Sitting of 5 April 1811

PETITION RESPECTING THE ISLAND OF TRINIDAD.
Mr. Bathurstpresented a Petition from the merchants of Bristol trading to the island of Trinidad, setting forth "That the whole body of the inhabitants of the British island of Trinidad, as welt as the merchants of the cities of London, Dublin, Glasgow, Liverpool, Lancaster, and Cork, trading to the said island, have petitioned for the establishment of the British laws therein; and that the system of jurisprudence at present in force in the said island is wholly incompatible with its commercial relations with this country, and highly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners; and praying the House to afford them relief in the premises, either by addressing his Majesty to place the said island upon the same footing as the other British colonies in the West Indies, or by such other mode as to the House may seem most fitting."
Mr. Marryattthought his hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have said something satisfactory on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think it necessary to say any thing, as the subject was already under the consideration of his Majesty's government.

PRINTERS' BILL.
Mr. H. Martinmoved the committal of the Bill to explain and amend an act passed in the 39th year of his Majesty's reign, intituled; "An Act for the more effectual suppression of societies established for seditions and treasonable purposes, and for better preventing

715
treasonable and seditious practices," so far as respects certain penalties on printers and publishers.
The Attorney Generalopposed the clause of confining the magistrate to the levying of one penalty only for every publication, however numerous the copies. If this were to pass, the end of the law would be entirely defeated. No man wishing to circulate a mischievous paper, would be deterred by such a consideration.
Mr. H. Martinhad thought himself fully warranted in proposing that there should be only one penalty for each impression. He requested the House to observe, that all the penalties to which printers had been liable before the 39th of the king would still be in force after this bill passed into a law. There would be no additional security for libels. The object of it was to place the law on its former footing, or nearly so. To shew the propriety of this, he called the attention of the Mouse to the history of the act of the 39th of the king, the most material part of which it was the design of this bill to repeal. It had originated from the opinion, that extraordinary vigilance and vigour were necessary to counteract the machinations of seditious societies, who circulated a vast number of papers, the printers of which could never, without great difficulty, be discovered. It was therefore required that as an additional security every printer should be made liable to heavy penalties, who should neglect to put his name to whatever he printed. But, if a libel was published, the printer was still subject to prosecution for that offence as before. These societies no longer existed, and the act being calculated only to meet a particular exigency, ought now to be considerably modified, if not repealed. Let the House consider how the law stood, whilst such enormous penalties might be incurred even by inadvertency. The Attorney General himself, he believed, about two years ago, had found it necessary to bring in a bill to indemnify persons who had violated it. Was it fitting that the act should still be continued on the statute books in its present shape? that it should still be hung up in terrorem? and that bills of indemnity should be passed at the end of every two or three years, to afford some mitigation of the hardships resulting from it? If he could secure his hon. and learned friend's support, by consenting to enlarge the
716
penalty, he should be disposed to yield so far. But how was it possible to permit the law to stand as it was? to leave the printer liable to a penalty for every copy of a pamphlet, hand-bill, or any other publication, merely for neglecting to put his name to them? The business was under sufficient regulation without this. He had been answerable for his publications before the time of the seditious societies, whose practices had been the only ground upon which the additional regulations had been established. It was impossible for printers to carry on their business without being well known. They were registered with the clerk of the peace, and subject to other rules, which rendered it impracticable to conceal themselves. Would the Attorney General point out any instance in which a prosecution had failed from a difficulty of finding out the printer? It was not pretended at the time the 39th of the king was under consideration, that there was any difficulty of the kind. It rested entirely on the proceedings of the seditious societies, and they no longer existed: why, then should the business of printing remain subject to this severe hardship? Let the penalty be raised to 100 l. it the Attorney General wished it; but surely it could not be permitted that a magistrate should have the power of imposing penalties to the extent, perhaps, of 20,000 l. in a summary manner. No class of the community ought to be so much in the power of the magistrate. His wish was not to innovate, but to restore the law to what it was before, with the exception of this small penalty of 20 l. for a whole impression, if published without the printer's name.
Mr. Giddyproposed that it should only be imperative on the magistrate to impose the penalty for one copy—leaving it in his discretion to carry it beyond this, or even to go the whole length, according as the omission should appear to be an oversight, or to spring from bad intention.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the penalty as proposed by his hon. and learned friend who brought in the Bill would be entirely useless. It would do nothing in the way of preventing the secret circulation of mischievous and dangerous publications. It would only affect those who might err, not from dishonest intention, but inadvertency. The penalty of 20 l. or rather the risk of incurring it, would be no check upon those who had an extensive mischievous object in view. The

