of the Houfe to rectify any error or inconfiftency which may have crept into their proceedings.

Mr. Pitt had had a great fhare in the origin of this tranfaction,

of

action, and he thought it right to fay that he meant to confider it merely as a queftion of good faith and juftice, The ftatute upon which the difference of opinion exifted, departed from the refolution of the Committee which preceded it, and which in his judgment was binding upon that House with refpect to the contract with the fubfcribers to the loyalty loan. Some doubts exifted, he understood, on the conftruction of the ftatute as to the time when the holders of the loyalty loan had a right to claim payment. For himself he had no hesitation to fay, that his opinion coincided with that of Mr. Pigot, both as founded upon the juftice of the cafe, and warranted by the letter of the act. It was stated, that the opinion of that learned barrister was erroneous, because it was founded upon an erroneous ftatement as to the date of the conclufion of the treaty peace; but his opinion, it fhould be remembered, did not hinge upon any thing of that kind, but related to this queftion, whether the notice, which by the ftatute was to precede the payment of thofe fubfcribers, was to be concurrent with, or fuperadded to, the two years fubfequent to the treaty of peace, which were to elapfe before any claim fhould be made. From the words of the act, and from all the circumftances connected with the tranfaction, he was decidedly inclined to the opinion of Mr. Pigot, and to deviate from that opinion would not, in his judgment, be to accord with the principles of good faith, which he hoped Ministers would If there was any fufficiently feel it their duty to attend to. doubt in their mind as to the best mode of proceeding in confequence of the alteration in the act from the words of the refolution, he thought it was their duty to apply for the advice of that Houfe, and if there was any mistake, to have it rectified, but by no means to truft to any opinion against the equity of the cafe. The bargain was known to be concluded when the refolution of the Committee was published, and any departure from that refolution in the progrefs of the bill, was an alteration made by one of the parties, without the confent of the other. As fuch departure had occurred through inadvertency, he trufted that Minif ters would not run the risk of expofing Parliament to the charge of impofition by refufing to correct the evil complained of, a charge which was never attempted to be caft before. He begged leave to imprefs on the minds of the Houfe that almoft immediately after the refolution of the Committee was agreed to, by which the propofal of thofe fubfcribers was- acceded to, fome of them made a depofit,

and

and many of them paid their firft inftalments before the bill was paffed in which that refolution was altered.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been inclined to admit the force of the right hon. Gentleman's reafoning, and that of the hon. Member who preceded him, if there had not been circumstances in the cafe to which neither of them had feemed to advert. The difcretion of the Houfe was not tied up by any refolutions of a Committee. The money which was paid upon the faith of these refolutions was not available till after the bill had received the concurrence of the Lords and the royal affent. It was nothing else than a depofit at the Bank, which remained till the bill had gone through all its ftages. The notice which had been stuck up at the Bank, contained the reservations to which the parties fubfcribed, fubfequent to which the refolutions of the Committee were agreed to. Good faith did not require that fuch bargains thould always be made in conformity to fuch refolutions, because, in every stage of the bill, fome alteration might take place. An application had been made by the holders of the loyalty ftock for an additional bonus, in confequence of the lofs they faid they had fuftained from a depreciation of the funds, and for an interval of four or five months, the contract having been made when 3 per cents, were at 56, but had fallen to 46 or 47. The grounds on which this application had been made were, that a fecond loan had been contracted for the fervice of the year. At that time the language of the Gentlemen who have spoken, was very different from their fentiments now. The attention of Parliament, and the attention of the subscribers, was particularly called to the transaction of that loyalty loan, and to the act by which it was to be raised, by the great debates which took place in Parliament at that time. There was not then one word of complaint, by either party, against the alterations which took place; the parties had, therefore, a fair and full opportunity of knowing the determination of the Legiflature. To fay that parties were thus to take advantage of their own ignorance, and come forward with complaints at this period, was applying a new principle which might prove a dangerous precedent. It was his duty to attend to the opinion of the officers of the Crown, while the parties may ftill have redrefs in a court of juftice. The fubfcribers, however, had not a fure ground to ftand upon. If the liberality of the Houfe was to be appealed to, we muft confider who are to be the objects of liberality, and who the objects of justice.

