BILL PROHIBITING LOANS.

Another warm debate was excited by a bill which the courtiers brought in, to prevent any subjects of Great Britain from advancing sums of money to foreign princes or states, without having obtained license from his majesty, under his privy-seal or some great authority. The minister pretended that this law was proposed to disable the emperor, who wanted to borrow a great sum of the English merchants, from raising and maintaining troops to disturb the tranquillity of Europe. The bill contained a clause empowering the king to prohibit by proclamation all such loans of money, jewels, or bullion: the attorney-general was empowered to compel, by English bill, in the court of exchequer, the effectual discovery, on oath, of any such loans; and it was enacted, that in default of an answer to any such bill, the court should decree a limited sum against the person refusing to answer. Mr. Daniel Pulteney, a gentleman of uncommon talents and ability, and particularly acquainted with every branch of commerce, argued strenuously against this bill, as a restraint upon trade that would render Holland the market of Europe, and the mart of money to the nations of the continent. He said that by this general prohibition, extending to all princes, states, or potentates, the English were totally disabled from assisting their best allies: that, among others, the king of Portugal frequently borrowed money of the English merchants residing within his dominions; that while the licensing power remained in the crown, the licenses would be issued through the hands of the minister, who by this new trade might gain twenty, thirty, or forty thousand a-year: that the bill would render the exchequer a court of inquisition: and that whilst it restrained our merchants from assisting the princes and powers of Europe, it permitted our stockjobbers to trade in their funds without interruption. Other arguments of equal weight were enforced by Mr. Barnard, a merchant of London, who perfectly understood trade in all its branches, spoke with judgment and precision, and upon all occasions steadily adhered to the interest and liberties of his country. After having explained his reasons, he declared he should never consent to a bill which he deemed a violation of our fundamental laws, a breach of our dearest liberties, and a very terrible hardship on mankind. Sir William Wyndham distinguished himself on the same side of the question: the bill was vindicated by sir Robert Walpole, Mr. Pelham, and sir Philip Yorke, attorney-general; and being supported by the whole weight of ministerial influence, not only passed through the house, but was afterwards enacted into a law.

GEORGE II. 1727-1760