717
proper course would be to negative this clause,—and amend the other two, leaving a discretion with the magistrate to raise the number of penalties, in cases where it should appear just and proper. The magistrate would then impose one or more penalties, according to the circumstances of the case, and his decision would be subject to revision by an appeal to the sessions. In this state they might be content to leave the law. The quarter sessions, however, not to have the power of augmenting the penalties, but merely to correct the sentence of the magistrate in cases of excess. Where pamphlets or other publications were of a seditious and mischievous tendency, the whole of the penalties might thus be imposed, while other cases would be open to mitigation.
Lord Folkestoneobjected to this proposition, as lodging an enormous power in the hands of the magistrate. The House ought to pause before they armed a magistrate with the power of fining to the amount of from 20 l. to 20,000 l. according to his view of the offence. He approved the clause as brought in by his hon. and learned friend, or if he had any objection to the bill, it was because it did not go the length of repealing the 39th of the king altogether. His hon. and learned friend had very properly adverted to the history of that act. It was the last of a series, beginning with the 30th of the king, commonly known under the name of the Gagging Bill. That the act was passed for a temporary purpose appeared evidently from the preamble, and why should it be prolonged beyond the occasion? This power might perhaps afford some relief to the printers; but it was dangerous to allow it to exist. The best plan would be to repeal the act altogether.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that primers could not but be perfectly aware of the law. They were reading men, and therefore without excuse if they violated the act. But in cases of inadvertency and honest intention, the magistrate would have the power of mitigating the penalties. There might be such cases certainly, and therefore he would further propose, that the magistrates should be empowered to mitigate the penalty to not less than 10 l. over and above the reasonable costs of the prosecution.
Sir Samuel Romillyunderstood the provision proposed, to be substituted for the clause under consideration to be this, that the magistrate might still if he pleased, impose
718
the full penalty for every copy. If this was the meaning, he must say, that the proposal was extremely objectionable. To say nothing of cases of inadvertency, suppose one of the worst description, where criminal intention was unquestionable, was it to be the law of this country that a magistrate might in a summary manner, at his discretion, impose penalties on a subject to the amount of 20,000 l.? This was a sum which no Court would think of imposing even for a libel after conviction by a jury. A positive law made to prevent the publication of libel was to leave it in the power of a single magistrate to exact this enormous penalty. Printers, his hon. and learned friend had said, were reading men, and therefore inexcusable if they violated the law. But this law had been violated even by those particularly conversant with the law. Masters in Chancery had inadvertently issued printed warrants for attendance without a printer's name, and had been indemnified by act of parliament. Persons of the purest intentions were liable to these penalties. The law punished indiscriminately the criminal and the inadvertent. Nay, it bore particularly hard upon the honest and unwary. They attempted no concealment—while it might be difficult, perhaps, to get hold of the criminal and to levy the penalty from him. In this respect, as well as in many others, the proposition was very objectionable. Why should the most honourable and useful business of printing be subjected to such severe restraints? There were none such till of late; from the period of the Revolution and the establishment of king William on the throne, times which had been generally admitted to be the best of the constitution. On a particular emergency, extraordinary restraints might properly be imposed. The cause was temporary; the effect unfortunately was permanent. If his hon. and learned friend had proposed to repeal the act of the 39th entirely, he would have decidedly supported him.
Mr. Lockhartagreed with the noble lord that it would be inexpedient and dangerous to leave to the magistrate the power of convicting in penalties to an unlimited extent. It would be taking from juries the right of determining on libels of any description, and giving that right to the justices and to the courts of quarter sessions. To this he could never consent. Determined enemy as he was to the licentiousness of the press, he could never agree to

719
vest such a power in the hands of the magistrate and the court of quarter sessions. The only correction which suggested itself to his mind was to limit the extent of the penalty in which the magistrate should be empowered to convict. Perhaps 100 l, might be found a proper limitation.
Mr. Martinbegged the Committee to consider what Would be the effect of allowing the excessive penalties which the present act permitted. The penalties did not belong wholly to the crown. A moiety went to the informer. If therefore the crown were disposed to remit its share of these penalties, a common informer might sue for his proportion, and this would operate as a perpetual imprisonment on the party offending. Now, it was well known that in cases of libel the term of imprisonment adjudged by the court of King's Bench, seldom exceeded two years. Let the Committee recollect the time and circumstances under which the existing act passed. Its object was to prevent the gratuitous distribution of papers of a seditious tendency, by certain societies, which were enumerated in the act. Those societies had ceased to exist; the evil to be apprehended must therefore have ceased to exist; and he was at a loss to discover on what principle the continuance of such severe enactments could be maintained. If continued at all, the extent of the penalty should be limited. What he was anxious to establish, was, that the offending party should be sued for only one penalty. If the single penalty at present enacted were insufficient, let it be increased. Although he should consent reluctantly, yet he would agree even to the extent of the penalty being made 500 l. leaving to the magistrates the discretion of mitigating it to 5l. He would also propose that it should not be in the power of an informer, under any circumstances, if the magistrates were so ill advised as to levy the extent of the penalty, to prevent the crown, if it thought proper, from remitting the whole. He adverted to many cases in which the law might be, and indeed hail been, inadvertently violated; and particularly instanced one of an honourable member, a merchant of extensive dealings, who for many years had ignorantly violated the law in printing his bills of lading, &c and another of an hon. member, who when a candidate for the East India direction had violated, the law in a similar manner, in his addresses to the proprietors of East
720
India Stock. Would it be advisable to leave to magistrates the power of levying on persons so circumstanced, or indeed on persons otherwise circumstanced, the enormous fines, which, by the existing act they had incurred?
The Attorney General,in order to shew how willing he was to go along with his hon. and learned friend as tar as he could, proposed that the magistrate should, in no case, have the power of imposing more than 25 penalties of 20 l. namely 500 l.
Mr. Wilberforceapproved of the amendment, observing, that this was not the only way of punishing libel.
Mr. Martinand the Attorney General next agreed, that the magistrate should be allowed to mitigate to 5l.; that an appeal to the quarter sessions might be entered within 20 days from the time of the conviction; and that six days notice should be given to the prosecutor.
The House having resumed, the Report was ordered to be brought on Monday.

