the bank is the debtor, and the refufal of payment is the act, not of the bank, but of the govern ment. Sir William Pulteney allowed that fuch was the imperious neceffity that it was an anfwer for any thing which could happen. His principal objection to the bill then before the committee was that it did not state at what time, or whether at any time the bank was to refume its former practice of paying its notes in fpecie: nobody imagined that the bank was to be fhut for ever as to the iluing of specie for paper, and that was the reafon the paper was then fo current; and therefore to continue that currency, a thort period should be inferted in the bill, after which the bank should be allowed to pay in fpecie. The great thing to be confidered was the limitation of time during which the bank was to be reftrained from paying in money; but at prefent there was no time fixed, and all that appeared to refer to that fubject was a claufe at the end of the bill, which gave power to parliament to alter or amend it during the prefent feffion. The attorney-general conceived that its being left to the wisdom of parliament to alter the bill at any time in this feffion, was an aufwer to the objections of the honourable baronet. He contended that the parliament could not at that moment prudently fix the duration of the restriction upon the bank. He then proceeded to answer the objections which Mr. Fox had made to the bill. The withholding of payment in fpecie, he faid, was by no means fo alarming as fome had ftated. He put the cafe of a private banker in whofe hands his customers depofited money for the convepience of their own concerns; they did fo on the faith that he would always have a due proportion of cafl in his poffeffion to anfwer any drafts from day to day they might draw upon him; but they knew very well that, if all his creditors were to come upon him at once, he could not have cafh in poffeffion furficient to anfwer them all; for they all must know that the profits of his bufiness muft confift in laying out at interest and in advantageous commerce a great portion of their property depofited in his hands, in which confifted the profits of the banker. If gentlemen did not apply this obfervation to the cafe before them, he would venture to fay, that they had not duly confidered the fubject then in difcuffion. If a banker was called upon by his cuftomers to make good at once in fpecie the whole of their demands, what was he to do? he certainly could not fatisfy them. He would fay "Here are my funds; look at the value of them; it is true they are not money, but they are convertible into money; you must have known, that if you all came upon me at once I could not pay you all in money." The creditors in fuch a cafe would fay, if they were not obdurate and foolish, "It is not for your intereft nor for ours to diftrefs you; cafh we know cannot be found immediately; we fee your funds are quite fufficient to anfwer our claims, and therefore we will give you time." This, said the attorney-general, is precifely the cafe with refpect to the bank. 66 W. Pulteney and Mr. Fox, in nearly the fame ftrain of reafoning which he had urged before. The claufe, with the amendments, was then adopted. The houfe went into a further committee on the fame bill on the 24th of March. When the claufe which provided for the payment of the army and navy in fpecie came under difcuffion, Mr. Fox granted that their claims upon the public were great, but contended that the claims of the public creditor were at leaft equally fo. Mr. Whitbread faw a good reafon why the navy fhould be paid in fpecie; but why the foldier fhould be paid in cail when the day-labourer and working artificer were to be paid in paper, he could not comprehend, unlcis minifters preferred paying men with arms in their hands in order to call upon them to filence the murmurs of thofe who were unarmed. After the chancellor of the exchequer had defended the claufe, it was agreed to without a divifion. The claufe limiting the duration of the bill being read, the chancellor of the exchequer propofed that the blank fhould be filled up with "the enfuing 24th of June." Mr. Fox moved "that the 1ft of May be fubftituted for the 24th of June." Mr. Sheridan thought it neceffary that there fhould be a claufe to prevent the bank ever again obcy ing fuch an order of council. He then made a fanciful allufion to the bank, as an elderly lady in the city of great credit and long ftanding, who had lately made a faux pas, which was not altogether inexcufa-. ble. She had unfortunately fallen into bad company, and contracted too great an intimacy and conrection at the St. James's end of the town. The young gentleman how ever, who had employed all F "arts of foft perfuafion," to fe duce this old lady, had fo far fhewn his defigns, that by timely breaking off the connection there might be hopes of the old gentlewoman once more regaining her credit, and repairing her injured reputation. He then concluded with fupporting the amendment of Mr. Fox. The houfe divided upon the amendment, ayes 88, noes 218. Mr. Hobart, on the 27th of March, brought up the report of the committee on the bank-bill, upon which the chancellor of the exchequer propofed a claufe, providing that bank-notes fhould be received in payment by the collectors in every branch of the revenue. He had another claufe to propofe, he faid, of great importance. The houfe having refolved itself into a committee, he brought forward his first claufe, "That the collectors of the revenue, &c. fhall receive in payment bank-notes, &c. That this claufe fhall be made part of this bill during the continuance of the reftri&ion on the bank not to iffue cash, &c." Agreed to. The chancellor of the exchequer then propofed the other claufe, the fub: ftance of which was, that if any man offered a bank-note in payment of a demand, that offer thould do away the effect of a personal arreft in the first inftance. The caufe did not go the length of making bank-notes a legal tender, nor take away the power of the creditor to purfue, in courfe of legal procefs, means to obtain payment of his demand in cash, but it hindered him from proceeding to an arcft in the first infiance; it faved the nolder of a bank-note from the inconvenience of giving bai to an action up. on tendering the note. The con dition of the creditor by the claufe was this, that the bank-note ftood as a fecurity for his demand until he