If this be true of enquiries conducted by individuals, how much more so must it be of those pursued by a number of persons? If a Committee of thirty-two come together, to investigate a subject without a common understanding, each must proceed upon his own views, and the probability is, that there will be thirty-two investigations instead of one. As a mere matter of business, it seems absolutely necessary that there should be a previous general agreement by such a body, as to the objects to which they are to direct their attention, in order best to fulfil the instructions under which they act.

With the enquiry under consideration, some such previous understanding was rendered still more necessary, inasmuch as the subject possessed a variety of branches, all bearing, indeed, upon one practical result, but in their nature totally separate and distinct from each other. And it is a common rule of life, consistent with every day's experience, that if we attempt to do more than one thing at once, we shall never do any thing well.

Notwithstanding the ability and good sense possessed by many members of the Committee, if not by the whole of them, their conduct as a body does not appear to entitle them to these appellatives; for it seems that they commenced their proceedings without any of these necessary preliminaries; they had no hypothesis

no common understanding whatever, and each member was consequently left to his own discretion as to the enquiries he chose to make. One, therefore, as may be inferred from the questions, appears to have had one object in view; another, another; and some probably no object at all, or at least none of any importance.

Hence the enquiries have very little connexion, few of them have much reference to the special instructions of the House; the whole is a perfect chaos, and the greater part of the evidence of no value whatever. The questions indeed are very sensible, and the answers are very sensible. Sensible men are not likely to ask very foolish questions, or give very foolish answers on any subject. But generally speaking, it will be found that both the questions and the answers are anything but calculated to lead to any useful conclusions, with reference to the main object for which the Committee was appointed.

As to the chief subject referred to themnamely, the principle on which Banks of Issue are conducted, they ascertained that the country Banks conducted their issues on no principle whatever, and there their enquiries ended; and with respect to the Bank of England, though they did ascertain that they conducted their issues upon certain principles, they never attempted to analyze the merits of these principles. They never enquired how far they were sound

in theory and beneficial in practice, with a view to determine whether the system was good, or in what degree it was capable of improvement; but contented themselves with calling before them a certain number of gentlemen, and ascertaining their opinions upon these points. As if the House of Commons would settle these important particulars by opinions only, without reference to facts or principles.

These gentlemen, it must also be observed, were chiefly Bankers, Bill Brokers, and others, who were interested in maintaining the existing order of things, and, as might be expected, were unanimous in thinking the system could not be much improved. There was one London Stock Broker, and some gentlemen from Manchester, indeed, who held opinions different to this. But the majority of the witnesses, being directly or indirectly interested in the support of the existing system, the weight of their testimony was decidedly in favour of its being as near perfection as possible.

The parties who gave this testimony were in general very wealthy men, as well as men of great good sense, of which latter, the tenor of their evidence will by many be considered a significant proof. But there is another circumstance which must likewise be mentioned. The Committee was a secret one, and these gentlemen were not in possession of the facts on which

they were asked to give an opinion. For instance, they were consulted as to the goodness of the rules or system of management exercised by the Bank, though it is much to be doubted whether any one of them knew very precisely what these rules were. And as it has never been pretended that this great question can be settled by instinct, such opinions cannot of themselves be of any value.

From such enquiries, therefore, little good can be expected. But still the Report contains information which may be turned to useful account, and upon this information we shall take the liberty of making such imperfect remarks as have occurred to us. And,

First. With regard to the Country Bank circulation. It has been found by experience to increase and decrease with a general rise and fall of prices. Now the Country Bankers are of opinion that it is the rise and fall of prices that produces the increase and diminution of their issues-that their issues are the effect of prices, and not the cause. But this, though apparently consistent with experience, is contrary to received principles, by which it has been established, that it is the quantity of money in circulation which regulates prices, and not prices which regulate the quantity of money. Now an enquiry, properly conducted, into the

in theory and beneficial in practice, with a view to determine whether the system was good, or in what degree it was capable of improvement; but contented themselves with calling before them a certain number of gentlemen, and ascertaining their opinions upon these points. As if the House of Commons would settle these important particulars by opinions only, without reference to facts or principles.

These gentlemen, it must also be observed, were chiefly Bankers, Bill Brokers, and others, who were interested in maintaining the existing order of things, and, as might be expected, were unanimous in thinking the system could not be much improved. There was one London Stock Broker, and some gentlemen from Manchester, indeed, who held opinions different to this. But the majority of the witnesses, being directly or indirectly interested in the support of the existing system, the weight of their testimony was decidedly in favour of its being as near perfection as possible.

The parties who gave this testimony were in general very wealthy men, as well as men of great good sense, of which latter, the tenor of their evidence will by many be considered a significant proof. But there is another circumstance which must likewise be mentioned. The Committee was a secret one, and these gentlemen were not in possession of the facts on which