FOREIGN MINISTERS' PENSIONS BILL.
Mr. Leachmoved the third reading of this Bill.
Lord Francis Osbornefelt it his duty to express his decided disapprobation of the Bill, No claims whatever had, been urged which thus required the interference of parliament. Not 24 hours had elapsed since that House refused to go into a Committee to consider the claims of the officers of our brave army; and the money which they had refused to the claims of these gallant men, they were; now called upon to vote to individuals who had advanced no claim whatever. He trusted that the House would pause before they acceded to a measure of this deseription and he would therefore move as an amendment, That the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Morrissaid the noble lord had dealt in general statements only. He wished he could have condescended to state in what way, the claims, of individuals could be brought before the House. The present Bill merely restored to the crown a part of its prerogative of which it was deprived by the act of last session. The Resolution of the committee on which that act was founded, was materially departed from. The, Resolution proposed the nature of the service as the basis of the pension; but the act put all services of whatever nature on the same footing of ten years. A foreign Ambassador's retreat

721
from service was not always voluntary, but frequently depended on political accidents beyond his controul; and on his return he Was cut off from the professional sources of-subsistence, which he probably relinquished for his situation. It was extremely hard, therefore, that the crown should be precluded from taking his case into consideration. He hoped it would not be imputed to him that his sentiments on the present occasion were in any way influenced by the consideration that an hon. relation of his (Mr. Erskine) might soon perhaps have occasion to present himself before the House on account of his services in such a situation. He still continued of the same opinion which he maintained when he voted for the Resolutions.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that the House had no sooner passed the first measure of reform, which was founded on the report of their Committee on that subject, than they were required to repeal it. Nevertheless, if that measure could be proved unjust, it ought to be repealed. That was the point which he wished to examine. Unquestionably there were precedents for the measure which it was proposed to rescind. Those who recollected, with him, the parliamentary occurrences of 1783, would remember that, a Bill was then brought in for the regulation of the offices of the exchequer, and for the reduction of the emolument of the Tellers. When that Bill came from the Committee, there was a clause in it, providing that it should not operate against a grant in reversion by his Majesty to lord Thurlow, of a Tellership of the Exchequer. To this clause the House disagreed, notwithstanding the extraordinary exertions of a great lawyer (lord Kenyon), who then advocated the rights of individuals as other lawyers now advocated them; and, as he thought, with too much eagerness. On a division upon this clause, the number in favour of it was 49; that against it 57.—He would repeat what he had stated on a former stage of this Bill; namely, that if parliament took one step in the repeal of the principle of the act passed last session, they must take many more steps. There were many persons affected by that act, whose claims were much stronger than those of the diplomatic individuals to whom the pending bill applied. For instance, previous to the act of last session, the Old Stores were vested in the crown, which had power to grant pensions to various public officers on it. That act (very wisely in
722
his opinion) deprived the crown of that power. All, therefore, who had what might be called an expectant right under the former practice, possessed a better claim on the House than the individuals whose case was under consideration. But a still stronger circumstance existed: there were individuals who had been deprived by the act of last session, of the expectation of emoluments to which they had a title under two former acts of parliament. By the act of the 49th of the King, c. 36, and by an act passed only two weeks before the act of last session, founded on the Report of the Finance Committee, the crown was empowered to grant allowances to certain Officers of the Excise in England and Scotland; it was empowered to grant those who had served ten years, three fourths of their salaries. By the act of last session, these allowances were reduced to one half of the salaries of these officers. Had not the individuals thus affected, therefore, ten times greater right to complain, than the diplomatic individuals who were the objects of the proposed measure? Did anyone suppose from this reasoning that he entertained any wish of opening again the act of last session? Far from it. By that act a proper system of superannuation had been established; and the relaxed habit in which government had previously indulged on that subject, was corrected. The act of last session had passed with the general approbation of the country; and it was not to be disturbed, because a claim was made for two or three individuals, who, he had shewn, had not suffered by it so extensively as many others. Besides, the supporters of the Bill asserted, that all they wanted was to put these gentlemen in the situation in which they were before the act of last session. Now that was impossible. To agree to the proposed Bill, would be to give to the claims of the foreign ministers a sanction which they never before enjoyed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercontend-ed, that whatever might be the merits of the Bill before the House, it would not afford such a dangerous precedent as was apprehended by his horn friend. With respect to the operation of the act of last session, on those individuals who had expectances on the fund of old. Stores, he did not believe that the previous practice of government had been such as to in-duce any of those individuals to imagine, that they had a claim on that fund

