GOLD COIN AND BANK NOTE BILL.

HL Deb 08 July 1811 vol 20 cc847-81

On the order of the day being read for the third reading of this Bill;

Earl Grosvenor

thought it incumbent on him to say a few words in opposition to it, conceiving it, as he did, a Bill pregnant with the most prejudicial consequences to the country. Having been obliged to quit the House on Tuesday from indisposition, after hearing one of the cabinet ministers oppose the Bill as unnecessary, he was much astonished to learn the next morning that the ministers had determined to support the Bill, and, had he not been prevented by indisposition, he should have felt it his duty to have attended on Wednesday to sign the Protest against it. He now felt it his duty most solemnly to protest against the Bill, which he conceived must lead to the very worst consequences, in making in effect, though not technically. Bank notes a legal tender, and in fixing a maximum for gold, that it should not be received or paid at above a certain rate; and a minimum for Bank notes, that they should not be received or paid at below a certain rate. In the adoption of these principles, of a forced circulation of paper currency, and a maximum and a minimum, he conceived there was the greatest danger to the opulence and the permanent interests of the country. He saw no effectual remedy for the existing state of things, but the repeal of the Bank Restriction act, and thought it might not be expedient to carry such a measure into effect immediately, still no time ought to be lost in bringing it about. He regretted that a noble viscount (Sidmouth) was not now present, in whose administration, during the period of the peace of Amiens, the Bank directors came to him with tears in their eyes, (whether sincere or hypocritical it was impossible now to say) praying that the restriction might be taken off, and that they might be again allowed to pay in cash. That was then refused. The Bank directors had since materially altered their opinion, and were now most solicitous that the restriction should not be taken off. He could not, however, forgive them for not making their arrangements, which would facilitate their paying in specie whenever it should be thought expedient to resort to that measure—a measure which he conceived to be the only effectual remedy for that state of things which it was sought to palliate by the present Bill.—After a short pause,

Lord King

expressed his astonishment that no noble lord on the other side should have risen to attempt to justify or explain the clauses which had from that side of the House been introduced into the Bill, and which so peculiarly called for explanation from those who proposed or supported them. Under these circumstances, he felt it his duty to make a few observations upon the Bill, as it now stood, and which he considered as wholly nugatory with respect to the object it professed to have in view, whilst at the same time it threw still greater difficulties in the way of the adjustment of contracts between landlord and tenant. There must now be two operations instead of one. As the law stood, the tenant might satisfy the contract by paying the Bank note at its real value. That being rendered impossible by this Bill, the tenant must take a certain portion of his produce to market, and sell it at a lower rate, for the purpose of procuring gold to satisfy his landlord. If those who now urged forward this Bill thought they could thereby retard the depreciation of Bank notes, or prevent there being two prices, one in paper and the other in gold, they were miserably mistaken. Already there were in fact two prices, a gold and a paper price, and to that the system must come. He had listened with much attention to the arguments of ministers upon this subject, and they really amounted to nothing more than this—"The Bank of England have issued a piece of paper, which they call a one pound note. We (the Treasury) agree to take it as a one pound note, therefore it is a one pound note, and equal to a pound sterling. "Was it to be believed that this could keep up Bank notes at a nominal value, depreciated as they undoubtedly were, compared with the price of gold. The noble Secretary of State had said on a former day, that the Bill was necessary for the protection of the tenantry—an observation which convinced him (lord King) of the ignorance of the noble lord upon the subject. How could the interests of the tenantry be protected, if protection was not given generally to the agricultural interests of the country, and how were the agricultural interests of the country to be protected, when, by this Bill, additional difficulties were thrown in the way of the adjustment of contracts between landlord and tenant, and those contracts were interfered with in a way most injurious to the interests of both: The only consequence must be, that landlords would refuse to grant leases to their tenants, for the performance of the conditions of which they could have no security. Their lordships were, in short, utterly wasting their time in the consideration of this Bill. It could by no possibility do good, nor could it achieve the object which, it professed to have in view. They must either repeal the Bank Restriction, or they must have two prices, a gold and a paper price. This it would be impossible by the Bill, or any such measure, to prevent. An instance had been stated relative to this subject, in which a person went to purchase 3 per cent, consols, he was told that they were at 64 or 65; his answer was, that he came with 1,000 guineas in his pocket. That immediately altered the case, and he was told that he might buy with gold at a much lower price. This must necessarily be the case with respect to every commodity unless they returned to payments in specie. It was in vain for their lordships to pass this Bill; it could not effect the object those who had adapted it professed to have in view, it could not retard the depreciation of Bank notes, nor could it prevent the two prices in gold and paper, the natural effect of that depreciation.

