Star.
London, England, 1805-06-15 00:00:00

LOAN en BOYD, BENTIELD AND co.
Mr. WHITBREAD rofe purfuant to the notice
which he had given, to move certain Refolutions ref.
peeling the conduit of the Right Hon. the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, in thole tranfaaions which had
been difeotered in the Report of the Commiflioners
of Naval Inquiry, and farther invefligated in the Se-
idl Committee of the Houle. He trolled, after the
proceedings in which the Houle had been engaged
the preceding evenings, he mould uo longer appear
dilatory in having brought forward there Refolutions,
and he trotted they were couched in fuch terms. as
would procure the concurrence of many., who might
not go the full length of fume of his opinions on the
fubjeft. Another Hon. Gentleman, Mr. !Alec.lits,
had given notice of counter-refolutions, but coun-
ter-refolntioits, he was fore, there could be none—
and he rather hoped that if with his Refolutions the
Hon. Gentleman coul.: concur, while with his (thole
of Mr. Lafcelles) probably he could not concur, he
'ruffed that for the fake of unanimity, and the dig.
nity of the Houfe, the Hon. Gentleman and the
Houfe would adopt thole he fhould have the ho.
nour to propofe. The object he had in view was
to put on the Records cf the Houfe (itch a view
of tranfaftions, unqueflionahly irreßular, as would
prevent the danger of example. None, even thole
who think the particular at meritorious, could with
that on force future occafion public money fhould be
perverted by the precedent, without the jutlilica•
tton of a fimilar neceflity. There were three points
to which he fliould chiztly direal the attention of
the Houle. On a former occafion he had Rated,
as the refult of good information, that Mr. Pitt had
been acquainted with the fa& of money being with-
drawn from the Bank, and kept at a private banker's.
Now, the evidence of Mr. Raikes diflinEtly proved
that aftertion, and though there was a flight differ-
ence as to the terms in which the information was
conveyed between Mr. Raikes and Mr. Pitt, there
was no doubt as to the fubßance of the communi.
cation. It was in the year '797, when Mr. Raikes
[was Governor of the Bank, and muff extraordinary
it was, if unexplained, that Mr. Pitt took no Reps,
fuch as might have been fuggetted, by what he had
been told by Mr. Raikes. I'revions to that comm•
nication, and fince, it now Is certain, that money
was irregularly drawn from the Bank in large fums,
and applied to private profit-. And yet no Rep was
taken to flop the irregularity, nor fufficient inquiry
I made Into its exiflence. No charge of perfimal coil up-
tion was ever made on Mr. Pitt, relpe6ling this bud.
nets, and molt certainly he Rands acquitted of all
imputation of that fort ; but, of negligence he can-
not fo eafily be abfolved. It is of no confequence in
what manner the communication was made. whcthcr
i officially or not. Such information from the Governor
) of the Bank ought to have roofed Mr. Pitt's vigilance.
The fat of Mr. Raikes having given the inform.-
' tion, which Mr. Pitt admits, cannot be queflioned,
though it is Paid to have been queltioned by
fome ; but in jultice to Mr. Raikes it is proper to ob-
fern, that no doubt whatever can he entertained of
his baring apprifed Mr. Pitt, and though none of
the Committee of the Bank remember his mention-
ing the ciraumflance on his return, yet the fad re•
mains undifputable. In whatever way that informa-
tion may be confidered, whether as hearfay or other.
wife, it was fofficient to call upon the Fiat Lord of
the Treafury to inquire into a matterof importance,
connaled with the finance Adminifiration of the
country, and with the credit of his friend Lord Mel-
ville. With that Noble Lord indeed Mr. Pitt Con'
verfed on the tub eft, and very quickly, and, as ap-
pears, very eallry fatisfied, he turned his thoughts
no farther to the fubjell, a negligence which, confi•
doing the difcoveries now made, and the continued
irregularities, which it might then have been poflible
to prevent, he now regrets, It is the more remark-
able that his mind was (truck with no fufpicion,

knowing as he did the diverfion of a0000l.• Naval
Money, contrary to law, he might have fan the fee
cility of employing in bad put poles that which he
had been acceffary in diverting to what he thoitala a
right one. Extraordinary it is too, that after having
foualit explanation from Lord Melville, he never
again mentioned to Mr. Rai!:es the ritctimilance,and
told him he was miftaken in his view of the matter,
as in a thing involving the credit Gf the Tteafurer of
the Navy, would have been natural. He laid, how-
ever, that the law was nnt'under his contemplation,
that is, in other wotdv, he had forgot it. But could
ignorance or forgetfulnefs of a law, which does not
excnfe the meaneft fulojed, be an apology for the firlt
Finance Miniller in a matter fo important, particu-
larly when he had himfelf been concerned in the in..
trodudion of that very law,.and the reforms it was
intended to efFed? Had not the proceedings of the
Houfe been fuch as they have been, fpecific refolu-
tions on this /point would have been proper ; but
marked as the whole tranfaelion, as to the diverfinn
and mil-application of Naval Money by the Treafurer
is, I am unwilling (raid Mr. W.) to propofe any
thing offenfive to the feelintes of the Hon. Gentle-
man; or of any other Member telpeding it, and
therefore intend Feoleifing to refultr ion on that head.