723
to a greater extent than that which remained after the passing of the act. And as to the Excise Officers, of whom his hon. friend said, that the act of last session had deprived them of expectant rights vested in them by two former acts, the fact was, that in some respects the claims were increased by the last act; for it was provided by it that, after a certain age, not three fourths merely, but the whole of his salary should be allowed to an officer. It was Obvious also that the number, who had the slightest shadow of justice for complaint, must be confined to those who entered as clerks in that department of the public service during the short period, a twelvemonth, between the passing of the first of the acts alluded to by his honourable friend, and the passing of the act founded on the Report of the Finance Committee. Nothing could be mote clear thin that those who had entered the service before that period Were not at all entitled to complain of disappointed expectations.
The House then divided—

For the Amendment

23

Against it

50

Majority

—

27

The Bill was then read a third lime and passed.

CASE OF DE YONGE FOR SELLING GUINEAS.
On the order of the day being read for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply,
Lord Folkestone rose,He wished, before the House resolved itself Into the Committee, to tall their attention to a Subject which had already been mention, ed by him once or twice in the course of the session, but on which he had received no satisfactory information. He alluded to the case of a person convicted some time ago of selling guineas—a Mr. De Yonge, This circumstance took place fluting the last session of parliament. The question, however, had not been finally decided upon; a point being reserved to be argued in the Exchequer Chambers. Early in the present session, he had inquired of the Attorney General whether any further proceedings were likely to take place? To this the Attorney General had replied, that he was ready to argue the case whenever called upon by the judges to do so: but as he had not been called upon, he wished now to give notice, that if the point was not decided in the to the ensuing term,
724
it was his intention to institute Some proceeding on the subject. He did not wish to dwell on the peculiar hardship of the case; but he Could not help observing, that this man, who had no friends, halt been selected as the subject of a prosecution for that which almost every banker and principal tradesman had been guilty of for years. He toad been convicted on an old act of parliament made in the reign of Edward 6. He could have wished to have entered more at large into the subject, and to have argued on the nature of the provisions of that act, to ascertain if they were sufficiently comprehensive to reach such a case. He repeated, it Was his intention to give notice, that if the case was not likely to be argued in the ensuing term, he should make a specific motion on the subject, not merely with a view to the hardship of the case, but in order to propose an alteration of the law, or perhaps a repeal of the act under Whioh Mr. De'Yonge had been convicted.
The Attorney Generalthought those who had heard the noble lord most be led to imagine that some improper delay had taken place. When the question was put to him by the noble lord some time ago, the courts were not sitting. It being subsequent to the last term, he had then replied, that the case remained to be argued, and that he was ready to argue it When called upon. He wished it to be observed, that it was impossible for it to have been argued between that time and this, there having been no opportunity since; the one term being ended when the question was put, and the next not begun when the subject was again brought forward. He was not aware the prosecution had been dropped, and expected the point reserved Would be argued In the ensuing term. White on his legs, the House would perhaps allow him to reply to a charge preferred against him some time before by the noble lord, for dropping a prosecution against a Mr. Collier for printing a libel. He had now the satisfaction of saying—satisfaction for himself, as it enabled him to repel the charge—that he had heard the next day, that Mr. Collier had been tried at Lancashire and convicted.
Lord Folkestoneobserved that the statement of the learned gent was irrelevant; and was proceeding to offer Some farther remarks, when
The Chancellor of the Exchequerspoke to order. He was surprised to hear the noble lord complain that the statement of