The Lord Chancellor

felt it his duty to State the impression upon his mind with respect to this Bill. At the period of 1797, when the restriction on the Bank of England was first proposed, he was an humble adviser of the government; and if a noble lord near him would condescend to recollect his opinions upon that occasion, that noble lord must recollect that he was then trembling with doubts as to the effect of interfering with the contracts between man and man. He did not recollect how far the opinion of that noble lord went, upon that occasion; but he was certain that he (the Lord Chancellor) had then more doubts upon the subject than some of the ministers. That act having interfered with the contracts with individuals, so far as to say that the debtor should not be arrested, if he tendered the debt in bank-notes, was it now to be said that a tenant should have his goods or stock seized, because he could not procure gold, which was not to be obtained? It had been said that the tenant was bound to pay in good and lawful money of the realm, but so was every man who owed money upon any account whatever, unless there were special conditions to the contrary covenanted between the parties. What was the case between the obligor and obligee—in a bond between the holder of a bill of exchange and the acceptor, did not the same circumstances equally apply? was not the obligation of payment equally the same? When therefore the landlord had left to him is action of debt, his action of covenant, and his action of ejectment, if he did not chuse to take bank-notes, was it too much to say that he should be prevented from seizing the goods or stock of his tenant, merely because he did not chuse to take the Bank notes in payment which his tenant had tendered? This Bill was not compulsory on the landlord to take bank notes from his tenant in payment of rent. It merely said this, as the legislature in 1797 had said with respect to creditors generally, that he should not seize the goods or stock of his tenant, where the rent had been tendered in banknotes. The legislature, whilst it did not compel the creditor to accept bank-notes in payment of his debt, had prohibited him from arresting the person of his debtor where the amount of the debt had been tendered in Bank notes. If the landlord persevered in bringing his action, because he did not chuse to take bank notes, the tenant would be justified in resorting to every legal mode of fighting out his landlord upon the question, and bringing his writ of error to have the question solemnly determined. What, however, would the landlord get by this offer? Every legal proceeding having been exhausted on the part of him and his tenant, he would find I at last that he must take those very bank notes which his tenant had originally tendered to him. Was it then too much to say, that the landlord should not have the power of distraining upon his tenant, merely because the former chose to demand gold, which it was impossible for the latter to procure? Suppose the landlord of his house in Bedford-square chose to demand his 300l. rent in gold, which it was impossible for him (the Lord Chancellor) to procure, was he to be prevented from going to the court of Chancery to give judgment in a cause, because his books had been seized upon, which he had been continually accumulating, that he might obtain information for the purpose of doing justice between party and party, and all this merely because it was impassible for him to procure the gold which his landlord had chosen to demand? Those who objected to this Bill must be prepared to go the full length of saying that they were ready to repeal immediately the act of 1797, for otherwise they could not, in any fairness, object to a Bill which grew out of the transaction, in 1797. But what, in that case, was to be substituted? that the noble lord declined to state, like the noble lord near him respecting the Catholic question, who would not tell him what securities he proposed to establish, if the Catholic claims were granted, but merely said to him, "You differed in sentiment on the subject with Mr. Pitt, and therefore I cannot tell you." To return, however, to the subject, it was impossible to agree in the expediency of the enactment of 1797, preventing a debtor from being arrested who had tendered his debt in Bank-notes, and not to acknowledge the justice of the preterit Bill in placing the tenant in the same situation with respect to his goods and stock where he had tendered his rent in Bank-notes. The Bill was, besides, rendered necessary, in order to prevent individuals from depreciating the notes of the Bank of England at their pleasure. It was still the more rendered necessary, by the decision which the judges had been persuaded to come to in the case of De Yonge. [Some observation was made, by lord Grenville, on the expresion "persuaded to come to."] In using the expression "persuaded to come to," the first that occurred to his mind, he should be ashamed of setting his foot again into that House if he could be supposed for a moment to have insinuated that the judges were actuated by any improper motive; all that he meant was, that they had arguments at length upon the question, and after much discussion had come to that decision. The Bill was again rendered necessary to prevent other landlords from taking a most undue and unfair advantage of their tenants. The noble lord (King) of whom he wished to speak with every respect, had in his notices to his tenants certainly acted equitably upon the principles he had adopted in his own mind, by making a difference in his demands according to the different dates of his contracts with his tenants. But, how many landlords were there who would pay no attention to this distinction? And who could say, "I do not care about the price of gold a" this or that period; if my lord King can get gold from his tenants, I can do the same at the full rate at which it can be obtained." He would put another case, to shew the necessity of the Bill, that of a young professional man, for instance, struggling with the world, who had a rent of 90l. per annum to pay, and had 3,000l. 3 per cent. Consols. His lordship demanded his rent in gold, but the Bank refused to pay him his dividend in gold. Would not this be a grievous injustice? An individual so circumstanced might justly say—" As a public creditor, I am refused any other payment than in Banknotes; but here is a legislator, one of those by whose act I am so refused to be paid, except in Bank-notes, insists upon my paying him his rent in gold, which I cannot procure, and because I cannot procure it, my goods are to be distrained." Would not such cases as these be a grievous oppression? He was peculiarly situated with respect to this question, having in his situation the official care of 25 millions of the property of his Majesty's subjects, and without the means of enforcing the payment of any part of that sum except in Bank-notes. He repeated, that so long as it was deemed expedient to continue the measure of 1797, this Bill must become a part of it, otherwise there would be no equality in the situation of contracting parties equally entitled to protection, nor would equal justice be dealt out to those who had equal claims to it, for there could be no justice in leaving the tenant who had tendered Bank-notes, exposed to be distrained upon by his landlord, whilst the debtor in other cases who had tendered Bank-notes, was exempted from arrest. To those who called for the repeal of the act of 1797, he would say that that system ought not to be destroyed to which we were so materially indebted for those exertions which had so largely contributed to the welfare, the prosperity, and the glory of the country. He did not profess to understand the subject, but of this he was firmly convinced, that if this Bill did not pass, the act of 1797 remaining in force, that equal justice would not be done, nor would that mode of relief to which all were equally entitled, be fairly and impartially dealt out to all his Majesty's subjects. The Bill was therefore absolutely necessary, in order that all having the same claims of justice might be placed upon the same footing of equality by the legislature.

Lord Grenville

would not follow the noble and learned lord in his observations on the Catholic question, but would come immediately to the subject before their lordships. The noble and learned lord had most grievously disappointed him in the hope which he cherished—most confidently cherished, from some observations in the outset of his speech; that he would have distinctly stated what would be the effect of this Bill. But, after listening with the utmost attention, he still remained on that point in the most complete and total ignorance. The noble and learned lord told what every one knew, that landlords had various remedies against tenants for the recovery of their rents; that they might proceed by the different modes of distress, ejectment, action of covenant, or debt. From the language of this Bill, he presumed it took away the remedy of distress. Now', what he wanted to know distinctly from the noble and learned lord, was, in what situation the landlord would stand with regard to his tenant, when this Bill should have obtained the sanction of the legislature? Would they still retain the remedy by ejectment, and action of debt and covenant? The noble and learned lord has not told us, continued lord Grenville, how they will stand in this respect, though, as I understand it, they are still to retain these remedies—but a more alarming view of the subject than that taken by the noble and learned lord, I never before heard in any discussion upon any question. Recollect, my Lords, the effect will not stop with the landlord and tenant; it will pervade every contract, every transaction of exchange in this commercial country; and, astonishing and painful as it was to me to hear the speech of the noble and learned lord, I am glad that he has relieved the question from the invidious aspersions with which it has been connected—that he has admitted it to be one affecting not any particular class, but every description of persons in this great trading country. But, the argument of the noble and learned lord is this—that the system was established long ago, and that this Bill is necessary to support it. What then, according to his own description, will be its effect? He has adverted to all the enormities, to all the horrors which such a system is calculated to produce—and what is the conclusion? What must every one have expected to follow? Surely that the system ought to be abandoned. That, however, is not the noble and learned lord's conclusion. No; but because it is destructive of every fair reciprocity in transactions between man and man—be-cause its continuance is inconsistent with any thing like justice, in matters of contract, commercial or agricultural—because it is ruinous to the public creditor—because it completely overturns the radical and fundamental principles of exchange, and agreements of every description—you are to aggravate and ex-tend the existing evil by making it impossible for one man—nay for one transaction, to pass, without feeling its effects.—I beg your lordships to attend to the picture which has been presented to you, of the consequences with regard to men in indigent circumstances; the noble and learned lord has, indeed, rather drawn his illustration from men in middling circumstances, and he asks whether, when he brings his commodities to market and can only get bank notes, he is to be driven from his house because the landlord chuses to be paid in gold. But, my Lords, if we are to argue upon the admission that the evil exists, I desire to ask, where is this to stop? If the man of middling circumstances is to be driven from his house because he cannot get gold, how will it be when a further depreciation takes place, and when the same destruction overwhelms the poorest masses of the community? When they will not only want a house, but the bread necessary to sustain existence? Is the noble and learned lord ignorant that the labourer is in many cases by law confined to a particular spot? Here, he may say, I am compelled by your laws, to remain, and yet, by these laws the depreciation of bank notes in which atone I am paid, is such that I cannot procure the bread necessary to sustain life from day to day! My lords, I am putting no speculative case. Is he so little acquainted with what took place in France? Does he not know that the fatal law of maximum was produced there by the very argument which he now uses, that it was acted upon for the very reasons which he now urges in support of this Bill? And yet, he, who lived at the time this transaction was passing—he who saw the dreadful consequences exemplified before his eyes, even he advises a similar proceeding, and supports his advice upon similar arguments and principles? I therefore, my Lords, take up the argument in a view directly opposite to his; and, if he bas the charge of 25 millions of the property of his Majesty's subjects, and if the country is brought into such a situation that he is unable to guard against a loss of five millions upon that sum, a loss of full 20 per cent. I conjure your lordships to pause now at length, since, you have not done it before, when he, lays before you not only what will be the effect of a continuation of the system, but what has been the consequences of your persevering in it up to this time.

