poses before stated, it was his duty to mark | discounted by the house, they will appear Q. them off in those books; but bills were frequently taken out for the purpose of being discounted when discount could not be regularly obtained, or when only temporary loans could be had on the security of the bills, in which case it is possible no such entry may have been made; the bills then ought to have been returned to the drawer.Do you recollect the absence of any East India Company bills, or navy bills, from the drawer, to the amount of 40,0001., or thereabouts, without your knowing for what purpose they had been used? A. I do not recollect any such circumstance, but I have no doubt that if any such transactions took place, they would appear in the books of the house.- -Q. Did Mr. Boyd ever inform you he had pledged securities to such an amount, for assistance to make good an instalment upon loan? A. I do not recollect that he did.- -Q. Have you any reason to believe such pledge was ever made by the house for such purpose? A. I have not.Q. In the event of any bills being taken from the drawer, and pledged to any party who lent money upon them, such party having received the payment of these bills when due, and discharged the debt due to himself from their produce, how would the entry respecting such transaction have been made in the books of Boyd and company? I presume that the person would have been made debtor to cash to the account to which the bills or securities referred or belonged. A. A. Would not such bills have been marked off in the bill-book as liquidated or paid? A. They would, if the cashier did his duty, although I had one key of the drawer which contained those bills. Mr. Boyd had complete and entire confidence in Mr. Libotton, and I delivered any securities to him that the drawer contained without hesitation, and without taking any note whatever of the bills so given out. The confidence of Mr. Benfield in Mr. Libotton was, if possible, still more entire; he proposed about the latter end of the year 1796, or the beginning of the year 1797, that Mr. Libotton should become a partner in the house, to which I objected, and of course it did not take place. Q. Were bills and securities to the amount of 41,000l. so marked off on or about the month of October 1796; or was an entry made of the nature you have described in a former answer? A. I have already stated, that I have no particular recollection of the bills which appear to be alluded to in that question; but I have no doubt, that if such bills were in possession of the house, or had been either sold or to have been marked off in the bill-book. -Q. -Q. Do you think that bills accepted by the East-India company, some of which had twelve and fifteen months to run, and navy bills, could have been discounted in the autumn of 1796? A. I do not believe they could have been discounted of such long dates; but if it were legal to sell such bills, I have no doubt but it might have been practicable to sell them.- Q. Did Mr. Boyd ever mention to you, that in the autumn of 1796, he had conversed with lord Melville, or the chancellor of the exchequer, respecting any assistance to be furnished to him by government, in lieu of securities which he was to furnish for that purpose? A. I do not recollect that he did.-Q. Had you yourself any conversation of the same nature with either of the above-named persons? A. I had not the honour of being at all known either to Mr. Pitt or lord Melville; I do not recollect ever having been in Mr. Pitt's presence on any occasion whatever, or ever been in lord Melville's presence since the house of Boyd, Benfield, and company, were in existence.You have stated, that you did not sign the contract of partnership with Mr. Boyd and Benfield; did you not consider, that the not having so done, would exempt you from any of the legal consequences of their failure? A. I believe it would have exempted me, had the establishment been in any foreign country, for instance, in Holland or in France, where such limited partnerships are not uncommon; but I have been advised or informed, that according to the laws of this country, any person who is held out to the public as a partner, or who secretely participates in the profit, is liable to the creditors of the house, although, as between ourselves, I considered I was not liable to any loss; I thought so at the time, but I considered the fortune of Mr. Benfield and of Mr. Boyd (as represented to me by Mr. Boyd) to be such as would place me above all risk.-Q. Did you consider yourself as partner at all, not having signed the contract of partnership? A. I considered myself liable as a partner to the public, but not bound by any particular stipulation which might have been entered into by Mr. Boyd and Mr. Benfield, in their contract together. Q. What do you mean by stating, that you acted chiefly under the direction of Boyd? 4. I mean, that my concern in the house being comparatively very small, it would not have been becoming in me to assume much consequence from it.-Q. Did you follow Mr. Boyd's directions in all cases respecting the concerns of the house? A. Generally speaking I certainly did not, however, without expressing my own opinion.- Q. Did you believe now that Mr. Boyd communicated to you all the money transactions of the house? A. I have no reason to think that he with-held from me any knowledge of the money transactions in general.-Q. Then you cannot take upon yourself to say, that he did communicate to you all the money transactions of the house? A. I cannot positively say so, and certainly not in all the detail.