725
his learned friend was irrelevant, when the whole of what had fallen from him was completely so, and when he was proceeding to speak a second time, though he had no right to a reply.
Lord Folkestoneinsisted that his con duct was perfectly regular.
The Speakerremarked that the noble lord had a right to ask a question, but not to make a second speech.
A motion was then made, That the Estimates of the Store-keeper-General's department should be referred, to the Committee of Supply. On the question being put,
Lord Folkestonesaid he had a right now to say what the right hon. gent. had refused to let him say before on the former question.
The Speakerrequested the noble lord to sit down. It was not regular for a member so to rise. The House was to decide, whether or not its laws should be neglected.
Mr. Whitbreadthought it was not the law of the House, it at least had been the practice, as he had instanced on one or two occasions. He gave it as his opinion, that the noble lord was entitled to suck an indulgence from the practice of the House. He meant no disrespect to the Speaker, but left it to him and to the House to decide.
The Speakerreplied, the rule of the House was one thing; its indulgence another. If it was their pleasure, they could then indulge the noble lord. In some instances such, indulgence might be more inconvenient than at others.
The Attorney Generalwould be very sorry the noble lord should be refused an opportunity of replying to any thing he had said.
Lord Folkestonedid not intend to detain the House, The Attorney general had said, that he had charged him with having dropped the prosecution instituted against Mr. Collier, and had seemed to triumph over him on the occasion. The noble lord denied ever having preferred such a charge.
The Attorney Generalassured the noble lord, that if, on a former occasion, he (Lord F,) had corrected the misapprehension on his part, he (the Attorney General) Would not have brought forward the subject on the present occasion; but as he did not correct him when he mentioned the circumstance before, he had no idea that he had misunderstood the noble lord.

REPORT OF THE BULLION COMMITTEE.
Mr. Hornerstated, that having understood, that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Abercromby) had given a notice in his, absence of his intention on that day to fix the period and declare the mode in which; he proposed to bring forward this discussion, he now rose to state what appeared, to him to be the most expedient course of proceeding. In the first place, as to the mode, it had been his earlier intention to move for leave to bring in a bill for, the repeal of the Bank Restriction Act. He found since, on consulting with some gentlemen, to whose experience of parliamentary business he was bound to pay the greatest deference, that the most ad visable mode would be to submit some previous Resolutions, expressive of the general opinion, of the House on the question at issue, and which Resolutions might, lay a foundation for a subsequent and more conclusive, series of measures. He apprehended that this would be done in the best manner in a committee of the whole House; and if the fight hon. gent opposite should entertain a similar opinion, he was desirous of making it immediately an order of the day, that the House should go into a committee for this purpose on Monday the 29th of April. If there should be any objection to this suggestion he begged that he might now be considered as giving a general notice on the subject of his intention to bring on the discussion very soon after the recess. As to the consideration of time, he was extremely sorry that a delay of such duration had taken place; but he trusted that when the nature of the business in which parliament at its first assembling, had been engaged, was remembered; and the necessity he was under of attending his professional avocations in the country, he should stand acquitted of blame.—Indeed he could not help thinking that the interval which had thus been suffered to elapse would be far from proving productive of any injurious consequences to the discussion. It had been alledged, that the causes of the present condition of our paper currency were quite of a temporary nature, and it might therefore be well to allow the farce pf this argument to be fairly tried. He had hoped for an opportunity of introducing the question on some day before the recess; but as the present was certainly too late an hour, and there was no clear day before the holidays, he would propose, if the course he had was approved,

727
to move "That the Report of the Bullion Committee be referred to a Committee of the whole House on Monday the 20th of April."
Mr. Roseobserved, that he felt no objection to the mode proposed by the hon. gent. considering, as he did, that the question ought to be discussed in a Committee; but, at the Same time, he must remark, that in his opinion, there had been a great and unnecessary delay in bringing forward this motion. He knew that it would not have been regular in any member of 'he House to take the matter out of the hands of the hon. and learned member, who had acted as chairman of the Bullion Committee. Parliament had however, been sitting between nine and ten weeks, and this was the first intimation which the learned gent, had given of bringing that Report under consideration. He had, indeed, before given notice of a specific motion, but this he had thought proper to abandon. The Report had been published five months before the session of parliament, and two more had since passed, during all which time it had excited a deep interest, and had been the subject of very general discussion, and at length the hon. and learned gent, had named a distant day, which would likewise most probably be an inconvenient one, and one on which a full attendance could hardly be expected.
Mr. Hornertrusted that he should be excused in rising a second time, when it was for the purpose of vindicating himself from imputations, the application of which, if just, he should greatly deplore. Was he fealty deserving of blame for not bringing on such a discussion at ten o'clock at night? (No, no from the Treasury Bench!)—If such an accusation was disclaimed, was it meat to insinuate that he was not prepared for the consideration of the question on an earlier day, than that which he had named? He assured the right hon. gent. that he was perfectly ready to enter on the discussion either on Monday next, or even that might, if it should be deemed desirable by the House. As to the general charge of delay, how did it apply? The Report was published in August, and parliament assembled under peculiar circumstances some time before Christmas. When those circumstances were recollected he did not believe that any hon. member could candidly attribute to him any unnecessary or wilful procrastination. The right hon.
728
gent, had indeed himself moved, at a considerably subsequent period, for the production of several voluminous accounts, which he considered necessary to the elucidation of the question. He (Mr. Horner) had, in consequence of those motions, required some time properly to understand the nature and bearings of those accounts, at least to divine what possible connection they had with the object in view. He had not had it in his power to be in town at an earlier period, and his wish in now naming the 29th of April, was that the order should be some time on the book, in order that the House should have full notice, and come properly prepared for the discussion. He appealed, therefore, to the candour of the House, and to its justice, he would not say to its indulgence, which at other times he might have had occasion to claim, whether the right hon. gentleman's censure was not unfounded. Did the right hon. gent. believe that any such material alteration had taken place, or that the question presented itself in so new a shape and so different from that which it had first assumed, as to inspire him with any additional confidence or sentiment of triumph? Did he indeed believe that recent circumstances had so changed the state of the question, as to induce on his part or on that of his hon. friends any desire to re-cede from their former opinions? Was the late proceeding of the Bank calculated to procure from him a surrender of his sentiments, or to persuade him to shrink from the discussion? The impatience of the right hon. gent. might easily be traced to an apprehension that other and similar proceedings were about to follow, which would perhaps be much facilitated by previously dispatching the Report of the Bullion Committee. It would have been convenient, too, perhaps, if that discussion could have been terminated prior to the late operation of the Bank. Satisfied he was that upon the event of that discussion depended the recurrence of similar proceedings, and the consequent increase of all the mischief and calamity involved in it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he should not object to the course proposed by the hon. and learned gent. He thought that it might be useful that some interval should take place between the notice for the discussion, and the discussion itself. He had, however, experienced a very strong sentiment of regret at the length of the delay in bringing the