But the noble and learned lord tells us, that the system must go on because it was established in 1797. Now, I should like to know what was enacted in 1797. I always thought I knew till this night; till I heard his speech this night, I never thought there had been any doubt then whether or not bank notes should be made a legal tender. He says that he was adverse to the making bank-notes a legal tender, and that he would not enquire what had been the opinions of others on that point.—I understand the insinuation, my Lords, and I will tell him what was my opinion.—I was decidedly against making bank notes a legal tender. I and others were anxious that they should not be made a legal tender by any shift, means, contrivance, or upon any pretence whatever. I wish be had spoken out, and told us what he conceives the law to have done. I conceived, and thought till this night that every man in the country could have no doubt about it; that in 1797 the law took away the power of arresting the person previous to the suit and that only; but that every other legal remedy remained in the same full force and effect as before. There is not the least pretence that the law then made a distinction between landlords and other persons. They all, with the exception above stated, had their full remedy as before the act. Such was the law, as I understood it, if it is otherwise, it is high time that we should understand what it is. Your lord-ships cannot be ignorant what a shock has been already given to public confidence and credit, by this Bill and by the speeches of the ministers; but that has been little compared with the effects that must be produced by the speech of the noble and learned lord this night unless I misunderstood him. No triumph in debate, nor any other triumph over the noble and learned lord, would give me half the pleasure, as to hear him distinctly state, that the law with respect to the legal tender stands now as it did in the year 1797, except as to the arrest previous to the action. Instead of that, you heard him say something about giving relief in equity. I should be sorry to ask him to go any great length in giving his opinion here extrajudicially; and indeed I think he has gone far enough already; hut I hope nothing has as yet been done to make the law different from what it was intended in 1797 it should be. Now, my Lords, with respect to the proceeding of 1797, it was considered as a temporary and necessary act, and therefore an act of wisdom; and I think the noble and learned lord laid down the distinction accurately, that there ought to be no interference with private contracts, except in cases of necessity. Necessity then required the suspension, as I believed, and painful as it was to have recourse to that measure, still it was justified by the necessity, but by that only. I am satisfied, therefore, that the original suspension was wise, but I do not entertain the same satisfaction at the recollection that the act was continued. I have of en said, that on reflection I was long since satisfied that there was no necessity for continuing the suspension till the end of the then existing war, and of course, that the continuation was improper. I deeply regret, my Lords, that it took place, and therefore I protest against any inference being drawn from that circumstance. Noble lords argue upon a complete fallacy, upon a total misrepresentation, when they describe the situation of the country as resting upon the act of 1797. That measure extended the suspension no further than the conclusion of the then existing war. But it was continued when the necessity had ceased—when 1, standing almost alone, most earnestly opposed, the measures that were then pursued; and in no part of my public conduct do I exult more than in that opposition. Every shadow of necessity had vanished: the country was in a situation in point of public credit, of finance, of currency, of the rate of exchange, that no longer required any regulation of this kind; the price of bullion, and, in short, every thing that any man had ever conceived as affecting this question, became so favourable, that it was not only advantageous, but perfectly easy to have put an end to the restriction. The act was continued first for a short time, and at last till the end of the war. When the present war broke out, it was likewise continued till the end of this war; but upon no argument that would not equally apply in the case of any war whatever; and thus, in addition to the hardships and burthens to which war necessarily subjects the country, it is to be always exposed to the additional misfortune of being enfeebled in the means by which the war must be carried on. There was not a shadow of pretence for continuing the restriction at that period. My noble friend said, that the bank directors came to the ministers, beseeching them to remove the suspension. I give them credit for their conduct, I give them credit for foreseeing, not only the injury to themselves, but the mischief which the restriction must occasion to the country, if continued during the whole course of the war.

There is another small observation not to be passed over; when the system is defended on the ground of the act of 1797, let noble lords consider the difference in the situation of the country. When the restriction was imposed in 1797, it was done in the firm belief that there was in reality no difference between paper and gold; and on that ground it was argued. On the same ground the continuance of it was proposed. The value of paper was equal to that of gold during no inconsiderable part of the present war, and so it might have continued even to this hour, notwithstanding the suspension, had it not been for the system of devouring waste, which it was the glory of ministers to have produced. To all the other hardships of the war, this was added, that we had ministers who made a boast of their devouring waste and boundless profusion. This was the foundation of the present system; and when they ask. Where is the remedy? I reply, one-remedy is to depart from the system; to revert to a course of measures to which your means are adequate; to revert to the real policy of the country. After the picture given by the noble and learned lord of the misery to which the subjects of the empire will be exposed from this system, do not waste the resources of the country in a manner unparalleled in the annals of the nation; do not continue to squander its means at a rate which you have not the smallest hope of keeping up. Without this any plan of relief would only vary the form of the distress. Great as are the resources of the country, a perpetual expenditure of 90 millions cannot be supported. The remedy proposed in this Bill is one which I denounce as calculated to aggravate the mischief a hundred fold. The obvious means of relief is this; consider what measures brought you into this situation, and retrace them step by step. The noble and learned lord asks, is there a man who would dare to propose that the restriction should, in the present circumstances of the country, be removed? Is he to learn, that when government pursues an erroneous course to a great length, though the pernicious consequences may be clearly seen, yet the subject will not always admit of a sudden and total remedy. The wise plan is to go back, step by step as you advanced; but the proposal of our present ministers is, since they are wrong, to go on from error to error till the mischief is irretrievable. If ministers disavow the principle of the restriction, much may yet be done; the first thing is, in their speeches here, to declare, that they do not mean to persevere in this ruinous course of proceeding; next, that it is their intention to retrace their steps; and, thirdly, that they intend to examine into the means by which this country may be placed in its former situation. MV own opinion is, that if you set seriously about the proper remedy your progress will be more rapid than is generally imagined. So far am I from being liable to the imputation of having concealed my opinion as to the remedy, that I almost stood alone in advising you to retrace your steps, when it might have been done much more easily than can now be expected.

This, then, is my view of the system, and the remedy. The noble and learned lord has given a picture of the distress which a perseverance in the system must occasion, which I am so far from combating, that I am anxious to impress upon your minds that the evil will not be confined to one particular class, but extend to every species of transaction. The question as to the power of distress, the noble and learned lord puts in a most invidious light, and says that the object of the Bill is to relieve the tenant. Now, the question of arrest for debt was lately under discussion in this House, and it was alledged then, that the power of arrest was no less useful to the debtor than the creditor, because it facilitated transactions between man and man, for where the remedy was expeditious and easy, the creditor would be less scrupulous about the security. Apply this reasoning to the case of distress for rent, and I ask whether this remedy is calculated solely for the benefit of the landlord?—whether, in principle, it is not advantageous to the tenant also, as landlords are by these means induced to give leases upon conditions more favourable than they otherwise could or would do? Thus I put the case to him; but to your lordships I put it on much broader grounds. If the remedy by distress is advantageous only to a few at the expence of many, repeal it wholly. I am sure your lordships have sufficient patriotism to put an end to this remedy, if contrary to the general interests of the country. If it is retained, it can only be on the ground that it is beneficial on both sides; and why, then, should this gross and injurious distinction be introduced? If this Bill passes, it will go out to the country that the meaning of the legislature is, that Bank-notes shall be alegal tender. I think, however, this Bill does not make it legal tender, and always thought so, till the speech which I heard form the noble and learned lord this night raised some doubts in my mind. I hope he will state distinctly what it is intended to do. I hope he will not be contented with talking about delays in law—fighting in the courts—and keeping at arms length; but tell us accurately in what situation he means to leave the Jaw as between landlord and tenant. If a landlord thinks that the Bank paper is depreciated, no matter however erroneously, but if he thinks so, has he or has he not a right to say to the tenant, I will not take paper; I will be paid in gold, in the lawful money of this country for which I stipulated.? It is of great importance to your lordships that this should be clearly understood. It is important, because the principle applies equally to all transactions. If there is a doubt whether real money can be demanded, the matter ought to be determined one way or other; but I own I have this night, for the first time in my life, heard it doubted whether banknotes were or were not a legal tender. When an involuntary exclamation escaped me, my Lords, at one part of the noble and learned lord's speech, it was not because I attributed to him any disrespect to the Courts; but I was astonished how a person in his situation could have described the law, as he did. If the judges could 'have been persuaded' to have declared that to be law which was not, the consequence would have been that bank-notes would be a legal tender. The government attempted to secure their object, by having recourse to obsolete statutes—statutes upon which a proceeding had been declined forty years ago, because they were obsolete—and they did this because they were afraid to come openly with the proposition to your lordships. If there was any hesitation on the subject, it was more from the manner in which it was taken up, and the quarter from which the prosecution came, than from any real difficulty in the question. But though the judges were persuaded' to adopt this decision, the persuasion was so powerful, that unless I am misinformed they were unanimous. I have therefore the sanction of the unanimous opinion of the judges, that bank-notes are not a legal tender; that they are not government money; and that their tokens likewise are debased coin, not circulated under the authority of the government, and need not be taken in payment' of any debt. I think the Bank of infinite 'advantage to the country, as a main pillar of our commerce and credit; but its utility depends upon its being kept distinct from the government.—His lordship then referred to the writers and the debates on the subject, to prove that this was the view taken of it by men of the greatest abilities, and in the best times of the country. England had been distinguished in this respect from other nations; from France, Austria, &c. whose Banks, frond their connection with their governments, had fallen, while that of England, from its being always distinct from the government, had flourished. At last, however, this country had the misfortune to see an endeavour to identify the Bank with the government. The inevitable consequence would be the loss of confidence and credit. This state of things was not owing to the Bank, but to the devouring waste of ministers, who found the system necessary to support their profusion, and therefore made the Bank an engine to support the system.

