those qualifications, equivocations, and reserves, with which it has been fettered by the honourable mover of the resolutions, but as a clear, full, and decided testimony, that there was no distribution of the loan for the purpose of corrupt influence. As to the other charges of undue partiality to any individual for services supposed to have been performed to the government, it shortly resolves itself into the question, whether, by the mode of settling the loan, I have contrived to enrich Mr. Boyd, by a sacrifice of the public interest? I am aware it has been said that no such charge was meant to be conveyed; but why should such frequent allusion have been made to the Hamburgh bills, except for that express purpose? They would not have been mentioned had it not been with a view to give countenance to such an insinuation. I shall not, however, now fully enter into the nature of that transaction, as an opportunity will soon be presented when it shall be brought forward as an object of separate enquiry. I will only at present shortly state the substance.

In every loan-bill, parliament inserts a clause holding out a premium for the prompt payment of the suis subscribed, foreseeing that government may possibly have occasion for the money before the instalments become due in the regular course of payment. Last year, though large sums were paid up, still the public exigences were such as to render additional supplies necessary, and the terms offered were not sufficiently tempting to induce individuals to come forward with their money. Under these circumstances government entered into a negotiation with a monied house to advance such sums as were wanted for the service. The aid of parliament at that time could not be had without calling it together at a great trouble and inconvenience, both public and private. In consequence of this treasury-warrants were offered; but Mr. Boyd said, that bills of exchange werc a more mercantile commodity; and, to avoid the expense of stamps, they were dated at Hamburgh, to make them foreign bills of exchange, they otherwise being inland and subject to a stamp.

In the whole transaction, however, there was nothing questionable or suspicious, nothing unwarrantable on the part of government which gave Mr. Boyd an exclusive right, far less a discretionary power to dictate the terms of a future loan. So much for the subject and substance of the transaction, by far the most material part of every such transaction; the bills themselves were nothing more than mere forms of security to those who advanced the money. The giving them was only an engagement on the part of government to make good the sums advanced for the public. Whether that engagement was executed on stamped or unstamped paper, whether written on paper or on parchment, added nothing to the validity of the security The particular manner of executing it, was such as was dictated by the necessary regard for secrecy. As to the case of a merchant, in whom it was affirmed such a transaction would be highly discreditable and suspicious, there was nothing in common between the conduct of a merchant in the management of his private affairs, and that of the government of a great country under the pressure of public exigences. No comparison would, therefore, hold for a moment. It might reasonably be suspected, that a merchant resorted to such a mode of transacting business in order to supply the deficiency of his capital, and to support a fictitious credit. In the case of government, the sums were already voted, they were only wanted for immediate service, and funds were provided to reimburse those who advanced them as soon as their claims became due. But was this a service of such magnitude and importance, as to be conceived to give Mr. Boyd such strong claims upon government as could be construed into a right to dictate the terms of the loan? Mr. Boyd never had entertained such an idea, and I confess that this part of the transaction was executed with the same liberality and zeal as every other service to government which he has undertaken to perform. It is supposed that, in order to reward Mr. Boyd, the most likely method which I could devise, was to bestow upon him a loan of such considerable extent, in which he only

is a holder among many others. Is it probable that in order to `reward him individually, the chancellor of the exchequer, at a time of severe pressure, and when under the necessity of making such large demands from the House, should add eight or ten per cent. to the public burdens of the year?