729
Report under parliamentary consideration. That Report had, he conceived, made a most erroneous and injurious impression on the public mind, and he should ever consider its publication as a great and serious evil. It had very strongly agitated the feelings of the country, and he was confident that when it was fully considered, it would not be found to be supported by facts.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that his hon. friend had been most uncandidly and unjustly accused of wishing to delay the discussion. The right hon. gent, was certainly in more haste; he appeared to be very anxious for the argument, but to feel little care as to its being understood. He knew not whether this arose from his confidence in numbers, but the right hon. gent. who so strongly condemned the Report, should have objected to the appointment of the Committee, who had only obeyed the orders of the House in probing the matter to the bottom. The right hon. gent. seem ed to think that when this House had got rid of the Report, no matter how, public opinion would be perfectly settled. He questioned much whether the mere authority of the House would have the effect of setting the question at rest. He must however, do the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the justice to say, that he had not supported his right hon. friend (Mr. Rose) in his attack on the hon. chairman of the Bullion Committee. But he was quite as sanguine in his anticipations of success, and appeared to be elated at the prospect of this tremendous discussion, and a glorious victory on the 29th of April. The right hon. gent. had certainly not been inactive in circulating his own opinions on the subject, or in his endeavours to counteract the impression which the Report of the Committee might have made. Before he sat down he could not avoid saying, that the House and the country were greatly indebted to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Horner) for the unremitting attention he had paid to a subject which, in its importance to the interests of this country, exceeded any which his parliamentary experience brought to his recollection.
The motion was then agreed to.

COMMERCIAL DISCOUNTS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Huskissonobserved, that if the principle assumed in the Report of the Bullion Committee, namely, that the depreciation of our currency must be tried by the relative value of gold and silver,
730
was just, it was manifest that a depreciation had taken place, and this depreciation could only arise from an excess in the issues of the Bank. The directors had, however, denied the possibility of any such excess, because their advances were made only on good bills or sufficient mercantile securities. This was the opinion on which those gentlemen contended, that there could not be any excess in the circulation of their notes, so long as they adhered to this regulation. It was therefore necessary, he conceived, under these circumstances, that the House should be furnished with an account of the actual amount of the Discounts of the Bank, in order fairly to try the justness of their own principle. It was most important that the great principle by which the affairs of such a corporation as the Bank of England were conducted should be thoroughly examined. If the history of all the Banks of discount of which he had heard, shewed that they had all occasionally carried their discounts too far, and that this was the great danger to which such establishments were exposed, even when under the obligation of paying in specie, it was surely justifiable in him to assume the possibility of the Bank of England having fallen into the sane error, under the circumstances of diminished restraint and increased temptation. If this was possible, it became the House to ascertain whether this was or was not the case. He wished to avoid entering into the general question; and confine himself to the laying a ground for the production of the paper he should move for. It was well known that there had lately been what was termed overtrading, to a very great extent, and that among the variety of recent commercial speculations many had failed, and had thereby occasioned much individual calamity. It was generally believed, that many of those speculations originated in the great facilities of discount at the Bank. There had been numerous instances of men rising into sudden affluence and splendour, and falling back into bankruptcy and distress. This was a departure from the true character of commerce, and threatened alarming consequences. If there was any visible or supposed connection between this state of things and the conduct of the Bank, was not that a ground for inquiry? Sir Francis Baring, a great practical authority, had said, he had known clerks who, with salaries of 100 l. per annum, were in the habits of obtaining