The noble lord proceeded to argue that nobody corporate could support the value of tokens estimated by a limited or debased standard. Manufacturers might, for the carrying on their own individual trade, issue money of a smaller value, which should be again received in payment, but no private company could maintain a general debased currency. It was now however, sought to give to this system introduced by ministers, not only the authority of government, but the sanction of parliament also. His lordship saw, by an advertisement which had appeared in the papers of that day, that the Bank of England was now in the course of issuing debased tokens by authority of parliament. He was grieved to think that such a mea-sure had been resorted to. He defied any noble lord to shew him the smallest shadow on which parliament could hold such an assumption of power. He denied that parliament had any such right; and he regretted to see that it had assumed it; because, in so doing, he conceived that it was no longer governed by the old established rules by which it had hitherto been regulated, but that its proceedings had degenerated into a solemn mockery. He desired noble lords to try this question by the test of their own judgment. It was an established law of this country, that nothing could take place of the known standard and given quality of the coin of this country; and now they were to be told, that parliament had sanctioned that that should be taken as the current coin of the country, which was one-fifth less than this standard value. If this were a new question, the solution of it might seem to be difficult, and the mode of adjustment might be doubtful. It was, how-ever, a question of no doubt, and, indeed, was a settled point, that the issuing of debased coin, at its nominal value, was nothing short of a gross fraud and robbery on those to whom it was issued. Then, were their lordships prepared to say that they ought to embrace such a system? Were they prepared, with all those evils, and with all the certain workings to be produced from the measure itself, completely kept in view, to say that this must be wrong, but, as it existed, it must go on until its evils multiplied on the country? He believed, as his noble friend had said, that this was not a measure which had occupied much of his attention; but that he had built his proposition principally on the individual information afforded him. It would have behoved the noble lord, however, to have said from whom he did receive this individual information. He desired it to be recollected, that it was not the case of one or two individuals, which could produce the evils against which his noble friend wished to provide by this Bill. The present Bill went to hold, not that Bank notes are to be held in equal estimation, but that they are in equal estimation with guineas. If such should be the effect of the act, then would the case of every man be equal; but if, on the other hand, one man chose to pay and to receive in payment Bank notes as equal to specie, and another not to esteem them in that light, then it followed that bank notes and guineas were of different values. His noble friend seemed to think that things might differ in their value, from there being a greater or smaller demand for them. He conceived the value to be made up both of demand and of price. It was by both that the value of articles was created. He should be ashamed almost to argue the question if it were not with a person of his noble friend's discerning faculties. What did the value of any thing consist in, but in the estimation of mankind and in the difficulty of supply? There attached all the difficulty; namely, in the difference between the value of gold and paper. An emperor was not possessed of power enough to introduce a single word into a language; much less could the House of Common" expect to introduce paper into the market as bearing a mercantile price. If this was not so, how could a court of equity affect that which no artifice could change; make a man take less than the value for money. This was an idea which did not exist in the year 1797. Then, there was no difference of value between gold and paper currency, and the circumstances did not then truly apply. He warned noble lords, against the consequences likely to result, from the forcing of such a measure as the present. The consequences resulting from such a measure always did revert with the greater force on the projectors of it, in proportion to the strength with which they wished to protect it. So their lord-ships would find that the moment they gave this artificial eminence to Bank paper, the more they debased it below the level it would otherwise naturally hold. That was the natural consequence to be expected; and the next step of his noble friend, if the present Bill should pass into a law, must be to prepare some measure which should have the effect of steeling the public mind against a still greater depreciation of the paper currency of the country. The natural effect of this Bill would be, that when commodities were brought to the market, they would be sold, if gold was given in payment for them, and would be withheld if any other species of payment was offered. Would not persons holding out their commodities for sale propose them to be sold at a smaller price, if to be paid for in guineas; and at a larger price, if to be paid for in Bank notes? His lordship was not prepared to pass a law, declaring that there should be a money price, and a paper price in this country as between man and man. But this, he was satisfied, must be the effect of passing the present Bill.