The

The public intereft had a claim to our confideration, and it must be a fatisfaction to the Houfe to be informed that the original fubfcribers will be paid at par, and receive fomething more than 1 per cent. and no lofs would be fuftained by the public. On thefe grounds he could not confent to the motion, or the objects of the hon. Gentleman. If, however, it fhould be the pleafure of the Houfe not to, acquiefce in the motion, he thought an arrangement might be made with the partics; that the time of payment of the bonus might be delayed till the time of peace, when payment would take place with lefs inconvenience to the public than at prefent.

Mr. Fox confidered this queftion of infinite importance, and concurred with the whole of the arguments advanced. by the right hon. Gentleman under the gallery (Mr. Pitt). He stated that it never was the cuftom to propofe any alteration in a bill founded upon a refolution in a Committee of Ways and Means respecting any loan. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman on the Treafury bench, to quote one inftance where any fuch propofition was made by him, or any other Gentleman who ever fat on the bench which he (Mr. Fox) had occupied for fo many years. This obfervation he made in order to mark the refpect for good faith towards public creditors, which had been uniformly felt in that House, and to fhew that no one had ever before meditated any thing like an alteration in the terms of a loan particularly injurious to the contractors. It had often, to be fure, been attempted to throw out a loan bill altogether, as it might be in the Lords, but never in any cafe to alter the terms; that is, if the intereft to the lender was propofed to. be 5 per cent. no one ever moved in any ftage of a loan bill, that fuch intereft fhould be reduced, and for this obvious reafon, that it would be a fcandalous breach of faith to new-model a contract without the confent, and in a manner not subject to the control of one of the contracting parties. The contracting parties in this tranfaction he confidered to be the Houfe of Commons and the fubfcribers to the loyalty loan, and he trusted that that Houfe would never by an act of power violate a folemn act of covenant, to which it fubfcribed when it agreed to the report of the Committee, the refolution of which formed the bargain now under difcuffion. The hon. Member afferted, that the contractors had a right to confider the refolution of that Committee as conclufive of their bargain, and could not be supposed to have any cognizance of the fubfequent proceeding

upon

upon the bill, for it would be monstrous to extend to fuch a cafe the maxim of ignorantia leges non excufat. The alteration, therefore, which took place, they could not be confidered as aware of before they advanced their money. To make use then of fuch an alteration to evade the original agreement with them, he could not but pronounce as little fhort of an abfolute fraud. Indeed he could not help confidering the conduct which Minifters feemed refolved to obferve towards thofe creditors as little lefs than bad faith perfouified. That they fhould, in the conftruction of an act, the meaning of which was confessed to be doubtful, take that construction which was oppofite to good faith, instead of the contrary, was very extraordinary; but the right hon. Gentleman had faid, that only a certain proportion of the loyalty loan holders had afferted this claim, and all the words he had ufed on that ground, to fpeak in the mildest manner of them, was, in fact, fo much flung away. The right hon. Gentleman indeed promifed, that if this motion. fhould be rejected, a negociation would be fet on foot with the perfons complaining, to induce them to poftpone their demand until another opportunity, and fuch negociation to reconcile them was, it feems, to be preceded by a vote of that House, to fhew that Minifters had the abfolute power to deal with thofe claims in what manner they pleasedparticularly if it thould not be convenient to Minifters to discharge them. Here the hon. Member took notice of the argument ab convenienti made ufe of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and reprobated it as indecent and unbecoming upon fuch an occafion as that before the Houfe. What, he would afk, would he thought of any private individual who fhould refort to fuch an argument to release himfelf from the execution of a foleinn contract, who fhould propofe to facrifice juftice to convenience? How then was the Houfe and the public to judge of a Minister who talked of convenience as an objection to the discharge of a debt legally contracted and juftly due to a certain number of public creditors?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained.

Mr. Tierney oppofed the motion, and expreffed fome furprise at the vehemence and afperity with which it had been fupported by the hon. Member who had just sat down. Not fo the right hon. Gentleman under the gallery who preceded him (Mr. Pitt), and who had with his wonted fairnets, liberality, and temper, delivered his fentiments upon the fubject, and candidly admitted that there could

be