731
discounts to the amount of five and even ten thousand pounds. He might quote the late lord Liverpool, in support of the evil to be derived from the creation of factitious capital; but he was aware this would be called the language of theorists, of men so very wild and speculative as to dream that the resumption of payments in cash at the Bank would be a measure of expedience. It might be urged, that the failure of the late commercial speculations was nothing more than a slight distemper. But did not such distempers tend to produce exhaustion in the body politic, and was not the drain of national capital to be deplored, withdrawn from useful employment, and lavished in prodigal and unsuccessful enterprise? The paper he should move for had been communicated to the Committee by the Governor of the Bank, under an injunction not to insert it in the Report, and it had since been published in one of the daily vehicles of intelligence. A person had seen it on the table of a director, and had surreptitiously communicated a copy. As it was, however, already before the public, he apprehended there would be the less difficulty in consenting to the object of his motion. It had been urged, that such a production would be prejudicial to the Bank. This he could not understand; neither could he believe that it was any interference with their private concerns. Could that be called a private concern which went to alter the relative value of every description of property in all its ramifications? If he were to propose to enquire into the principles which, governed the Bank in their particular discounts, that would be an improper interference; but when he asked only for a scale of the proportion which the whole amount of discounts at one period bore to the whole amount at another, he did not see what fair objection could be made. Without this paper the House would, in his opinion go after all to the discussion of the great question in the dark. The paper lately presented to the House from the Bank, by no means answered the purpose he had in view. That paper contained nothing, more than an account of the sums advanced at different periods by the Bank to government on the application of the latter. Bat it was impossible for the House to discover by this what the whole amount of the government securities now in the hands of the Bank might be, or what the number of Exchequer Bill which might have been bought by the latter in the
732
market. It was essential to know, not only how far they had gone in accommodating-individuals, but what limits they had pre-scribed to themselves in accommodating government. He must disclaim entertaining what he feared had been imputed to him, any spirit of hostility to the Bank, nor, could he think that any such spirit was evinced by a mere doubt of their infallibility. The real enemies to the Bank were, he was convinced, those who should advise them to resist this motion, or who should attempt to persuade them that power and compulsion could ever supply the place of confidence. The real enemies of the Bank were those who taught them that there was nothing in the present state of paper currency to merit the interposition of that House, or to require the vigilance of the legislature. The hon. gent, then, after recapitulating his arguments, and referring to the amount of individual suffering and extensive distress, created by a growing depreciation of the circulating medium, moved, "That there be laid before this, House, a comparative scale of the Commercial Discounts of the Bank of England, from the 1st of January 1790 to the first of January 1811; distinguishing each year."
Mr. Manningbegged to be understood, in the course of what he should say upon this question, as having no instruction whatever from the Court of Bank Directors. It appeared to him, that the document moved for, would be attended with great inconvenience, and ought not to be granted, unless called for by the necessity of the case, which at present it was not. The only document that could be said to be necessary, was the amount of the Bank Notes issued, and that was laid before them every year since the passing of the bill. To give an account of the commercial discounts, would be an interference with the internal management of the Bank, and, therefore, should be resisted. He regretted that his hon. friend had thought proper go so much at large into the general question, which he thought ought to be reserved for the proper occasion, when the House was called upon to discuss it distinctly. He allowed that the principle of cash payments should be resorted to when it was practicable, but this was not the period. His hon. friend had said that the Directors would consider, such a proposition an offence; but he was sure that they would always be willing to return to the old system when it could be done with propriety. The motion was unnecessary,