Earl Stanhope

said he had been misunderstood by his noble friend as to his idea of value arising from demand. He should take, for explanation of his statement, the instance of two editions of the same book, one of them scarce and the other not; there would then be a great difference in the price, because those anxious for the rare edition would be ready to secure it at any price, there being a great difficulty in securing it, while for the more common edition, but equally valuable to any common purchaser, the price would be comparatively small. So were Bank notes, at this moment, to those who were not borne away with the idea of the scarcity of guineas, and of course with their greater value. He was utterly astonished when he heard his noble friend utter so mischievous, abominable, and impolitic a sentiment as this, that that which the public creditor was bound to take was not a legal tender to any other man whatever. If his noble friend contended, that so was the case, he should be glad to debate it with him; let him recall to his noble friend the high situation which he lately held; let him remind him that to a situation equally high, he might again speedily be raised, and then, let him ask his noble friend, if from a person holding a situation of that importance in the country such language as this was or ought to be expected—that the requiring men to receive payment in such a mode as that to which he had referred, was a gross fraud and robbery on the country! He contended that this was most mischievous doctrine to be entertained, the more so, as coming from a person who had been one of the ministers of the country at the very time the act which produced the supposed fraud and robbery was passed. In such a case he asked to be the advocate of his noble friend against himself, and, as such, he contended that the whole dilemma arose from the mischievous idea that paying in the weight of guineas was paying in guineas. He did not contend that it was not absurd to say, that, when guineas rose above their nominal value, it was improper that they should be melted, or that it was improper that they should be exported. He had no share in the making of any such laws. He had always contended that it was not the weight in gold which gave the standard to guineas, but the stamp with which they were impressed. He had spent nine years of his life in the little respectable republic of Geneva. There the gold coin was pistoles, and the silver coin was that of Spain. The watchmakers were then in the use of turning every pistole which came into their hands into the crucible, for the purpose of converting them into cases for watches. It was discovered, however, that in these pistoles there was an ingredient which did not suit the purpose to which they were so converted. There was, as a component part of these pistoles, a powder called emery, but no sooner was this discovered, than the pistole ceased Co be put into the crucible; the watch-maker would no longer purchase it. A chemist, however, soon after found out the means of extracting from the pistole this powder, when the pistole again grew into repute, and was as much sought after as ever, for the purpose of being turned into the crucible. Was there a doubt, then, if the continent was opened to this country, but that gold would return? This was not to be expected while the balance of trade and the balance of payments was against this country. An increased demand for manufactures would naturally produce an increase of our bullion. Noble lords talked of the depreciation of the paper currency. He did not admit that there was any such depreciation. He did not pretend to say that this might not be the case; but he denied that it was so at present. He agreed that a depreciation of paper currency might very well arise, as for instance, in the assignats of France, as he had mentioned in his letter to the Lord Chancellor. These representatives of a circulating medium were said even to have been forged in this country; there was little doubt, that, from whatever cause they arose, France was deluged with them; and ministers had been pretty roundly accused of having encouraged the forging of them. The cause of this depreciation was, that there were there no book-entries, as he proposed. The relation between the two things would not then be changed. The Bank-notes would stand as against corn or sheep; or, supposing that there was no money, there would then be a barter of one against the other. The position of the noble lords, therefore, on this subject were all founded on error, or mistake. He had pricked up his ears with great expectation, in hopes of hearing the promised remedy of his noble friend (lord Grenville), but be thought it had all ended in a long parenthesis. At length came out a recommendation for us to get out step by step, and this, too, from measures, of which his noble friend himself was one of the advisers. His noble friend claimed great credit for his patriotism. He was inclined to give him credit for it to its full extent; and for this reason, because his noble friend, and those who went with him, commonly agreed with him (lord Stanhope). Here, however, he thought they resembled a set of merchants, who wished to sell their guinea for 27s. and yet to say that they did so as patriots, and purely for the good of their country. He had been a good deal astonished at what had fallen on a former evening from a noble earl (Grey), when he supposed a time when the country would be under an impossibility to perform its engagements. It was, no doubt, very alarming to be told that a time might come when public credit might be affected, and still more to be told this by persons likely at some future day to become ministers of the country. This was an event which ought never to be supposed, as it ought never to occur.

Earl Grey

wished to put the noble earl ill mind that the expressions he had made use of on a former evening were made under certain qualifications, which were essential to a proper understanding of them. No person could state more highly than he had done the obligation of faith and justice towards the public creditors. He had merely stated, that if ever the time should come, and it was impossible not to deprecate that calamity—if ever there should exist any danger that this country would not adhere to good faith of every description, it would be in consequence of the measures of the noble lord. It was proper to give his statement as he himself had made it.

Karl Stanhope

said there was no need for the noble earl to add any thing on the subject. According to any definition, the possibility which the noble earl had supposed, was a thing which was impossible. There was no case in which the engagements to the public creditor ought not to be performed. He would even go to the depreciation which the noble carl had supposed, of 90 per cent.; and here he wished their lordships to observe, that what was due to the public creditor was only a proportion of the national wealth; but whatever it was, still he was entitled to that proportion. He himself had no money in the funds, his whole property was in land; but they had to remember that their estates were a part of the national wealth. The public creditor was the mortgagee on these lands, and they were the mortgagers; and they had not a right to one farthing of the revenue of their estates so long as the public creditor should remain unpaid. He would suppose an in dustrious carpenter who by 50 years of his life spent in ingenuity and hard efforts, had been able at last to accumulate one hundred pounds a year in the funds: could any man endure the idea, that this poor man should be reduced to receive only ten pounds, while a landed proprietor should continue to receive his 30,000l. a year unimpaired? He had been called the advocate for farmers, and he would now be called the advocate for stock holders. Yes, he would own he was the advocate for both farmers and stock holders. He was their advocate in the same way as he had been the advocate for the abolition of the Slave Trade, the advocate for the Catholics, and lately of the Protestant Dissenters, because of justice; and he might add, that he was a friend to the landlords themselves. A noble friend had called him the saviour of the landed proprietors; and it appeared that he was speaking this opinion of the landed pro-prietors themselves when he said this, as was evident from the former division on this Bill.

Lord Grenville

expressed himself, glad that his noble relation bad then, for the first time, brought forward a charge in that House, which had, for some time before, been in general circulation, a charge which not only involved the characters of many individuals both living and dead, but what was more, which involved the character of this nation. His noble friend had told them, that the assignats of France had been counterfeited; and he had told them further, that they were counterfeited by orders of the government of this country. He though that his character had been better known to his noble friend, than that he should have supposed him concerned in any transaction of such a nature. On this subject he was able to speak, and he would venture to say that this charge was most grossly calumnious; that it was one of the most unfounded aspersions that was ever advanced; and that he had never once harboured a thought, or participated in any one act, which could implicate him in the smallest degree in such an accusation. He could not take upon him to speak of what was done by men who acted only for themselves, and some of whom were not now living to answer the charge: but he would say, that nothing of such a nature could have been done by the King's ministers without his being privy to it; and he then solemnly protested in the name of Almighty God that he was innocent himself of the charge which had been so brought forward; and, that he was firmly persuaded, that every man who served the King during the whole course of these two calamitous wars, were equally innocent with himself.

