MR. ALDERMAN WOOD said, that the chief object of the intended Meeting was to stimulate the counties by an example. As such, he should vote for the motion without any hesitation. himself was, in the plenitude of his power, purposes of political discussion to any perauthorised to grant the permission, of him- sons, save the Livery of London, for self, which was now the subject of an ap-whose use on such occasions it was excluplication to the Court. He, however, sively reserved. commended the moderation shewn by his Lordship, in defering to the sense of the Court, which, he had no doubt, possessed the fullest authority for the purpose. There was nothing new or unprecedented in granting the use of Guildhall for purposes unconnected with the immediate concerns of the Corporation of London. Having expatiated shortly on the importance and necessity of a moderate Parliamentary Reform, as indispensable to restore the rights and privileges of the people, and to maintain independent the just prerogatives of the Crown, he moved that the prayer of the Petition be granted. Mr. FAVEL Seconded the Motion, and supported the arguments of the Mover, observing, that the present was a moment the most propitious that had ever occurred for the obtainment of an object, the necessity of which had been avowed by those Statesmen to whose memory the City of London had raised splendid monuments particularly the great Lord Chatham, and his 300, Mr. Pitt; and in favour of which, his Royal Highness the Prince Regent had, almost in the very first public Act of his Government, marked his sentiments, by refusing to co-operate in any traffic of place or power for Parliamentary influence. Mr. DIXON opposed the motion, and sincerely wished that those men of great landed property who had signed this petition, would pause in their career, and take a lesson from France. Mr. JACKS declared himself a friend to Parliamentary Reform, to a certain extent; but he would not go the length of certain Reformers, who seemed to have no definite plan. Mr. ALDERMAN BIRCH observed, that the Gentleman who introduced and supported this Petition, professed to do so on constitutional principles. He thought a Petition signed by so many respectable Gentlemen of great landed property was entitled to all due respect and consideration: but he begged to observe, that if they wished to act constitutionally upon this topic, the only proper mode for them to proceed in was, by discussing the subject within their several counties, and taking the sense of the freeholders there respectively. It was contrary to all precedent for the Corporation of London to grant the use of their Guildhall for the MR. BOAK said a few words, which we could not collect. MR. SPENCER had received no notice on the subject of the present meeting: he thought it was very plain that the Court had been crammed with friends, and that in a clandestine manner, to the present motion, and therefore he should vote against it. They were afraid to meet the public voice, and therefore they had recourse to this mean and unmanly subter. fuge. MR. WHEBLE was for the motion. ALDERMAN SIR W. CURTIS thought the question was, whether such a question ought to be discussed in the capital of the Empire. What could be the consequence of such a question? Who could tell how the peace of the city could be preserved! Who could say what questions would be agitated? (hear, hear.) The Court ought to consider that they were going to assemble the people on a disputed point-going to assemble them on a question on which no two were agreed. They were going to grant the use of their Hall in the very heart of the City to men who could not agree even on their own question. With respect to what had been said as to the House of Commons, he had no hesitation in affirming that they spoke the sense of the people. He was as willing as any man to allow that there were some points which ought to be reformed, but still he hoped that such reformation would begin with the House of Commons, itself. (hear, hear.) As to the present question, if he, as a chief magistrate, was asked to give the Hall for such a purpose; as a Chief Magistrate, he would consider himself bound to say, "I will not consent to it." The present summons had not been given openly. Let those who were interested, adjourn the question till those who had a competent opinion were present. In order to give those who wished for such a proceeding an oppportunity, he should move "to adjourn the question till the next Court." MR. WAITHMAN was very willing, if such a delay was necessary, to agree to another Court, but he did not think it was. LIST OF THE MINORITY. COMMONERS-Box, Farr, R. Elliott, Bent, Laing, Hardy, Boak, Harper, Pearson, Atkinson, Bickerstaff, Bartrum, Hammond, Garrett, Stokes, Langton, Birch, Bate, Rea, Dyster, Keril, Johnstone, Paynter, Patterson, Spencer, Chapman, Angel, Vandercombe, Ross, Clarke, Jacks, Hughes, Hale, Ryder. TELLERS-S. Dixon, Lucas. LIST OF THE MAJORITY. ALDERMEN-Combe, Wood, Domville, Goodbehere, Plomer. ex MR. DIXON hoped, that the country would exist for many ages after both he and the Hon. Gentleman who had pressed so desponding an opinion were gone. The arms of this country were not only competent to support our own liberty, but to carry the liberty of England into other nations. This Lord Wellington had proved. SIR C. PRICE and SIR JAMES SHAW spoke against the motion. MR. SLADE was for the motion. There was in his opinion no riot to be apprehended; but still, if there was, he thought that the single voice of the Lord Mayor was sufficient to allay it. The motion was then put :-Ayes 80.Noes 45.