to foreign states had been paid—if the keeping up a large standing army on the continent had not been necessary— and if we had not had to transport a large army across the Atlantic, the short period which had elapsed since the conclusion of the peace, he was satisfied, would have so completely restored the affairs of the country to their original situation, that the bank would, without delay, have been able to resume their cash-payments. Any gentleman who compared the progressive improvement of the rate of exchange since 1814, would at once be able to discover the truth of this proposition. In January, 1814, the exchange with Hamburgh was at 28; before October it was 32. In January, 1814, the price of gold in doubloons, was 51. 10s. per oz. ; before the end of the year it had fallen to 47. 9s. per oz. The price of silver in the same period had fallen from 6s. 11d. per oz. to 5s. 6d. With these favourable prospects, he thought he should not be presuming too much in anticipating such a favourable change by July, 1816, as would ensure a return to the old currency of the country. He held an account in his hand which would shew the enormous expenditure of specie which within the last few years had been made on the continent by this country. In 1811, the foreign payments were 15,182,000l.; in 1812, 18,533,000l.; in 1813, 22,931,000l.; and in 1814, 31,284,000l. In the face of such an expenditure he thought it was not extraordinary that restrictions should be placed on the cash-payments of the bank; but now that they might be considered as in a great measure stopped, if no new cause should occur to render their continuance necessary, it was but natural to suppose that these sums would revert to their old channel; and if this should be the case, there was no doubt that, by the

period he had fixed, the bank would resume its payments in specie."

Mr Horner, in arguing for the motion, was led to state his opinion as to the effect of the bank restrictions on the currency of the country. He said, that "the great principle on which he had always rested the question was, that so long as the standard currency of a country remained unvaried, however that standard might be expressed, no change in its real value could affect its relative value to other commodities. Whenever depreciation had once begun, then it was possible for commercial or other circumstances to affect the value of gold; but he had never supposed that when gold was at 5. 11s., or, as it had once been, at 5l. 14s., that this rise was solely attributable to an excess of paper circulation, or that the apparent depreciation was the true measure of the excess in the issues of the bank. What he conceived to be the true solution of the difficulty was, that a depreciation having taken place from excess, an opening had been made for the operation of other causes, which were now in a great measure removed. These causes were the occupation of commercial countries by immense armies, the consequent distress and discredit, together with the greatly augmented remittances made from one part of Europe to another. The effect produced by the change of circumstances was to bring back the price of gold to between 41. 9s. and 4. 11s.; precisely what it was in 1810. The exchanges now, though really in our favour, were nominally against us 8 or 9 per cent. ; and here he begged to ask, could this appearance be explained, but in a depreciation in the value of our domestic currency? The extraordinary circumstance adverted to, of the price of gold falling in the course of last year to 41. 4s. he ascribed to the then situation

public. In the next place, the bank derives an emolument from the management of the national debt. All the transfers of stock are made, and all the dividends to the public creditors are paid by the bank,-on which transactions the bank receives a commission. In consideration of the benefits which the bank receives from its charter, and of the emoluments derived from the management of the public business, they have at different times made advances to the public on more favourable terms than ordinary loans. In 1800, when they obtained a renewal of their charter for 21 years, they advanced to the public three millions for six years without interest; and, at the end of that period, they renew ed this loan till 1814, at three per cent., thus giving the public an allow. ance of two per cent on the interest. In 1800, they also continued the loan then existing, of eleven millions and a half, for twenty-one years, at three per cent. And lastly, in 1808, they made a further advance of three millions, without interest, till the 5th of April, 1816. These advances, however, were considered as a very inadequate remuneration for the advantages which the bank derived from its relations with government; and Mr Grenfell, on the 19th of April, moved for such accounts as might be necessary for ascertaining the amount of the profits made by the bank, and of the compensation made for these profits to the public. These accounts were ordered on the 26th of April. On the 13th of June, Mr Grenfell moved a series of resolutions, stating his views of the amount of the public balances in the hands of the bank ; of the profits derived from these balances, and from the commission on the management of the national debt; and of the remuneration made by the bank for these emoluments; the whole tending to shew the inadequacy of the remuneration

to the emoluments. On the 26th of June, a series of counter resolutions were moved by Mr Mellish; and it was agreed, that the discussion on both these sets of resolutions should take place at the same time. Nothing further took place this session, which rose soon afterwards; but the result of this enquiry will be found among the proceedings of the following session.

On the 13th of March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward a proposition for putting an end to the exclusive privileges enjoy. ed by the South-Sea Company. He took a view of the establishment of this company, and stated, that it possessed the exclusive privilege of trading to America, from the river Oroonoko, round Cape Horn to the north-west coast of that continent. This exclusive privilege had for many years been of no advantage to that company; but South America having become at last open to us, it might become a great obstacle to our commerce. He therefore had to state the terms on which the company were willing to sell it to the country. The company had lent all its capital to the government, for which they received 3. per cent.; and they also obtained a further dividend of per cent. on their capital, by acting as agents for government in the payment of the dividends of such part of the public debt as existed in 1721. By the act of 1813, which would cancel all the national debt which existed before the establishment of the sinking fund, they would lose that per cent. They therefore consented to abandon their exclusive privilege of trade, on condition that the government would guarantee this percent, or about 18,000l. a year to them. For this income it was his intention to propose the creation of a fund, by a duty on tonnage of ships trading to South America,