Lord Holland

trusted, that as the noble earl, the father of this Bill, had alluded to debates on a former evening, the same forbearance would be shewn to other individuals. The whole was, indeed, but one protracted debate on the same subject. He could not help thinking that the misunderstandings which had arisen in consequence of this Bill, had produced a sort of mental earthquake in the House. He had suffered by this as well as others; his opinions had been much misunderstood, and it would have been necessary for him in some stage or other of the business, to attempt to set the matter right, had not his noble friend called on him at this time to do so by his reference. The whole proceeding was indeed so anomalous, that it was no wonder that misconceptions and misunderstandings should take place, and therefore this mutual leave became the more necessary—'Damus petimusque vicissim.' It was proper to consider the nature of the proceedings; and here he would say, that when the noble earl had stated that he had advocated the cause of the abolishment of the Slave Trade, of the Catholics, and of the Protestant Dissenters, on the ground of justice, he could not but believe the noble earl. He had heard the powers of reasoning which he had displayed in that House; and he thought, he was sure they could only be the result of sincerity and conviction. But how did it happen, that the noble lords opposite who heard his reasonings on those questions, which they were unable to answer, used uniformly to say, that these reasonings were no doubt very ingenious, but were entirely speculative; and now, when the noble earl had introduced a Bill, which by his own confession was only the forerunner of a series of Bills which would go to operate a great change in the laws of this country, those noble lords whose maxim constantly was 'principles obsta,' who had uniformly professed their determination to oppose every thing like innovation, and who would listen to nothing but what they called practical arguments, how did it happen, he repeated, that they had now no apprehension of this speculation, but thought proper to adopt it; that they now thought proper to court one of the most dangerous innovations? The noble lords had, it was true, had the nursing of this Bill; and by the introduction of clauses in the Committee, they had produced a very great alteration on it. At first there was no principle in the preamble of the Bill, because the Bill bad no preamble; but now since the clauses which had been moved in the Committee, the only words of the original Bill which had been retained were, "Be it enacted by the Kings's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and cousent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, no person shall receive."—This was the whole of the original Bill which they had adopted; and all the rest was to be considered in the light of an excrescence, as a superstructure on the original. He contended, that this would go to effect a material alteration in the law; because it was contrary to what had been laid down a few days ago by the judges of the land. And here he could not help alluding to what had fallen from a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) on a former evening, who, though he did not now hold, had formerly held, a judicial situation in the country, as to the propriety of making a declaratory law on this subject. He had frequently been told, that a systematic attempt had been made to bring the justice of the country into contempt—nay, he had frequently heard this asserted within these walls; but if any lords should come forward and say, that this ought to be a declaratory law, for this reason, that the judges had unanimously-said that it was not the law, what was this but giving a slap in the face to the whole of the judges? What could be a more effectual measure than this to bring the administrators of justice into contempt?—However, if this was not a declaratory act, he had a right to assume that it was an alteration of the law. The noble mover had professed his love for definitions: let us go to definitions then. Let us attempt to argue the matter closely. What was the meaning of depreciation? It meant a fall of price. And what was the meaning of price? The relation to something else. And when they say that there is no depreciation they say notes are at par; or, in other words, they say they are equal. To what? To gold and to silver? No, no. Or to the provisions that gold or silver of the same nominal value will buy? no. Here he observed a noble earl opposite (Bathurst) shake his head, as if he meant to argue this point. He had on a former evening stated, that the increased price of provisions was occasioned by the increase of consumption being greater than the increase in production, and he said he could convince them of this, because the price of cotton and sugar had fallen. He would ask the noble Secretary of State if corn was not the commodity of all others the least fluctuating, and which it was therefore the most proper to adopt on any estimate of this nature. Instead of corn, however, the noble lord had chosen sugar, which those who had any experience in that commodity, but too well knew was one of the most fluctuating. But the Bank note was not equal to these things. It was equal then to the legal coin? It was called so; but he would ask if it was equal to the guinea? And here he could not help taking notice of a very curious mode of proving this equality, adopted by a noble earl. He should go, he bad said, with 20 guineas and with 21 pounds to a banker with whom he had two accounts, and he should be, able to procure entries in his books for 21l. par for both sums. He had no doubt that if the noble earl should go with such an intention to any banker, that the effect would be to occasion these two entries in the manner described by him; but his answer to this was, that no man would ever think of going to a banker with guineas, when he knew that by so doing he would be robbed of one-fifth of their value. For that very reason, guineas would never appear at all, but would uniformly be lodged in the hands of Jews or foreigners. The noble earl had told them that the Bank note was equal lo one pound; but here again he had to ask him what was one pound? We were told that we were of such materials, that we could not comprehend what was meant by an abstract-pound—as Martinus Scriblerus could form no conception of an abstract lord mayor. He owned he had great difficulty to abstract a lord mayor from his fur gown and gold chain-nay, that the horse he saw the lord mayor ride upon, not a little disturbed his imagination. In the matter of abstract pounds we were equally at a loss. The noble lord had said, that it was not what could be touched and seen; but that it was still a pound. When the Bank note contained these words, "I promise to pay the sum of——," did that mean the Bank note itself? Was that the abstract lord mayor? Did it not rather mean a certain quantity of gold and silver, which could not be changed? His noble friend had said, that this was all sporting about nothing; and indeed he could hardly conceive such variance between them without also supposing some accidental difference of terms; but that the noble lord on the woolsack, whose acute mind had foreseen ail the consequences of this measure, should, believing as he did, say that no evil existed, was, he owned, what he could not well comprehend. Whether they were to call this evil by the name of depreciation, or by that of a rise in the price of commodities, it did not signify. The true way of proceeding was first to discover the cause of the evil. He was ready indeed to admit, that the phenomena might be produced by a variety of causes; but still he was persuaded, from what he had learned from experience and study, that the chief and primary cause was the non-payment of cash at the Bank. As far as he had been informed, where-ever the circulation of paper was convertible into cash, the same phenomena had uniformly taken place; the gold had disappeared, and every article had increased in value. And, on the other side, it was as evident, that previous to a suspension of cash payments, such phenomena never appeared before, except in the case of a debased metal, or forced paper currency. He knew that the noble lords opposite did not feel well on this subject of a debased metal currency. His noble friend (earl Stanhope) had stated this to be an abominable doctrine; but this was a question of fact; and before the noble earl had so violently attacked the doctrine as abominable, he would have done well to have explained what he meant by debased coin; because in his opinion this epithet applied in a particular manner to the Bank tokens. With respect to the cash payments of the Bank, he thought indeed, that the only effectual way of effecting this, would be by an immediate payment. This was his bias; but those to whose superior abilities and information he paid the highest deference had maintained, that the immediate resumption of payments would be attended with great difficulties. Now, however, he thought that the omission of every thing which might have a tendency to bring back the cash payments was culpable. His noble friend had said, that there was not a sufficient quantity of cash in the whole country; but he would ask him if there was a sufficient quantity of cash in 1796.? He meant to say, was there then sufficient gold in the country for the conversion of the Bank paper into cash? But when there was confidence in the country, gold was seldom or never demanded, and that argument, therefore, fell to the ground. All he wanted to establish was, that gold should be paid when demanded, or, in other words, that paper should be convertible into cash. And here he could not help noticing a very strange vie" which his noble friend (earl Stanhope) had taken of the public creditor, and the argumentum ad hominem he had made use of. He had supposed, most pathetically, the hard situation of a man whose whole dependance was on the preservation of the public credit. But let us look a little closer to the compassion and humanity of his noble friend. He said that it was hard that this man should have only ten pounds for his hundred, while the landlord should continue to have his thirty thousand pounds. But if his noble friend supported Bank notes, which might come down to a shilling, he might in time have the satisfaction to see thirty thousand pounds reduced in value to thirty thousand shillings. What was the remedy for all these inconveniences? The convertibility of paper into gold.—With regard to another point, the carrying on of the present war, it had been triumphantly observed by a noble secretary of state, that it was impossible to carry on the war on the peninsula without a continuance of the present system; that every man who wished to overturn that system, was an enemy to the prosecution of the war in the peninsula; and that every man who supported the system was friendly to the war. He, for one, thought the contest in the peninsula one which ought to be continued as long as it was possible to continue it consistently with the safety and honour of the country. We were called on by every principle of honour to prosecute the contest; but though this was his opinion, he could not subscribe to the other opinion, which he professed he did not understand, that the suspension of cash payments was necessary for the prosecution of the war. If this was a necessary part of our policy, it would in itself constitute an objection to that war; but he did not understand how it could at all be understood as such. He knew no way by which the keeping up the depreciation of the currency of the country could support the war but by the defrauding of the public creditor. He could understand well enough the policy of issuing Assignats. He recollected being told by one well versed in that matter, long before the great depreciation, that they would serve their turn—that they would pay their armies in the mean time. But he would ask, if this was what ministers understood by supporting the war? Here was first a declaration of, 'I am a most honest man!, and then a turning round, and recommending that system of legislation which will make the creditor not worth one farthing. Was that the assistance which was wanted? He had heard of facilities in the raising of money; but they had never been explained sufficiently to him, and he could not but perceive that what they gained on the one hand, they more than lost on the other, by the additional expence of these expeditions to the continent.—His lordship then went into a plan of his own, as a remedy to the evil, which he meant to propose in the way of a rider to the Bill. He understood the great evil would consist in the certain inconveniences attending immediate payment; but he was convinced the bank proprietors and stockholders had a clear interest in maintaining the present state of things, and that, therefore, if they were to fix a particular period, two years or ten years for the resumption of cash payments, it would be a mere brutum fulmen, and the same difficulties would then remain to be got over, which subsisted at present. He knew no way, therefore, of effecting this object, but by making it the interest of the bank themselves to agree to the resumption. He wished to prevent the Bank from deriving any profit from their issues of tokens and dollars. He thought it was but fair that they should derive no additional profit from that state of things. He did not, however, wish to take from the Bank the profits which they should make, or to interfere with private bankers in their concerns; but if they had been protected so long by us, it Was but fair that they should nut be permitted to divide the additional profits taken under that protection. The Rider he meant to propose, to be added to the Bill was this: "Provided always, That as long as this act continues in force, and until the act or acts suspending payments in cash, at the Bank of England, shall expire or be repealed, the profits of the said Bank, after defraying its expences and paying to the Proprietors of Bank Stock an annual dividend not exceeding such rate on their respective shares as, shall not be divided among the said "proprietors, but shall accumulate as a fund for the security of their creditors," or subject to such future arrangement as shall on full consideration of the subject seem just and expedient."—His lordship gave notice, that if the Rider was adopted he should propose to fill up the blank either by the words—"No. 1.—Was declared by the court in the two years preceding the year 1797." Or, "No. 2.—Was declared at the last meeting of the Court of Proprietors."