- Q. You have stated, that Mr. Boyd had entire confidence in Mr. Libotton, the cashier; had you the same degree of confidence in Mr. Libotton? A, I had no reason to doubt his honesty, nor have I now, although my opinion in other respects was not altogether so partial as that of Mr. Boyd and Mr. Benfield appeared to be. 15th May.-Q. Is that book in your hand the cash-book of August 1798, of Boyd and Benfield? A. Yes.- -Can you point cat in the backs before you, the entry of the sum advanced to Mr. Boyd of 40,000l. in the year 1796, by lord Melville, or anonymous, which you may conclude to have been such advance upon the security of East-India company bills and other public securities? A. It appears by an entry in the cash book of 9th September 1796, that bills to the amount of 11,8281. 118. gd. on the East-India company; to the amount of 5,0411. Is. 8d. on the Treasury; a further sum of 11,0001. on the Treasury; and 12,8341. Ss. 2d. on the Victualling Office, making together the sum of 40,7041. Is. 74. were delivered to Mr. Boyd to discount, or raise money upon them; that Mr. Boyd accordingly paid to the house on account thereof 30,000l. on the 9th day of September aforesaid, and a further sun of 10,000l. on the following day. I wish to state in explanation of my evidence on a former day, that in the first part of my exanimation, my mind bore upon an earlier period than I now perceive the question applies to. I was asked concerning the loan contracted for in December 1795: my answer referred to the preceding loan for the service of the year 1795, in which the imperial loan of 4,600,000l. was included; the loan contracted for in November or December 1795, consisted only of 18,000,000l. and did not include any loan to the emperor. About the 15th of April following, a further loan of seven millions and a half was raised for the service of the year 1796; this first erroneous impression ran through other parts of my evidence. I do not recollect any difficulty was experienced in money transactions during the year 1795, but it is a fact generally known, that great inconveniences were sustained from what is usually termed a scarcity of money early in the spring of 1796; and from the time that the Bank of England came to the resolution of narrowing their discounts, that inconvenience continued to increase until the latter end of February 1797, when an order of council was made for suspending the issue of cash by the bank; in consequence of this general depreciation of credit, the loan of April 1796 was, in less than six weeks, three and an half per cent. discount; by the end of July, at seven and three quarters per cent. discount; and at the end of September, 13 per cent. discount; the other funds fell in proportion; it was nevertheless always possible to sell funded property, scrip, e. at a greater or less discount; but the best mercantile securities, bills of exchange of undoubted credit and solidity, and even the acceptances of government, and the East-India company, when at long dates, became in a great degree unavailable, that is to say, they could not be discounted AT LEGAL INTEREST. That these general distresses bore with severe pressure on the house of Boyd, Benfield, and company, I never meant to deny. It was the more felt by them at that time, as their traus actions were then of considerable magnitude, having large payments and remitances to make on account of the emperor, in addition to all the other concerns of their establishment.-In answer to some of the questions, I have stated, that I was in the constant habit of communicating with Mr. Boyd concerning the affairs of the house, but that I could not be certain whether upon all occasions, his communications to me were unreserved. In saying so, I was very far from meaning to insinuate any thing to the disadvantage of Mr. Boyd, for whose character and abilities I always did, and still do, entertain the highest opinion; I only meant to say, that our situations were very different in many respects, mine was that of an acting laborious partner in the executive business of the house, and particularly in the correspondence department; it was my duty to follow his instructions, and to inform him of every thing that occurred; he, on the contrary, was frequently placed in situations which might have rendered a full and free communication with me on every point very improper. I recollect particularly, that early in the month of June, 1796, the Baron de Muller arrived from Vienna on a special mission from the direction of his Imperial Majesty's finances, and that Mr. Boyd was confidentially employed by him and Count Straremberg in negotiating some plan of further pecuniary supplies to the Emperor with his Majesty's cabinet ministers. In consequence of those negotiations, the house of Boyd, Benfield, and Company, were instructed to facilitate the means of further supplies to the Emperor, and sent a person to Hamburgh about the latter end of July, 1796, for that express purpose, with unlimited credit upon the house. Mr. Boyd only communicated to me, on this and other similar occasions, as much as it was necessary I should know, for the purpose of carrying the resolutions into execution.- -Q. Do you find any entry of payment on instalments on the loan, corresponding to the entry of the receipt above stated of 40,0001.? A. I do not find any entry exactly correspondent to that particular sum; but many entries of large sums, on account of the direction of the finances at Vienna, particularly one sum on the 31st of October, 1796, of £186,340. 