HISTORY OF ERUOPE. 



105 



8ary to say any more than, that the 

 explanation given by lord Melville 

 •nas such as, at the time, he thought 

 satisfactory ; and as to the affair of 

 Mr. Jellico, it was but a bare act 

 of justice to lord Melville, and such 

 as he would consent to do again 

 under similar circumstances. Com- 

 ing then to the main point in ques- 

 tion, he observed, that the house 

 of Boyd and Benfield had contracted 

 for two loans in 1795-6, at the time 

 when there was such a scarcity of 

 money, it could not be obtained, 

 even on good security, and they 

 being the principil holders, an 

 instalment of 40.000/. becoming 

 due, they, on the same day, applied 

 to government for a loan to that 

 amount, in order to discharge it. 

 Had the sum not tiieu been advanced, 

 a new loan must have been con- 

 tracted for, on very disadvantageous 

 terms, which would have incurred 

 far greater loss to the nation, than 

 that sum, even if it had been lost; 

 but that was by no means the case: un- 

 questionable security for it had been 

 deposited in the hands of govern- 

 ment, and every shilling of it was 

 repaid. He knew that what he did 

 was irregular, but perfectly justifi- 

 able, at a period when the failure of 

 that house, which did not happen 

 till three years afterwards, might 

 hare been very injurious to public 

 credit. 



Mr. H. Lascelles justified the 

 condurt of Mr. l*i«t, but could not 

 iigrce witii (he honourablegentleman 

 (Mr. Whitbread) as to the mode 

 of stating the facts ; he tlierefore 

 moved, " that the advance of 

 " 40.000/. to the house of Boyd 

 *' and Co. was highly expedient, in 

 " the existing circumstances, and 

 " aftcnded with the most beneficial 

 '' effects." 



Mr. Fox thought the right ho- 

 nourable gentleman had been want- 

 ing in diligence and enquiry; that, 

 in the affair of Jellico, lord Mel- 

 Tille had stated, that his debt had 

 been contracted before he entered 

 into office, whereas, the fact was, 

 that the greatest part of it accrued 

 after he became treasurer of the 

 navy ; the blame then attaching to 

 the honourable gentleman (Mr. 

 Pitt") was, that he granted lord 

 Melville an acquittance upon false 

 grounds, and in an unprecedented 

 manner. He considered the trans- 

 action in the case of Boyd to be 

 not only contrary to statute law, 

 but to the spirit of the constitution, 

 and the principles of common sense. 

 The precedent of such a loan was 

 most alarmingly mischievous, and 

 must, if suffered to be acted upon, 

 establish a degree of arbitrary 

 power in a minister. He did not 

 mean to impeach his motive in the 

 transaction, but his object was to 

 provide against such an act growing 

 into a precedent. With respect to 

 the different modes of proceeding, 

 recommended in this case, he de- 

 clared he would prefer a bill of 

 indemnity, in which the sense of tho 

 house might be so expressed, as 

 to guard against the precedent 

 complained of. After some further 

 conversation, the previous question 

 was put, and carried, on Mr. Whit- 

 bread's resolutions, and the sub- 

 stance of Mr. Lascelles's amendment 

 agreed to. After which IMr. Las- 

 celles obtained leave to bring in a 

 hill of indemnity for the said trans- 

 action. 



On the 18th of June, in the 

 house of lords, the Earl of Suffolk 

 called the attention of the house to 

 the importance of Ireland, as an 

 integral part of the empire. He 



obscrvciL 