The Earl of Harrowby

said, that many observations had been made on the impropriety of producing this measure at so late a period of the session; but as ministers were not the original authors of the Bill, the censure could not be fairly applied to them. When the noble lord first introduced the Bill, although be had supported it with arguments, and had urged considerations which were highly deserving of attention, yet he must confess he did not feel persuaded of the policy of adopting-it. When for the last fourteen years the instance of the noble lord (King) was the only one in which bank-notes were refused to be taken at their nominal value, he did not perceive at first the necessity of taking so serious a step for the purpose of preventing that example from being followed. That noble lord's motives might be good, but he conceived that there was a lex non scripta sed nata, which would lead men in general to decline imitating such a conduct. However that conduct had been extolled by the friends and supporters of that noble lord, they themselves had been hitherto content with praising it. As to the question of depreciation, he agreed in the definition given by a noble lord, that it was a fall of price, the word price being a relative term. He believed that two prices had not existed in this country prior to the recent discussions; and there was a perfect equality between gold and paper, except with a view of melting or exportation. Although the banks of Scotland issued paper, which was convertible into gold, bad that paper risen to a premium above that of the Bank of England? It was not extremely logical, in his judgment, to admit in the first instance, the operation of a variety of causes in producing a depreciation of the paper below the gold, and immediately to argue on the assumption that such a depreciation could arise only either from excess or discredit. With respect to the general rise of prices, taxes, he conceived, must be allowed to have a considerable effect. There were some, which perhaps had not that sort of tendency, such, for instance, as the income-tax, which had, probably, a contrary effect. The increasing, wealth of the country must have also greatly conduced to the general rise of prices. He held a table of prices in his hand, which he had reason to believe was correctly drawn up, and by which it appeared, that on the scale of the several last years, no regular proportion subsisted between the alterations in the prices of gold and of other commodities. There was one part of the question, which was generally admitted to be in the highest degree problematical, and involved ft point that could not be accurately ascertained, and that was the degree in which the velocity of circulation augmented or diminished the whole amount requisite for circulation. So various and conflicting, indeed, were the opinions entertained, and particularly with respect to the remedy, on the whole subject, that it suggested to him the case of a patient beset by physicians, giving the most opposite prescriptions. In 1801, assertions were made that Bank-notes had then depreciated; no proof was, however, adduced; and if the whole amount of currency when it consisted of gold, and paper convertible into gold, was compared with the quantity now in circulation, no presumptive, much less positive proof would be furnished of any depreciation arising from excess; and that any had taken place from discredit, had not been asserted in any quarter. Their lordships had been told repeatedly of the fate of the currencies of other countries, but he could not perceive the traces of any resemblance between our own system of finance and that of any other European state. He was still more astonished to hear such frequent allusions to the issue of assignats in France, as if any points of comparison could possibly be discovered between the great corporation of this country, circulating notes on their private credit as a mercantile company, and the arbitrary, unbounded, and compulsory operations of a revolutionary government. In the year 1793, that government issued 240 million in assignats, which in a subsequent year was increased to 800 million. This was indeed excess, but if the endeavours that were made to inculcate on the minds of the people a belief that Banknotes were nothing better than assignats in disguise, the prophecy might carry with it the means of its own fulfilment. He recollected well the numerous prophecies that had been made by many, whose names he would not now mention, but which happily furnished examples of the general failure of such predictions. It was stated by a great authority, when the restriction Bill was first proposed in 1797, that if that measure should be adopted, the notes of the Bank would in six months be worth nothing. At that perilous and alarming period, when rebellion extended from Ireland to the Nore, that great measure was adopted by a distinguished character, and he firmly believed had accomplished the salvation of the country. When they now considered that the war in the peninsula, which had already proved so glorious and consoling to every Englishman, must be checked and paralysed, by any alteration in the financial system, he hoped and trusted that the House would not be deterred from taking any proceeding necessary to its security and preservation.

The Earl of Lauderdale

declared, that before he followed the noble lord into his argument on the question of depreciation, or into the justice of the eulogy which he had thought proper to pronounce upon ministers, he felt it impossible for him not to make some remarks on the sentiments and declarations of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack. When he considered that extraordinary speech, and reflected at the same time, on the situation and office of that noble lord, he felt the highest degree of astonishment and alarm. The noble and learned lord had begun by enumerating the different modes of proceeding by which the landlord could sue his tenant, namely, by action of debt, by action on the covenant, by ejectment, and by distress. He scarcely knew what to think of the observations which accompanied this statement, or to believe that the noble lord had himself wished to be understood. Did he mean to say, when he talked of the duties of the judges, that they should dare to refuse to any man the legal remedy to which he was entitled? Did he intend to propose that an officer should be appointed to decide in court between notes that were good and others which were forged, or to impress this as a new duty on the Judges themselves? Did he mean, he begged to ask, to counsel the Judges to refuse any landlord his ejectment, under such circumstances? He did think, after what had passed, that as they had the power, it was their duty, to take the opinions of the judges themselves on this most momentous and interesting point? It would be worth inquiry whether, previous to 1797, the ejectment would have been stayed by a payment of Bank-notes. If the doctrine of the noble and learned lord that night were once established, Bank notes would, to every practical purpose, immediately become a legal tender. It had long been a principle in legislation to avoid every thing approaching to the nature or character of an ex post facto law. Now, the Bill before the House was utterly and entirely retrospective in its operation, affecting all past contracts, but not interfering with future. He would remind the noble and learned lord of those judicial opinions which he had often uttered, and more particularly in a recent case, and desire him to reconcile them with the doctrines which he had that night promulgated. When he was so scrupulous of permitting the smallest abatement in these instances of the spirit of old contracts, how could be fairly or equitably conceive that it was the duty of his noble friend quietly to put up with an annual loss of 17 per cent, or express his horror at the conduct which his noble friend had thought proper to pursue? The noble secretary of state had moved that Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, on the strange ground that two prices had prevailed there from time immemorial. Supposing this to be, what it evidently was not, a correct statement, Ireland had continued to flourish and improve with unexampled rapidity under those circumstances, which were apprehended to be certain of producing calamity to this country. But till 1797, paper was convertible in Ireland, and therefore till that period two prices could not have existed. It was, too, a strange reason, because the practice of extortion among landlords had long prevailed in Ireland, that therefore it should be suffered to continue, and a measure formed on the principle of preventing it in this part of the empire be withheld from her. Really this looked something like ignorance on the part of ministers. He was not surprised that men, who had openly confessed themselves uninformed upon one of the most important and interesting parts of political science, should be desirous of running down those who had devoted a great part of their lives to its cultivation. The noble lord who spoke last had said that many articles had fallen in value, and that sugar was to be purchased for less of paper in nominal value, than it formerly was of gold. But did he not believe, at the same time, that if gold was now offered for sugar, the difference would not be yet more apparent? Price, which was relative value, was certainly not to be estimated by a comparison of any two commodities; but where one commodity was altered in price in an equal proportion to two others, the presumption was that it was depreciated, and if it had fallen, with respect to the general sum of commodities, the proof became positive that it was so depreciated. Considering the present situation of the country as more calamitous than at any former period, and being persuaded that the Bill before the House would, if passed into a law, tend to aggravate rather than to diminish those calamities, he should vote against the third reading.