13. 1. -Q. In the form of entries of bills, and other securities turned into money, on account of the house of Boyd and Company, is any notice taken on the face of the cashbook, of the names of the parties by whom such bills or securities had been discounted? A. Not generally.-Q. In the case of bills issued to Mr. Boyd personally to be so converted, would such entry occur? 4. Mr. Boyd's account would be made debtor for any securities delivered to him by the house, and would be made creditor for the sums of money received from him on account of such securities; but the name of the person or persons from whom he had received the money would not be mentioned.-Q. Would Mr. Boyd, on receipt of the advances of 40,0001. from Mr. Long, upon a deposit of bills, make any entry of Mr. Long's name in the cash-book of the house? 4. Most probably not, such entry being unnecessary for the information of the house.-Q. Can you state generally what proportion of the loan of seven millions and an half, contracted for in April, 1796, was held by the house of Boyd and Company, either on their own account, or that of others for whom they acted as agents? A. I cannot from memory state, but I find in the ledger, that a first payment was made to the Bank by the house of Boyd, Benfield, and Company, on the 26th of April, 1796, of 239,9001. upon the sum of 2,389,0001. of that loan.- Q. Does the sum in question include the payments on account of parties for whom the house acted as agents, as well as on behalf of the house itself? A. It does.- Q. Can you state generally, what proportion of the loan of 18,000,000 1. contracted for in December, 1795, was retained by the house of Boyd and Company, on their own behalf, or others for whom they acted as agents? A. I cannot; the first payment on that loan took place, I believe, in December, 1795; the ledger now before me commences in January, 1796; but it appears that a second payment was made upon that loan on the 22d of January, amounting to 12,559. 18. 0.—Q. Did the proportion of the loans of December, 1795, and April, 1796, retained by the house of Boyd and Company, form a material proportion of the general transactions of the house at the period in question? 4. It formed a large proportion, but there were at that time affairs of much more considerable magnitude than merely their amount in the share in the loan; it appears that in the year 1796, the house paid, or remitted to the direction of his Imperial and Royal Majesty's finances at Vienna, a sum amounting to 14,609,506. 9. Q. What was the highest discount on the loan of seven millions and an half, at any period in the year 1796? A. I cannot state from memory any higher discount than that of thirteen per cent. actually incurred by the house, by a transaction stated in their books, but it may have been at a higher discount. Q. Do you recollect how many instalments of the loan of December, 1795, were due in September, 1796? A. I have no means of knowing it. 17th May.- [Delivers in a copy of the entry of 9th and 10th September, 1796, from the books of the house of Boyd and Benfield, which was read.]Q. Was there any instalment payable on the loan of seven millions and an half in the month of September, 1790, and on what day? A. I believe that an instalment of 15 per cent. became due on the loan of seven millions and an half, either on the 9th or the 11th day of September, and that a further instalment of 15 per cent. on the preceding loan of 18,000,0001. became due on the 23d day of the saine month.-Q. Do you know which instalment on the loan of seven millions and an half it was that became due on the 9th or 11th of September? A. I do not recollect which it was, my information upon the subject being derived merely from a pamphlet which I saw yesterday evening.Q. Do not you know, that on the loan of seven millions and an half, with regard to some of the instalments, the Bank had engaged to make the payments? A. I do not recollect whether the Bank had upon that particular occasion or not. I wish to add, that on the first day of my examination, I came here altogether unacquainted upon what subject I was to be examined, and could not recollect from the questions that were put to me, what the particular transaction was that was alluded to; it appears to have been a transaction that took place at the distance of nine years, and although of some considerable magnitude, it was not so, comparatively speaking, with the daily transactions of the house of Boyd and Benfield; and since I retired from the partnership on the 31st December, 1798, I have had no access to the books and papers of the house, which might have otherwise furnished me the means of furnishing more distinct information to the Committee upon the subjects upon which I was questioned: if therefore, any contradiction or confusion may have appeared in my answers, I trust the Committee will not impute it to any premeditated wish of withholding information. MR. PITT'S ANSWERS. SIR, Not having had an opportunity of seeing the whole of Mr. Pitt's evidence, until I saw your paper, I was immediately struck with his evasive answers to questions that one would imagine, he could have had no doubt upon. Having had a spare hour, I have endeavoured to bring the whole of his answers into one view, and I herewith inclose you the sketch I have made. If it be not in a shape to appear in your paper, probably, it may not be entirely useless.