-Majority 35. COMMONERS-Winter, Winbolt, Griffith, Dawson, Wheble, Reeves, Pontifex, Colebatch, Reeve, White, Dornford, Favell, (teller,) Waithman, Slade, Quin, (teller,) Miller, Crouch, Fisher, Paxton, King, Briscoe, Adams, Wright, Young, Rolls, Carter, Hurcombe, Aberton, Kirby, Gale, Roberts, Pearsall, Betts, Elliott, Dunnett, Daw, Wilson, Rankin, Brown, Blundell, Wiltshire, Margary, Smith, Wadd, Smith, (Cheap,) Phillips, Griffiths, Heygate, Cheesewright, Crockett, Wright, Roberts, R D. Brewer, Judkins, Pullen, Walker, Cooke, Clode, Davies, Loxley, Bedford, Pownall, Wigan, Howell, Drinkan, Taddy, Fenton, Dixon, (Cripplegate,) Waterhouse, Schroder, Ashley, N. Davis, Cart BULLION DEBATE. What was the extent of the difference, or under what circumstances it might be increased or diminished, was another question; but that there was a difference between gold in coin and gold in bullion, was a point upon which he could hardly think it possible to entertain a doubt, as long as the present system of our coinage laws remained in force. It might be argued, that that system was a bad one, and that it ought to be changed. Some Gentlemen had advanced that opinion in effect, if not in terms. They thought that it would be wise and politic to remove all the impediments which the laws at present threw in the way of the exportation of our coin. If the Legisla ture were to adopt that opinion, and to repeal all the laws now existing upon the subject, and if the guinea were to circulate abroad precisely for the same value that it did at home, in that case, and in that case only, would the proposition be true, that there was no difference between gold in coin and gold in bullion. But the question, as it appeared to him, could only be properly decided by taking the facts as they did really exist, and not as some Gentlemen might think they ought to exist. Now what were the real facts of the case? This country was under the necessity, from the nature of the war in which it was from necessity engaged, to carry on extensive military operations which required that a considerable quantity of gold should be sent out of the country. By the law, as it now stood, gold in coin could not be applied to this purpose, because it prohibited, under severe penalties, the sending it abroad. If then gold must be employed, and you could not send it in coin, it followed of course that you must send it in the shape of bullion. This circumstance created an increased demand for bullion, and therefore gave it a higher value than gold in coin. Was it then true that gold in bars and gold in coin was of the same value! His Hon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson) certainly had advanced that opinion, and seemed to think gold was natural money, and of the same value in whatever shape; but the fact was, that coin was not of the same value abroad as bullion, because it could not be exported; and bullion was not of the same value at home as coin, because it was not a legal tender. He therefore contended, that there was no proof before the Committee that the paper money of the Bank of England was depreciated in the sense in which he understood and had explained that term; that is to say, that the Bank note bore the same relative value to a guinea that it always did, for all the purposes for which a guinea was legally applicable. If the paper of the Bank, which was only intended for internal circulation, was equal to the guinea considered only with a view to internal circulation, for which it was also exclusively intended, then most assuredly the Bank paper could not be said to be depreciated in value. All therefore, that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Huskisson) had said about the superior value of a light guinea to a heavy one, which appeared so very ingenious to an Hon. Gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Parnell), had, in fact, no bearing upon the real question. Because if a guinea from the deficiency of weight was put completely out of cir culation, it lost its character of coin, and thereby became bullion; and then, for the reason he had just stated, it would ac quire an additional value. Much had been said about the word "standard," and some Gentlemen on the other side had displayed a strong desire to be facetious upon the subject. If he were