The Earl of Morton,

adverting to the statement of the noble lord, that the notes of the Bank of Scotland were at par, while those of the Bank of England were depreciated, observed, in contradiction to that statement, that at the inns, for 150 miles on the great North Road from Darlington to Edinburgh, the Scots Bank note, and the English Bank note, were received indifferently, and passed for precisely the same sum.

The Earl of Liverpool

defended his noble friend (lord Harrowby) from the charge of ignorance that had been preferred against him; a charge to which no man in the House or the country was with less justice liable than his noble friend. The arguments of the noble lords who opposed the Bill went not against this particular act, but against the whole of the system, which had been acted upon since 1797. If that system was proved impolitic, it would not follow that the proposed measure must therefore be otherwise. The adoption of this measure would by no means preclude an investigation of that system, or a recurrence to cash payments at the Bank, if such a recurrence should be deemed necessary. The Bill before the House was a measure of justice to a great portion of the people. It was generally agreed, that the strictest faith should be kept with the national creditor, and that he should be placed on as good a footing as any other individual in the country. The national creditor received Bank notes at par; he ought to be placed in a situation in which he should be enabled to part with them at par. If in this' point the landholder obtained an advantage, the national creditor must sustain an injury. He contended that there was no depreciation whatever. As to increased price of corn, that was attributable to the increase of population and consumption. But with respect to many articles of home produce and manufacture, such as wool, iron, copper, lead, &c. of these some had been reduced, while others were stationary: The noble lord opposite, after a great deal of elaborate disquisition, had arrived at this profound observation, namely, that if the notes of the Bank of England were to be increased to the amount of the assignats of France, they would become equally' depreciated! This was indisputable: but was there the least apprehension of such an event? The paper circulation of this country had not that tendency to excess' which had been so injurious to other countries. While the issue was only about 23 millions, and the revenue amounted to between 70 and 80 millions, there could be no just ground for fearing a ruinous excess. As to the resumption of cash payments by the Bank, be confessed himself wholly at a loss to understand how, in the present state of exchange with foreign countries, that could take place without the most dangerous consequences. A great deal had been said about profusion in the national expenditure. What profusion? what measure of expence had been adopted with any other view but the conviction of its being wise and politic? If there were any of a different description let them be pointed out. The policy might be erroneous, but no one was justified in terming it profusion. He said this because it was of the utmost importance that the public should not be induced, by any misrepresentation of such a nature, to withdraw their confidence from government. It was true that the issue of Bank paper might be reduced, by reducing the public expenditure, but this reduction must be effected, if effected at all, by a complete change of system; by withdrawing our troops from the peninsula, from Sicily, &c. and by an abandonment of ail those plans to which the government had hitherto looked for ultimate success and security. For his part, convinced as he was that the exertions made by Great Britain were indispensible in the present critical situation of Europe, he was firmly persuaded that whatever might be the inconveniences attendant on the present state of the currency of the country, those inconveniences were trifling as compared with the evils which must result from an abandonment of those efforts which the country was making in the common cause.

Earl Grey

protested against the proposed measure, as fraught with general calamity. The noble lord who had just spoken talked of the faith due to the national creditor. That faith no one would wish more strictly to observe than himself; but what would the national creditor gain by the present Bill? Would it give to bank notes an increased value? would not its only effect be to place landholders in the same distressing situation? For his part (notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack) he never would believe, until it should be declared by the twelve Judges, that the payment-by a tenant into a court, of bank notes, would shelter him from a distress, when the law distinctly declared that it should be paid "in good and lawful money of the realm." Satisfied as he was, that the reverse was the case, he put it to the House to consider what would be the situation of the unfortunate tenant, after the passing of the Bill. From that period it would be illegal and impracticable for him to purchase guineas, and yet with guineas alone would his landlord be paid. Could any thing be conceived more likely to create the greatest calamities? It was to incur all the evils of making bank notes a legal tender, without securing any of the advantages which might result from such a step. The present measure would have the effect, not of stopping, but of aggravating and increasing the evil. The law was to be limited in its operation to Great Britain, and was not to extend to Ireland. Why was this? Had it never been heard that the rent of lands in that part of the kingdom had been demanded by the landlord in gold? Was it known that this was common in the North of Ireland? If this was an evil, how came it that a remedy was more necessary here than there? Why were the people in Ireland to be more exposed to such demands than the landholders in England? To this he believed no better answer could be given than that furnished by the old story of a person who was accused of cruelty in putting lobsters into cold water, and then boiling them to death. The reason given to justify this practice was, "they were used to it;" and this he conceived, was all that could be said for thus neglecting the people of Ireland. He was astonished to hear the noble lord opposite contend that bank paper was not depreciated, and thought the arguments he had urged were far from proving what they were intended to prove; and the arguments he had made use of to shew that the Orders in Council had done good, were only to be derived from the present distress of the country. The only remedy which could be supplied to the evils complained of, and those which would follow the adoption of the measure proposed, and those measures to which it must lead, was a return to payments in specie. He reminded their lordships of the assignats in France; and then adverting to the affairs of the peninsula, declared that though he had concurred in the vote of thanks to lord Wellington, as he had really done more than he had expected he would be able to do, yet still it was his firm opinion, if we made ourselves principals in the war, and attempted to contend with the whole military power of France on the continent, the consequences would be most ruinous to this country. He was surprised at the statement which had been made of the prosperous state of our affairs, and regarded it as a delusion, which, if given into, would render it impossible for us to survive our present difficulties. If the bill before the House were carried, it would go to make the bank note a legal tender, and that must lead to its farther depreciation. He was anxious to give the supporters of the measure a timely warning before they proceeded too far, as he was confident no victory would gratify our enemy so much, or so strongly prove the complete success of his endeavours to injure this country, as the passing of an act subversive of the ancient rights of the constitution.

The Earl of Lauderdale

thought it would be unbecoming to pass the bill, under all the circumstances of the case, without having first the opinions of the judges. He would therefore move as an amendment, that after the word "That," words should be inserted summoning the judges to attend that House to-morrow.

Lord Grenville

spoke in favour of the amendment, as after what had fallen from the noble and learned lord in the course of debate, their opinions were necessary to explain the bill.

The Lord Chancellor,

in explanation, repeated that the law of the country would remain the same after the passing of the act as at present in cases of execution, and said that the landlord who took a note must take it for the sum specified in it and when distraining must submit to have such a note so offered to him.

The Amendment was negatived without a division. The question was next put on the third reading of the Bill. On this a division took place, when the numbers were: Contents 53.—Non Contents 16.—Majority 27—The Bill was then read a third time and passed.