fhould, in a due courfe of law, obtain his judgment. The claufe was brought up and read a first time; but upon the question for the fecond reading, Mr. Fox obferved, that by the claufe if one man had a denfand upon another for 1000l. and he proceeded against him, he could have no other fecurity than that of a bank-note; a very good fecurity he hoped it would be, but then if he took it, and owed another the fame fum, and that other did not chufe to take it, he muft incur the penalty which would attend the litigation of that demand. Mr. alderman Curtis fiated, that the clause had been laid before the bankers, and that they were fatis. fed with it. Mr. Fox then moved "That it fhall not be lawful for the bank to iffe any cafh to government by way of loan to any foreign power, pending the operation of the reftriction laid on the bank by the late minute of council.” The chancellor of the exchequer faid, that he felt no objection to the principle of the claufe, but thought there fhould be fome exception introduced into it, conferring a power of iffuing money to a limited amount, fuppofe 600,000l. and that only on the credit of the exchequer bills already authorised by a vote of parliament. The claufe, with the exception, was agreed to. Mr. Nicholls moved for leave to bring up a claufe for limiting the amount of the debts which the bank might be allowed to contract during the continuance of the prefent bill. After fome obfervations from Mr. Pitt and Mr. Thornton, this claufe was put and negatived. The chancellor of the exchequer, on the 31st of March, propofed to add a claufe to the bill, the purport of which was to allow the bank to repay, at different periods, in cath, thefe who might at their difcretion hereafter depofit cafh with the directors of the bank, fo that no more than three-fourths of fuch fums fhould be repaid by the bank in cafh during the continuance of the prefent bill. This claufe was oppofed by Mr. Fox, and ftrongly fupported by Mr. Thornton; after which it was agreed to without a divifion. Mr. Pitt next introduced a claufe to enable the bank, notwithstanding the prefent reftriction, to illue for the accommodation of private bankers and traders in the metropolis a fum in cafh not exceeding 100,000l. which was adopted without a divifion. The report was ordered to be received on the Monday following. On that day, however, it was further poftponed, but the bill was read a third time on the 4th of April. On that day Mr. W. Bird prefented a claufe by way of rider, that in all cafes, where bank-notes might be tendered in payment for rent, it fhould not be lawful for the perfon to whom the rent was due, if he refused fuch tender, to feek a remedy by way of diftrefs. The claufe was brought up and read a first and fecond time; but after fome obfervations made by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Manning, it was negatived without a division. Sir William Pulteney next propofed a claufe, the obje&t of which was to require the bank within a certain fhort period after the palling of the act to come forward, and to declare whether they wished the reftriction to continue, and if they did not, that the prohibition should immediately ceafe. The chancellor of the exchequer oppofed opposed the clause and Mr. Fox fupported it. The houfe divided on the queftion, that the clause be brought up. Noes 79, ayes 43. On the 7th of April, upon a queftion of the duration of the bill, Sir W. Pulteney proposed an amendment to the claufe which limited the bill to the 24th of June, by leaving out that period and fubftituting the 6th of May, which was negatived. The bill was then paffed, and the chancellor of the exchequer was defired to carry the fame to the lords for their concurrence. The bill went through its several flages in the house of lords without any alteration, and was paffed into a law a few days afterwards. The next fubject, which engaged the attention of the houfe of commons relative to this bufinefs was a motion made by fir William Pulteney" for leave to bring in a bill for the establiment of another bank fhould the bank of England not open for payment in fpecie on the 24th of June next." Sir William fubmitted this motion to the house on the 30th of May. He prefaced it with an historical account of the late failure of the bank. He allowed that the monopoly of the bank of England was an obfiacle in the way of his propofal, as its charter did not expire till 1812, and the company took care always to have their charter renewed a confiderable time before the period of its expiration. He did not go fo far as to fay that their ftoppage in the first inftance was a violation of that charter, though confiderable doubts were entertained upon that fubject. But if they fhould not be enabled to open for payment on the 24th of June, there could be no ground for continuing their monopoly any longer; if they fhould at that time open for pay ment in money, his propofal would do no harm, and no fecond bank would be established. At all events, however, he thought, that if another bank were inftituted, it would aid the operations of the old bank. Scotland had two banks, and the affairs of the old one were much more profperous fince the establishment of the new, though all the arguments were previoutly oppofed to it which could be urged against a new bank of England on the prefent occafion. He contended, that the monopoly of the bank was injurious; that an open competition would be of public fervice; that in feveral inftances the directors of the bank had been improvident. They had complained to Mr. Pitt of the high price of gold in Portugal, when that was not the best market for it. The price of gold in Portugal was 41. 8s. 6d. per ounce, when gold could be had at Hamburgh for 31. 1s. 6d. per ounce. Mr. S. Thornton contradicted the statement which had just been given of the price of gold at Hamburgh, and defended the bank upon its prefent plan. After fome obfervations from Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Pitt, the houfe divided-for the motion 15, against it 50. The limits of this publication would not admit of a more extended detail of the parliamentary debates on this fubject; but we shall fubjoin a few remarks on the report of the committee which fat on the affairs of the bank. There is the utmost reafon to believe the report in every respect was a fair one, and the statement must be allowed to be in a great measure fatisfactory. From |