and on the export of goods thither, to the amount of 21. per cent. The fund necessary would be 400,000l. ; when that sum was accumulated, the duty would be repealed. A duty of 4. per cent. on goods shipped to South America would expire on the 16th of March, so that a renewal of only half that duty would be necessary. He concluded by moving the resolutions necessary for carrying the above object into effect. A long and irrelevant discussion ensued on the contest for the emancipation of South America from Spain, after which a conversation arose upon the proposition of a tax of 2 per cent. upon all goods exported from Great Britain or Ireland to South America, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Finlay, and Mr Alderman Atkins took part. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that the produce of this tax was to be applied in aid of a fund to indemnify the South-Sea Company, and that it was to cease when that indemnity was discharged. The two latter objected to it, as inconsistent with our commercial policy, by im. posing a tax upon our exported manufactures. The several resolutions were then agreed to, and an act of parliament, in pursuance of them, was soon afterwards passed.

In the course of this session, several attempts were made for improving the jurisprudence of Britain, with different degrees of success. Sir Samuel Romilly again brought forward, on the 14th of February, his bill for making the freehold estates of persons dying in debt liable for these debts, which in the preceding session had been passed by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords. On this occasion he made several valuable observations: He said, that "a law like that now in force in England was not to be found in any other country. That law was not in fact extended to the

whole of his majesty's dominions. It was not acted upon in our West Indian colonies and other of our foreign dominions. Some of the objections which had been urged to his bill, he was certain were quite unfounded, and had been advanced by persons who had not taken the trouble to give the subject that consideration which it deserved. After answering some of the arguments of those who had opposed the former bill, he described that which he wished to effect to be this; to give simple contract creditors the same remedy which is open to specialty creditors. He did not mean to place them on the same footing, but merely to allow the simple contract creditors to come in, after the specialty creditors had been paid. This, he contended, would throw no obstacle in the way of selling estates; and the objections that this measure would give greater facilities for young men of fortune to obtain credit, he answered, by shewing that it was not probable a young man of fortune would be more readily trusted by an older man, because he might recover from his estate on his death; and by asserting that the evil to which he wished to direct the attention of parliament, could never be effectually remedied but in a court of equity. He thought it right to state on this occasion, that it was his opinion that much more than would be done by this measure ought to be done, to give the creditor the benefit of the debtor's property. It was not probable that he should pursue the subject further, but he hoped it would be taken up by others more fortunately circumstanced than he had been, and with better success. Much alteration in the law appeared to him to be wanting. He did not hesitate to say, that the law of England, on the subject in question, had gone on an erroneous principle. It had been distinguished by extraordinary rigour against the

person, and by great relaxation with respect to his property. It punished inability to pay a debt as a crime, but did not take those measures which might be taken to prevent the offence. It imprisoned the debtor for not applying his property to meet the demands of his creditors, but did not apply that property for him, to the payment of his debts in cases where this could be done." Leave was given to bring in the bill, which was presented and read a first time; but no further progress was made in it during the present session.

On the 11th of April, Mr Serjeant Best moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws respecting insolvent debtors. The severity of the former laws of England relative to imprisonment for debt, had been much mitigated by the acts for the relief of insolvent debtors passed in 1813 and 1814; one of the leading provisions of which was, that an insolvent debtor, on making a full disclosure of his property, was entitled to be liberated at the end of three months. This enactment, highly satisfactory as it was to the public at large, yet appeared to the learned serjeant to be attended with the evil of injuring credit ;-as, by giving the same facility to the dishonest as to the honest debtor, to obtain his liberty at the expiration of three months' imprisonment, it rendered it impossible for tradesmen any longer to know whom to trust. The object of the bill now brought in was, in the first place to extend the provisions of the act of Geo. II., (by which it was enacted, that persons imprisoned for debt should be obliged to give up their property for the benefit of their creditors, under the penalty of transportation,) from debts under 100l. to debts of any amount; and secondly, to distinguish, in giving relief to insolvent debtors, whether they belonged to the class of unfortunate or frau

dulent. His mode of making this very nice and difficult distinction, was the following: He said, that "the only way of separating the honest from the dishonest debtor, would be to introduce some sort of scale, by which the claim to the advantages of the act might be regulated. Such a scale he had prepared for the consideration of the House. He had to propose, that if the debtor was found in a condition to pay 15s. in the pound, he should be entitled to his discharge at the expiration of three months. If he should from the improvident management of his affairs, be only in a condition to pay 10s. in the pound, then he thought his imprisonment should extend to a longer period, namely, to twelve months. Again, if the debtor, by expending that which he must know belonged to others, was unable to pay 10s. in the pound, such a man, he thought, ought to be imprisoned two years, twelve months of which should be passed within the walls of a prison, and not as at present, in what were called the rules. And lastly, if a man was entirely insolvent, and without the hope of paying any portion of his debts, he considered it was but proper that he should be kept within the walls of a prison for two years. It would naturally occur, that there were many cases in which a prisoner might be in no condition, from misfortunes not originating in his own vices, to pay any thing in liquidation of bis debts. To such an individual he by no means wished the scale which he had stated to apply; it should, therefore, be open in all cases for the debtor to prove by his own oath, supported by other satisfactory evidence, whether his distresses were attributable to imprudence or misfortune, and if he was able to establish the latter, then he should extremely lament his detention in custody beyond the time that was necessary to prove the fact."