All this, however, turned upon a question of evidence, and with respect to the evidence before the committee, it is a principle in human nature, that where persons give evidence in a case which involves their own interests and merits, their judgments will imperceptibly and involuntarily be biassed to one side of the question; and all such evidence requires to be weighed with the most scrupulous attention, and to be received with some qualification. I am sure I mean to say nothing offensive or disrespectful to either gentleman, but I apply this principle equally to Mr. Boyd and to Mr. Morgan. How far Mr. Boyd had a share in the transaction of the Hamburgh bills, and how far that had any influence on the disposition of the loan, appears from the testimony of that gentleman himself. He declares that he formed no claim from that circumstance; that he had not the smallest expectation of any preference, nor did he conceive that such an idea existed. And it is to be remarked, that Boyd's evidence was clear and consistent with itself, distinct, plain, and explicit, while Morgan's, in many material points, was inconsistent, and not only contradicted by himself, but by every authority and evidence that was confronted with it. After stating that the governor of the bank had warned him of something, which was likely to secure to Mr. Boyd a preference to the loan, he had, Mr. Morgan says, upon being questioned, more particularly affirmed, that he had not mentioned what that something was. Afterwards he said, that the governor of the bank described the transaction of the Hamburgh bills, as likely to secure a preference to Mr. Boyd. So much for Mr. Morgan contradicting himself. The governor of the bank, upon being examined, expressly stated, that he had not mentioned a syllable about the bills; that he had only said, that Mr. Boyd had a claim from the loan of last year, which he con

If I

*

ceived him to be too sagacious to allow to escape him. had determined to avail myself of an opportunity to throw the loan, at all events, into the hands of Mr. Boyd, could I not have found some better mode of achieving my purpose, than that which I pursued? Should I have held out the system of competition? Should I have deliberately announced my intention for that purpose, and have invited competitors, when I was aware that the result could tend only to beget animosity and disappointment? Should I have expressed my reluctance to the claims of Mr. Boyd, and yielded to them only upon the conviction that they were well founded? If nothing was got by the intention which I at first announced of a free competition, but increasing difficulty and accumulated embarrassment, as to the mode in which the bargain was ultimately settled, is not this internal evidence better than any parole proof that can be adduced, that I was completely sincere in the month of October, when I first announced that intention, and that I had formed no determination to benefit Mr. Boyd at any rate, by giving him a preference? I had not then examined his claim, because it had not then been stated to me so distinctly, and because it had not been brought to my recollection by the governor of the bank. If, then, I was under the influence of error, it was because I carried the system of competition strong in my mind, and because, looking solely to that, I neglected, in the first instance, to attend sufficiently to the claims of Mr. Boyd, and kept them back longer than, as it afterwards appeared to me, in justice I ought to have done.

As to the injury which Mr. Morgan and his friends may have suffered, from having prepared their money in order to bid, that surely cannot be seriously insisted on, while it is recollected that the final adjustment of every loan is matter of so much uncertainty, and connected with so many collateral considerations. No communication from the bank, as to competition, ever took place, except with respect to Mr. Boyd. How could Mr. Morgan contend, that he had sustained injury from having prepared his property to qualify himself to be a bidder, when

he stated, that, till the 23d of November, he never began to doubt that there would be a competition. His own account of his information on this subject was rather whimsical; it came from a confidential friend, of whom he knew nothing, who informed him that he had heard, from a third person, that Boyd was sure of the loan; and yet, though his information led him to know more than the rest of the world, he went on with his speculations, and never doubted that there would be a competition till the twenty-third of November; he therefore would not be responsible for any loss that the parties might sustain from such speculations. All lists or plans that were handed about were merely speculations, particularly Morgans; and if the parties have sustained any injury, it lies entirely with him and themselves.

The next point was the nature of Boyd's claim, and the impropriety of departing from the system of competition. As to the claim of Mr. Boyd, it has been proved that I, at first, testified strong prejudices and great reluctance, which were not overcome till it was brought forward in a shape in which it was no longer controvertible; that I admitted the principle of competition, and receded from it only when fair and just grounds were adduced on the part of an individual to warrant a deviation from the general system. Here a great deal of minute criticism has been displayed by gentlemen on the other side, with respect to Mr. Boyd's letter. I was in the situation of a judge trying a cause between Mr. Boyd and the public; acting as a trustee for the latter on the one hand, and a person called upon to decide on the justice of the claim of an individual on the other. The claim of Mr. Boyd may have been asserted too strongly, or the contrary might have been the case. Was the consideration of the manner in which his cause was urged, however, to have any influence on my mind in the decision on the justice of his claims? I now stand here accused. I have been placed in the high situation of a judge, and now I appear in the more humble one of a person accused, defending myself against a foul charge. It has been said that I was bound to pay no attention to the claims