asked what he understood by that word? he should say that he did not consider gold as a standard or silver as a standard, but he understood gold and silver bound down by law to a particular and relative value with each other; not gold alone, but gold tied down to a given relation to silver, which also made part of the general standard. And here he begged to make an observation or two with regard to the literal accuracy of the first proposition of the Hon. Gentleman :-If the House were called upon to record a solemn statement of the law of the country, they ought undoubtedly, to take care that that statement was accurate. Now the assertion in the Resolution was not strictly true; it as serted, that the only money that could be tendered in Great Britain above the value of twelve pence must be gold or silver; and that the amount at which it was to pass current was to be fixed by the King's prerogative. This was not, strictly speak ing, the law; because silver to the amount of 251. was a legal tender, though it was not of standard weight. Now, as 999 out of every 1000 payments in this country did not exceed that sum, it would be most improper for Parliament to record upon its Journals as a truth, a proposition which was erroneous in such an immense ma jority of cases.-Gentlemen had talked about scales which regulated the silver and gold coin. But with regard to silver, there was no law which said that a shilling should not be current when it was under the standard weight; on the contrary, up to the extent of 251. it might by law be circulated, if not of standard weight. But there was another point to be observed with regard to silver. It was legal to tender to any amount shillings at 5s. 2d. an ounce, yet the price of silver in bullion was 5s. 11d. an ounce. He mentioned those as facts which certainly ought not to be lost sight of in the consideration of the present question. He knew how much the patience of the House was exhausted, and therefore he would confine himself as much as he could to the most important points of the case.-The really important question then for Parliament to determine, sources of wealth which enabled this coun try to make exertions proportioned to the exigencies of the awful period in which we lived? And for what object was Parliament to incur the risk of all these dreadful calamities? Why, for the purpose of making an experiment to bring the rate of exchange nearer to par!!! But the Gentlemen on the other side, in calling upon Parliament to be guided by the wis dom of our ancestors, had referred parti was this, what ought they to do? What, under all the circumstances of the case, would it be wise and politic for them to do? This at least was his view of the object to which their deliberations ought to be directed; and he thought he acted with wisdom in referring to the conduct of our ancestors in circumstances which were considered to be similar to the present, as a guide for our conduct under all difficulties of the country. He did not differ from those Gentlemen who main-cularly to the events in 1796 and 1797. tained as an abstract proposition, that a If there was any one passage in the report dimunition of Bank paper would have a which excited his astonishment more than tendency to diminish the balance of ex- another; if there was one part of it more change; it would probably produce that unguarded, more inaccurate, more uneffect; but it would be at the expence of founded, than another, it was that which the most dreadful calamities to the coun- referred to the transactions of the period try. The case of the French bank, at a alluded to. Unless he totally misunderformer period, had been referred to. In stood the question, the case which had that case, the Bank had involved itself in been quoted, if it applied at all to the predifficulties from an over-issue of paper; sent question, made directly against the the Directors diminished the quantity of arguments of those by whom it had been their paper, and the consequence was, adduced. [Mr. Perceval read an extract that the credit of the Bank was restored; from that part of the Bullion Report, and it was also said that the diminution of which stated, that soon after the establishthe paper had had an effect upon the ex- ment of the Bank of England its notes change. The latter part of the statement were depreciated, and considerable emmight be true, but he very much doubted barrassments ensued, and that those emit. The original capital of that bank was barrassments had been removed by a new two millions; it had issued paper to the coinage, and by reducing the quantity of amount of four millions, which had in- Bank notes. The two operations then, in volved it in embarrassments; to relieve the opinion of the Committee which rewhich it withdrew two millions from cir- lieved the Bank in 1693 and 1697, were culation, and it was not very probable the coinage, and the diminution of the that such a sum could affect the general number of Bank