stock-jobbers he went back to the bankers, paying a much higher rate than they at first demanded. “It was but yesterday,” writes Horace Walpole, “that Lord North could tell the House he had got the money on the loan, and is happy to get it under eight per cent.” The loan of 1780 brought them again into disrepute. Half was given to members of the House of Commons; more than three millions was allotted to one person; and, without regard to the welfare of the nation, the price was determined at a rate so favorable to the contractors, that, from no cause save the low terms on which it had been taken, the scrip arose at once to eleven premium. In 1781, it was said that Lord North had made an infamous bargain in a bungling manner; and that, in 1782, he had made a bungling bargain in an infamous manner; and this was solemnly protested against as an improvident operation, a corrupt job, and a partial distribution. There cannot be a doubt that the mode of conducting these loans was detrimental to the national interest, and conducive to that of the Stock Exchange. There were three plans up to this period. The first was in the offers of private individuals, stating the sum each would advance; the second was an open subscription at the treasury; and the third a close subscription with a few. By the first, the members of Parliament were bribed; and by the third, the bankers; then the principal contractors were enriched. Their interest, and it was great, with their votes in the House, and they were many, were, therefore, at the disposal of the government. In 1783, out of a loan for £12,000,000, £7,700,000 were given to bankers. So disgraceful was the whole affair, that Lord John Cavendish was compelled to apologize for the terms on which it had been granted, because “the former minister had left the treasury without a shilling.” By attempting to please men of all parties, Lord John, as usual, pleased none. He was abused by some for dividing it among so small a number; he was rated by others for allowing so many to have a share. Mr. Smith, of the house of Smith & Payne, made a formal complaint that he had been neglected in the allotment; that his firm was the only one left out; and that, in consequence, a stigma of a very disagreeable character was attached to it. By the explanation, it appeared that another house of the same name had been accused of tempting customers from the various bankers, by giving portions of the loan to those who would secede. The meanness had been attributed to Smith, Payne, & Co., and Lord John omitted them in consequence from his list. Mr. Smith was very irate on the subject; and although his Lordship explained, as the explanation was unaccompanied by a share of the loan, it was, probably, very unacceptable to the indignant banker. Although this gentleman saw no harm in receiving a portion of the loan, other bankers had higher views. Mr. Martin, believing that, as a senator, he ought not to