The next fithjed was the deficiency of Mr. Jellicoe,
on which Mr. W. an ai:-,ned tile negligence of the
Treafury. The fads, laid he, are not fuels as fit
forth in the proceedings at the Trealury. After a
converfation between fur. Pitt and land blelvill!, a
memorial was prefented to the Treafury. In this
tranfadion the firft extraordinary feature is the date
of the various procee•lioas: The warrant for the
writ of Privy Seal is dazed the 2t it ; the writ itfelf is
dated the 27th; and the entry of it the 3111 of May.
tSoo--while the info, mation on which the warrant is
fuppofed to proceed is laid before the Board of Tree.
fury on the 29th. Suck is the reverie order itrwhich
this bufinefs goes on. Theft dates may arife front
miflake. and may he'explained; but it gives a grange
idea of the mode of condading bufinefs, to fee the .
writs patting, without tl warrants, and warrants
.
wrhout the illotruatiaa on which they proceed, as if
what was eicantial had bt. AI only a form, and the tea
the material paints, a ere ready at a moment, and
waited only the formality of a flatement to pre-
cede them. At &It it appeared, that thefe mit.
takes might have happened its the hurry of packing
up when Minifiers wet e going out, but at that time
Lord M. only quitted the Tra.afaretfhip of the Navy,
and remained in office a wbole year after. The
matter, tliertfere, 11111 required the explanation of
the Honourable Gentleman "polite. He then pro.
ceeded to complain of the negligence of the Treafury
in making no inquity into ale bufinefs.. If Mr.
Pitt, engaged in a multiplicity of other affairs,coalti
not do it, why not depute tome of the Junior Lords
of the Treafto y ? Why not employ Mr. Smith, or
' Lord Glenbervie, not a Janior Lord in one fein.e. but
a perfon of great afliduay, experience, and ability,
to inveftigate the claims which Mr. Dundas had to A
Writ of P: ivy Seal ? Had the jnnior Lords of the
Treafury no duty to pert rm, although receiving a
large falary from the public ? ibis was a aew
fpecies cf application ; there was no example of a
Writ of Privy Seal of this oat ure fince 176 o; fur
thole that have occarrtd fusee be:ng for accounts,,
and not for a deficiency, were not limilar to the pre-'
fent, which on every account called for particular at-
tention. But neither did Mr. Pitt, nor any of the
Junior Lords of the T ealury, make,any particular
inquiry into the affair : and, from the Reirirt • flue
Committee, the public are itiformcd that flume of
their fervants do no duty at ail for apvintments fup-
poted to be efficient, fiace Lord Greabervie had riot
attended the Board of Treafury fora whole }ear, and
Lime of thufe whole names were to the minute of
Treafury, knew nothing at all about the bufinefs
tranfaded. Had the raper inquiries been made, it
would have !teen formed that the averments were not
cnnftftent with the fads. Bete Mr. Whitbread went
into a view of the proceedings on Jellicoe's cafe, in
which it appeared that the bufinefs was, in the ab-
fence of the Solicitor to the Admiralty, put into the
hands of Mr. White, 3 elicitor to the Treafury, who
had general infirudions to ad, but that the proaced•
ings having begun in i 785, nothing farther was
done after 1793, except that Mr. Trotter occafion-
ally thed till the Writ of Privy Seal was obtained,
but after that did nothing, fince which period,no perfok
whatever about the Treafury, kerns to have known
any thing about the bufinefs, or taken any flees in it.
Nor did it appear that forbearance had arifen (which
might have been jultifiable) from tendernefs to Mr.
Samuel Jellicoe, but abfolutdy from negligence --
Upon thefe grounds he tailed for the vote of the
linufe to declare what itsconteftible evidence bears
out, that the conduct of the Treafury in this affair
had been negligent. The mil important part of the
cafe, however, was the Iran to Boyd, Benfield, and
Co. of 40,0001. This loan was granted in September,
1796, and utile:, accidentally divulged in the Tenth
Retort, twin have probably remained a fecret. Up-
on this fubjed cntaldetable light would arife from a
publication, fuch as differences between partners in
trade fornetimes a:cation, in which the tranfadions
and fituation of the bottle are laid open by Boyd him.
Pelf, to repel fome charges of Mr. Benfield. Far be
it from me, Paid Mr. Whitbread, to affett that a
Minifter is to be tied down to forms, that on no r a:a-
lion, however urgent and neceffary, he is ever to de-
part from them. I think that for grext public pur-
poles, a Miniller ought to rifle almoft teary thing ;
I troll that I never !loath! ffirink from thexefponfi-
bility of doing fo when the nation was to be greatly
laved. But where is that occafion, is the quellion?
If n man is conscious of eating right, he will leave
behind him the aft and the jaitification recorded, In
that his ad may not he drawn into example againft
the fpirit of the ad. But forms that are always ter
be violated, ought not to be preferved ; and if form
is tranfgrellid in one inftance, its particular jutlifiaa-
tion should ever be kept in view, or its neglect mull
become general, with or without neccffity. Mr. Pitt