alarm had passed away-with seven years of delay for consideration, before the Bank charter would expire-that noble lord would propose some definitive scheme which should give confidence for the future. The convulsions which the country had sustained under the old system, did mischief far beyond any actual loss that was sustained. It was said that, by the recent failures, the country would lose 2,000,0007. in money; but, the real mischief was in the derangement in the transfers of property which such accidents produced. He viewed the whole of this subject as of the highest importance to the safety of the country; and he trusted that the noble earl, with all the authority which belonged to him, as head of the government, and in virtue of his great talents and personal integrity, would boldly face the subject, and come down to parliament, with some comprehensive plan for esta blishing a firm and solid system of banking.

from following up the course on which they had entered. No man evidently thought more deeply on the subject than the noble earl at the head of the Treasury, nor felt greater apprehensions from the present state of things. As it was impossible to doubt, that the noble earl was in favour of a system of restriction, it was to be regretted that into the present bill, out of which joint-stock banking companies might arise, a provision had not been inserted for the purpose of restricting such companies in their operations. The measure for putting an end to the circulation of small notes at the end of three years, was a measure only of justice and humanity to the poorer classes, and therefore he highly approved of it; but, still, approving of it entirely, as far as its operation went, it was not, he thought, a measure which would reach to the causes of the existing mischief. For, if the noble earl at the head of government, looked at the papers on the table, he would find, that of 3,000,000l. of country-bank paper, The Earl of Liverpool said, that no claissued between last year and the year be- mour, no fear of the resistance they might fore, scarcely 1,000,000l. had been issued meet with, would prevent his majesty's in notes under 51. Therefore, the putting ministers from doing their duty fully with an end to the circulation of 11. and 21. respect to this important subject. He notes was not going far enough. To trusted that their recent conduct was evihim it appeared idle to talk of the dence of their resolution not to shrink convertibility of notes into gold, while from the task which they had prescribed our system of country banking re- to themselves. As to the mode of relief, mained upon its present footing.. If to which the noble lord had objected, his that system was allowed to go on, his firm opposition probably arose from his not persuasion was, that the country banks having turned his attention to questions must ruin the Bank of England itself. In of that nature, and therefore not seeing February of the last year, the Bank of the full bearing and operation of the course England, seeing the foreign exchanges pursued by government. What was the against us, had taken the just course to state of the country? A general want of correct that mischief, by calling in more confidence. It was not that there was than 3,000,000l. of their issues. What not the money; but every man shut up was the consequence? Why, that the his resources, and looked only to himself. country banks had immediately advanced Many banks had already ceased to issue their issues, for every pound which the notes, though they had still the power to Bank of England had withdrawn. Under do so; and, in many other parts the pubsuch a system, it was physically impossible lic had absolutely refused to take them. for the Bank to prevent foreign exchanges There was a general want of confidence, from being against us. At present, the and consequently a want of money. If Bank was compelled to take the risk, not the object of government had been merely only of its own trading, but of the trading to relieve the holders of Exchequer bills, of all the country banks. Its situation it would have been highly improper; but was one of great difficulty, and he was the object was to throw two millions of surprised how it had acquitted itself so money into active circulation, by which, well. It was absolutely necessary to the means they expected to relieve the counsafety of the country, that the currency try better than in any other way. If the should be placed upon a solid foundation. noble lord had attended to the questions He was quite sure that the noble earl of the circulation, in 1819, he would have must feel deep apprehension on the sub- known, that in the committee of that ject; and he trusted that after the present House, their lordships had obtained lights VOL. XIV.

2 K

the propriety of the determination of the
committee.

in the Case of Franks. 501] Mr. Denman wished the committee to inquire into the whole matter, and that Mr. Kenrick's counsel should have an opportunity of addressing the committee, when the evidence was gone through. He should think it his duty, after the inquiry was over, to propose certain reso-opinion, that though the individual had Jutions.

Mr. Secretary Peel thought the better way would be to confine the committee to receiving the evidence. The House was aware that a judge was independent of the Crown, and could be removed only on an address from parliament. It was possible that the House might, in this instance, have to discharge that important duty. He merely supposed the possibility of such a contingency. Was it not, then, better that the House should have all the facts laid before it, and, on a full revision of the case, adopt such were best calculated to answer the ends of justice?

measures

as

Mr. Denman thought that justice would
be more likely to be done, while the pro-
ceeding would be infinitely more satis-
factory to all parties, if a committee of
the whole House inquired into the case
without restriction. Any address to the
Crown to remove a judge, must of course
be the act of the House; but he did not
see why a committee should not so pursue
the inquiry, as to arrive at a termination
which warranted it in reporting its opi-
nion. First, the proof of the charge
would be given, and upon that proof the
committee might or might not report the
charge established. He did not, in fact,
see how the whole inquiry could be dis-
posed of otherwise, and could find no
sufficient reason, why the reported opinion
of the committee, as far as it was of value,
should not have its weight with the whole
House.