733
This was the first instance in which any such motion had been made, and therefore he should give it his negative.
Mr. Hornerwished in a few words to state his reasons for agreeing in the motion of the hon. gent. at the same time that he declined entering upon the general subject, which he confessed ought to be reserved for the proper occasion, and not debated by piecemeal. He condemned the conduct of the person who had been guilty of such a breach of privilege as the publishing of the document in question; and thought the motion rested upon fair grounds. The hon. gent. had opposed it by stating, that it was not necessary to call for the precise amount of the discounts; but that was not what the motion called far: it did not demand the precise amount, but merely a comparative and proportionate scale. The question then was, whether it was necessary or not? It appeared to him that the evidence which the Directors of the Bank had given proved the necessity of it. They had stated, that it was impossible there should be any excess, the issues being always regulated by the discounts. The only way to shew that their doctrine was true, was to produce an account of the amount of their issues, and a scale of their discounts: and see whether they corresponded. This was rendered still more necessary from what had been stated by the hon. mover, who affirmed, that though the amount of the discounts had been reduced, that of the issues had not. How would the 'Bank of England reconcile this with their doctrine? He should certainly Vote for the motion.
Mr. Marryattsaid, that the Bank of England having become of late a great state engine, Parliament had a right to investigate its affairs, if necessary to the public good. It has been said, that not a note more was in circulation than the good of the public required; but he knew the contrary from experience. He could state instances of several clerks who had failed with notes in their hands, to the amount of hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was, in fact, impossible to know the state of any man's affairs, from the facility of discount in the Bank of England. Excess of paper, like excess of every thing else, tended to its depreciation. The prima facie evidence was against the Bank of England, and it was for their honour to give the statement required. The malady under which this country laboured, with respect to Bank circulation, was one that might be
734
remedied, if taken in time, but, if neglected, it would be likely to end in a convulsion fatal both to public and private men.
Mr. H. Thorntonapproved of the limitation of discount by the Bank, and defended its conduct in many instances.
Mr. A. Baringthought that a loose paragraph in the papers possessed no authenticity but what was conferred on it by the hon. gentleman himself; and conceived that no ground was made out to justify the motion.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that when the Income Tax was first brought in, it was thought that it would be an injury to commercial men, by obliging them to reveal their affairs; but this was not admitted as a sufficient argument to counterbalance the one of public advantage proposed by the measure, neither should the reluctance of the Bank Directors be available in the present case. He had listened attentively to the hon. gent. (Mr. Manning), but did not hear any positive evil mentioned as likely to accrue from the adoption of the motion: all that was said, was that evil would result; but what the evil would be, was left to their own imaginations. For his part, he did not think that any would result; and on that account, together with the reasons already urged by other gentlemen, he thought that the House had a right to call for the paper.
Mr. Huskissonin reply said, that he was still at a loss to know what objection could be made to the motion. He called for the document not to create, but to reconcile differences, by throwing additional light on the subject at issue. His hon. friend had complained that he anticipated the discussion upon the great question; itself: all he did was, to say that there were different opinions, without stating any opinion himself upon any of the prints. As to the indiscretion with which he had been charged, in alluding to the printed document, it afforded an opportunity to the members of the Committee to disclaim the transaction for themselves, and he was sure they would be obliged to him for it. He had nothing more to add, but to express his conviction that the document was necessary, and with that declaration he should leave it to the House to determine whether they would grant it or not.
The House then divided, when there appeared Ayes 23; Noes 56.—Majority against the Motion 93.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
The order of the day being moved,
Earl Grosvenorrose, pursuant to notice, to move the second reading of the Bill for preventing the granting of Places in Reversion. He felt that the present moment was not the most auspicious for carrying that salutary measure into effect; but he was not therefore discouraged from; endeavouring to do his duty, and to redeem the pledge which he had given to that effect. There were, besides, many circumstances connected with the present measure, which he could have wished to bring under their lordships consideration at the same time; but neither was the present the moment for entering into that discussion. He should, however, persevere in the line he had chalked out to himself, and persist in moving the second reading of the Bill, let the result be what it might. He knew that it was the intention of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack to oppose his motion, but he trusted that noble and learned lord would not forget that in proposing the suspension of the same bill last session, he had in a great degree acknowledged the justice of its principle. Their lordships well knew that the measure which he had the honour

713
of proposing, originated with the Finance: Committee of the other House; a Committee to which the people at large looked op with confidence for many salutary regulations in the expenditure of the country; and although their patriotic endeavours had net met with the success they deserved (for many difficulties and discouragements had been thrown in their way, perhaps even by those who should rather have promoted, than obstructed the measure), still that Committee had deserved the thanks, and obtained the highest approbation of the people. This it was no more than justice and candour to avow. When a more favourable time arrived, as arrive he trusted it would, he should again bring forward a measure which the public had such just reason to expect would be adopted. The noble earl concluded with moving the second reading of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellornever had said, and never would say that the principle of the Bill was not a good one, and fit to be acted upon; but he objected to it as attempting at the time to carry only one part, and that comparatively but a less important and less urgent part, of a great measure with which the present was but slightly connected. If the power of granting places in reversion were taken from the crown, he was at a loss to see why places in possession might not be taken away also. This power had boon vested in the crown for three, four or five centuries; and had often been exercised for the best of purposes: he was not, therefore, for withdrawing it from the crown, without being sure that such a defalcation from the power of the crown would lead to some general measure of great public utility. Besides, in consequence of the provisions which Parliament had thought proper to introduce into the Regency bill, the power of granting places in reversion was now in abeyance. To agitate the question, therefore, under the present circumstances, would not, in his opinion, lead to any practical good.
Earl Grosvenorbriefly replied; and the question being put, That the bill be read a second time, it was negatived without a division.
The Earl of Liverpoolthen moved, That the Bill be rejected.
Earl Graythought it was going too far to reject the bill, as that implied an hostility to its principle. To this he could not consent, but under the circumstances of
714
the present moment, he should not object to the postponement of the second reading of the bill for six months. At the same time he must observe, that they were much indebted to his noble friend for bringing this subject forward; and he trusted that his noble friend would again press; it at another opportunity.
The Earl of Liverpoolcould not but think, that in consequence of the restrictions now imposed upon that power, in, the hands of the Prince Regent, the bill should for the present be rejected. He had no objection, however, to accede to the opinion of the noble earl.
It was then moved, That the bill be read a second time that day six months; which amendment was agreed to.