- -In Mr. Pitt's examination before the Select Committee, to whom the consideration of the Tenth Report was referred, it appears, that 104 questions were put to him, in his answer to which, each of the following phrases has occurred as often as the figures opposite it denote. It is remarkable, that only TWO direct answers have been given by him in the whole course of his examination; and, what must appear most extraordinary, is, that his recollection seems most lamentably deficient on those transactions where he himself was concerned; whilst, on those questions which could only be matter of opinion, he speaks in the most confident terms; such, for instance, as the dreadful effect it would have had on public credit, had he not ACCOMMODATED Boyd and Co. with 40,0001. of the public money, although there is not a banker's clerk in the City of London so ignorant as not to know, that money, to a much more considerable amount, could have been raised on those securities at the Stock Exchange in a single hour. I shall insert here those questions, to which he gave any thing like a decided answer. Is it not curious to hear the friends of Mr. Pitt say that he was anxious for a full inquiry, after the extraor-. dinary means he resorted to, and the most deplorable absence of mind, he appears to la-. bour under, when before the committee? How can this be accounted for in a man of his quick and discerning mind on all ordinary occasions? A man who, whenever it suits his purpose, does, with a most surpri-. sing effort of memory, revert to all the arguments and opinions of his adversaries, for a space of time comprising his whole political life, not with doubt, hesitation, and embarrassment, but with the most direct unqualified and positive assertion. ANSWERS. He thinks, &c. He thinks to that effect He rather believes He understood it generally He was not able to ascertain TIMES. He really did not recollect He could not recollect with certainty He had a general recollection Not able to recall at this distance of time He could not undertake to say He could not state the substance very generally He could not state with accuracy The two direct answers ought to be stated at full length, together with the questions giving rise to them.-Q. From the state of the money market, in case Boyd had failed in making good his payments, do you conceive a new loan could have been procured for the public on terms equally advantageous. I am PERFECTLY CONVINCED it could not, and that the embarrasment it would have caused to the public service, would have been of the MOST SERIOUS AND ALARMING NATURE.- Q. In the then state of the market would it have been easy to make a loan in room thereof? A. NO. I believe it would have been extremely difficult, and, I believe, impossible. Now, I call upon Mr. Pitt and his friends, and I defy them to produce, throughout the whole Calendar, 104 questions, put to any one witness, with 104 such phrases, in their answers thereto. And, yet, in the two last instances, which can be matter of opinion only, decided answers are given; by which it would appear, that the not lending Boyd 40,0001. of the public money, would have been more destructive to public credit, prejudicial to the service, and attended with more serious consequences than were produced, even by the stoppage of the Bank of England itself, shortly afterwards. REFORM OF FINANCIAL ABUSES. LETTER VI. SIR, -In the several letters that I have written to you upon this subject, I have advanced certain principles, on which I propose the management of the receipt and expenditure of the public money should be regulated. I think it may be of service to collect these principles under one view, so as to form, as it were, a short code of financial legislation. With respect to the receipt of the revenue, I have advised, 1st. that no collector or receiver should be employed as a paymaster. 2d. That every department should be governed by commissioners; and, 3d. That ALL the revenue of every description should be paid into the Exchequer. With respect to the public expenditure, I have advised, 1st. That such portion of it that cannot be fixed in amount by the previous votes of parliament, should be under the management of commissioners, 2d. That this management should be divided, 1st. into the duties of incurring; 2d. of examining; and, 3dly, of paying the expenses of the public. 3d. That no money whatsoever should be paid except upon the authority of some board of commissioners. 4th. That every payment shoud be made by the Treasury. And, 5th. That the national accounts should be kept and stated according to the principles of mercantile book-keeping. As these principles contain nothing visionary or speculative, as they are extremely simple and intelligible, and such as may be judged upon with accuracy, by every person the least degree conversant with accounts, I have some hopes that they will find their way into the minds of some of our patriotic legislators, and meet with countenance even in our Houses of Parliament. So far as I have had an opportunity of ascertaining what effect the appeal I have made to your readers, has produced, I am sufficiently repaid for having made it. It strikes every one, that I have heard speak of the subject, as it struck me, that to effect a reform of any substantial benefit, a total alteration must take place in the existing regulations of office, and in the present plan of stating the public accounts, which have certainly no other merit than that of affording the opportunities of defrauding the public with perfect impunity. That such a reform is absolutely necessary, it requires no comments of mine now to point ont, and such a necessity existing, it does not require more trouble to prove, that |