The Speaker again pressed upon the
House the necessity of settling the course
of proceeding. He had omitted to state,
that if the committee went through the
whole of the testimony, and registered
its opinion in resolutions, those resolu-
tions, as a matter of course, would be
reported, but unaccompanied by the
If, on the other hand, the
evidence.
committee were confined to the taking of
evidence, that evidence would form the
report, and the House might arrive at its
own decision. It was true, that evidence
could be laid upon the table upon the
motion of any hon. member, but such a
proceeding always implied a doubt as to

Mr. Peel thought, that in so grave a
case, it would be well for the House to
reserve its power till after the committee.
Suppose the committee should be of

not acted quite correct, his conduct had
not been so censurable as to call for his
removal; would it not be desirable to
avoid as much as possible casting a stigma
upon a public functionary so placed? He
thought, upon the whole, the better course
would be for the committee to take the
evidence, that being the sole duty de-
volving upon it, and then report it, the
Of the case, he knew
House reserving to itself any ulterior
consideration.
nothing, and was therefore free from pre-
The
possession and prejudice either way.
Mr. Abercromby saw no substantial
difference between the two courses.
result, in either case, would, in his opi-
nion, be the same; nor did he think that
the accused party would be aggrieved by
adopting the course suggested by his
learned friend. Any case having refer-
ence to the administration of justice could
It ought to be thoroughly
not be inquired into with too much ex-
actness.
sifted; for if the opinions which had been
broached were to be acted upon, namely,
that the House was not authorised to
inquire into the conduct of a judge, it
would be deprived of one of its most
wholesome and important functions.

Mr. Denman said, that another reason for requiring an opinion from the committee was, that in that case counsel might be heard before it in the same manner as his learned friend, Mr. Gurney, had been permitted to address the committee of last session.

The Speaker said, that in either case counsel might be heard: they could be heard before the committee, if the com. mittee were to report their opinion, or before the House, if the House reserved The Hon. William Lamb said, he to itself the consideration of the evidence. could not discover in what way this particular charge was connected with Mr. Kenrick's public character, or judicial duties. In the former inquiry, there was at least an allegation that Mr. Kenrick, as a magistrate, had been guilty of a denial of justice; a public wrong was thus done, and a private injury sustained. When, however, the House was now told, that it was its solemn duty to watch over

mination of the exchanges, should be taken into consideration. Although the circulation of the Bank of England was at present high, yet it was not so high as perhaps for the good of the country, it might be. The exchanges, after all, were what it was most important to attend to; more so than the price of gold, as that was variable, and not easily to be determined. The great object, however, at present, was, to throw money into circu

and that would be more effectually done, in his opinion, by the present measure, than by any other that could be resorted to. It was a far more effectual one than any specific plan that might be suggested for throwing money into the hands of a certain class of individuals. It was a simple measure-a natural measure-and one, in every respect, preferable to that which had been proposed instead of it.

The bill was then read a second time. After which, the earl of Liverpool moved, that it be committed on Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, February 17.

on the subject which never shone on them before. They mostly, he believed, went into the committee, thinking that the issues of the Bank for the purchase of Exchequer bills were much less beneficial to the country than the issues for discounts; but they all came out of that committee satisfied, that there was no difference, in the end, as to the effect, whether the issues were in discounts or in government securities, whether they went in the first instance to particular individuals or the pub-lation throughout the country generally, lic at large. The Bank, it was known, had always acted with the greatest impartiality; but he spoke on high authority when he said, that whether relief was given by one means or by the other, precisely the same effect was produced. The greatest relief that could be given in the most satisfactory and safest way, would be given by the measure that had been adopted. It was not a measure of government, so much as of the Bank; although, he admitted, that it had been adopted with the advice of government; and he, for his part, was ready to take whatever responsibility attached to that advice. And if an addition was, by this measure, made to the circulation of the country, and a facility afforded to a relief of the present pecuniary embarrassments, it would be but fair to repay an equivalent to the Bank for the advances it had made in this way. The circulation of the Bank of England had been frequently, but erroneously, referred to, to determine the amount of the exchanges of the country. This was a mistake of the first Bullion committee. That committee considered the exchanges to depend upon the circulation of the Bank of England; whereas, they did not depend upon the circulation of the Bank alone, but on the circulation of the Bank, and that of the country generally. The whole paper of the country should be taken into consideration. As a proof that this was the case, he remembered a conversation which he had with the noble earl (Lauderdale), in which he remarked, that although the circulation of the Bank was then higher than it had ever been; it was then so high as twentyeight millions-yet that all the exchanges were in our favour. Upon this remark of his the noble earl observed, that as the Bank increased its circulation, the notes of country bankers were withdrawn from circulation. This was a just observation, and satisfied him, that the whole of the circulation of the country, in the deter

