an new
taxes would be required to the amount of L660,000 annually; that is
L60,000 more than the legal interest of five per cent., exclusive of
which, as the subscription to the loan bore a premium of ten per cent.,
the further sum of L1,200,000 appeared to be lost to the nation. Mr.
Fox reprobated this bargain, as the most corrupt in its origin, the most
shameful in its progress, and the most injurious in its consequences
that ever came under the notice of the house. The profits of the loan
were estimated by him at about L1,000,000, and this sum, he said,
was entirely at the disposal, and in the hands of the minister, to
be granted in douceurs to the members of that house, either as
compensations for the expenses of their late elections, or as bribes for
future services. Fox also strongly objected to a proposed lottery,
which was a part of the loan scheme, as a means of raising money for the
public service. Taught by experience--for Fox was at this time reduced
to a miserable state of embarrassment and dependence, from his love of
the gambling table--he delivered an impressive harangue on the vice of
gambling, and declared that lotteries were the most pernicious of all
species of gaming inasmuch as they immediately affected the morals,
habits, and circumstances of the lower orders of society. Lord
North defended both the loan and the lottery, and asserted that the
L12,000,000 could not have been obtained upon easier conditions. Fox had
moved that the clause respecting the lottery should be omitted; but
this was rejected by one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred
and eleven, and the minister's measures were all passed. The matter,
however, did not end here. Opposition to the loan bill was renewed
under a variety of forms while passing through the lower house; and when
carried to the Lords, it encountered the severe censure of the Marquess
of Buckingham, and others of his party. Eight peers entered a protest
against the bill on the journals. Subsequently the subject was revived
in the commons, by a motion of Sir George Saville for the appointment
of a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the loan. Sir George
argued, that though the bargain had been ratified, it was yet not too
late to pass a vote of censure, or even of impeachment, on the minister
who had thus grossly and daringly sacrificed the interests of the
public. A vehement debate followed this motion; but it was lost by a
majority of two hundred a