CONDUCT OF Mr. KenRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.] The order of the day for going into a committee on the Charge against Mr. Kenrick was read. On the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,"

The Speaker said, that before he quitted the Chair, it was fit that the House should thoroughly understand the course to be pursued in the committee. If the committee were left without any instruction, it would be its duty not only to inquire into the charge by evidence, but to come to some resolution upon it, afterwards to be reported to the House; if, on the other hand, the committee, by a special instruction, were confined only to the taking of evidence, that evidence would be reported without the declaration of any opinion. Thus the result in the two cases would be different, and the course of proceeding would also materially vary. It would be observed also, that no speech from counsel could be heard, if the committee were only to take evidence, though the learned gentlemen might cross-examine the witnesses. there were no restriction on the committee, and the whole subject were left open to its deliberation, then, of course, it would be its duty to listen to counsel on behalf of the party accused.

If

Mr. Denman wished the committee to inquire into the whole matter, and that Mr. Kenrick's counsel should have an opportunity of addressing the committee, when the evidence was gone through. He should think it his duty, after the inquiry was over, to propose certain resoJutions.

the propriety of the determination of the committee.

Mr. Peel thought, that in so grave a case, it would be well for the House to reserve its power till after the committee. Suppose the committee should be of opinion, that though the individual had not acted quite correct, his conduct had Mr. Secretary Peel thought the better not been so censurable as to call for his way would be to confine the committee removal; would it not be desirable to to receiving the evidence. The House avoid as much as possible casting a stigma was aware that a judge was independent upon a public functionary so placed? He of the Crown, and could be removed only thought, upon the whole, the better course on an address from parliament. It was would be for the committee to take the possible that the House might, in this evidence, that being the sole duty deinstance, have to discharge that impor-volving upon it, and then report it, the tant duty. He merely supposed the possibility of such a contingency. Was it not, then, better that the House should have all the facts laid before it, and, on a full revision of the case, adopt such measures as were best calculated to answer the ends of justice?

Mr. Denman thought that justice would be more likely to be done, while the proceeding would be infinitely more satisfactory to all parties, if a committee of the whole House inquired into the case without restriction. Any address to the Crown to remove a judge, must of course be the act of the House; but he did not see why a committee should not so pursue the inquiry, as to arrive at a termination which warranted it in reporting its opinion. First, the proof of the charge would be given, and upon that proof the committee might or might not report the charge established. He did not, in fact, see how the whole inquiry could be disposed of otherwise, and could find no sufficient reason, why the reported opinion of the committee, as far as it was of value, should not have its weight with the whole House.

The Speaker again pressed upon the House the necessity of settling the course of proceeding. He had omitted to state, that if the committee went through the whole of the testimony, and registered its opinion in resolutions, those resolutions, as a matter of course, would be reported, but unaccompanied by the evidence. If, on the other hand, the committee were confined to the taking of evidence, that evidence would form the report, and the House might arrive at its own decision. It was true, that evidence could be laid upon the table upon the motion of any hon. member, but such a proceeding always implied a doubt as to

House reserving to itself any ulterior consideration. Of the case, he knew nothing, and was therefore free from prepossession and prejudice either way.

The

Mr. Abercromby saw no substantial difference between the two courses. result, in either case, would, in his opinion, be the same; nor did he think that the accused party would be aggrieved by adopting the course suggested by his learned friend. Any case having reference to the administration of justice could not be inquired into with too much exactness. It ought to be thoroughly sifted; for if the opinions which had been broached were to be acted upon, namely, that the House was not authorised to inquire into the conduct of a judge, it would be deprived of one of its most wholesome and important functions.

Mr. Denman said, that another reason for requiring an opinion from the committee was, that in that case counsel might be heard before it in the same manner as his learned friend, Mr. Gurney, had been permitted to address the committee of last session.

The Speaker said, that in either case counsel might be heard: they could be heard before the committee, if the com mittee were to report their opinion, or before the House, if the House reserved to itself the consideration of the evidence.

The Hon. William Lamb said, he could not discover in what way this particular charge was connected with Mr. Kenrick's public character, or judicial duties. In the former inquiry, there was at least an allegation that Mr. Kenrick, as a magistrate, had been guilty of a denial of justice; a public wrong was thus done, and a private injury sustained. When, however, the House was now told, that it was its solemn duty to watch over