notes, and this was reexchange of France. But the Hon. Gent. commended to the notice of the House as who had adverted to this bank admitted, a case in point. He begged to observe, that though the narrowing its circulation however, that if it was a case in point, had removed its difficulties, yet it pro- that that case had occurred when there duced very great embarrassments among was no restriction upon the cash payments the commercial part of the community. of the Bank. But it was said there was The bank, said he, had the courage to at that time an excess in the issue of Bank narrow its circulation; or in other words, notes, he could hardly believe that the it had the courage to take care of its own Bank would so soon after its establishment interests, without any regard to those of issue more notes than was necessary; the the community. Was that the principle real fact was not that the Bank had issued which he would recommend Parliament to more notes than were necessary, but that adopt in the present instance? But if the they had issued more than their credit withdrawing of two millions from the cir- would bear. Now, what were the remeculation in France, bad produced such dies? First, the coinage. The new coindisastrous consequences to her trade, what age certainly did turn the balance of exwould be the effect in this country under change in our favour, because almost the all the circumstances of the present times, whole of it immediately found its way out if the Bank of England were to withdraw of the country. In three years not a shilits paper, paper which it had been saidling of it was left in the kingdom; and he formed the whole circulating medium of the country? Would it not ruin the manufacture? Would it not destroy the agriculture? Would it not dry up all those begged to observe, that this new coinage cost not less than between two and three millions. The other remedy applied was the diminution of the Bank notes. Now, what was the fact? The capital of the and he had no hesitation in saying the Bank originally was 1,200,000l.: in or- measure adopted was wisely preferred to der to relieve its embarrassment, the capi- any other. On the subject of the ex tal was augmented to two millions, and the changes, there was one point which he subscription for the additional 800,000l. wished to bring before the Committee. was to be paid four-fifths in Exchequer How was it possible the principle of the tallies, and one-fifth in Bank notes; so far, Bullion Committee could be right, namely, therefore, the Gentlemen were right; one- that the excess and depreciation of Bank fifth of the value of 800,000l. in notes was paper could occasion all the difficulties taken out of circulation: but by the very which had occurred within the few years same operation the Bank were authorised which had elapsed since the passing of to issue 800,000l. in fresh notes, so that the Bank Restriction Act? That Act, as the dimmution of paper, which had pro- they all knew, was made in 1797. No duced such beneficial effects, consisted in alteration in the exchange was felt for withdrawing about 160,000l. worth of some time; but in the years 1800 and notes, and issuing fresh ones to the value 1801 the scarcity of, and great demand of 800,000l.!! This was the precedent for coin, occasioned a great sensation in which the Committee had recommended the exchanges, and a great increase in the to be followed in the present instance, for price of bullion. The scarcity, however, the purpose of diminishing the quantity which was felt in 1800 and 1801 ceased of paper in circulation! (Mr. Perceval in 1802, and the pressure which it had read an extract From Tindal's Continua- caused ceased also, or at least was dimition of Rapin, which stated that the great nished in a very considerable degree. He commercial embarrassments in the reign would now call the attention of the Com of King William had been relieved by an mittee to the eleventh_resolution of his issue of paper)-The Right Hon. Gentle- Right Hon. Friend. "That the average man then took a view of the case of Ire- price of wheat in the year 1798, was 50s. land in 1804, which had been so often al- 3d.; in 1799, 67s. 5d.; in 1800, 115s. 7d.; luded to. The evil then complained of in 1801, 118s. 3d.; and in 1802, 67s. 5d. arose, not from excess of paper, but from That the exchange with Hamburgh was a want of confidence. That it was not the in January, 1798, 32s.; January, 1799, effect of an excess of paper was proved, 37s. 7d.; January, 1800, 32s.; and Januby the circumstance of its being cured ary, 1801, 29s. 8d. being in the whole a before any diminution of paper had fall of 22 per cent. In January, 1802, taken place. Subsequently there was a 32s. 2d.; and December, 1802, 34s. Now small diminution in the paper currency, from the history of those five years, and and then the exchange became unfa- the manner in which the exchanges revourable to Ireland. He did not mean to covered when the scarcity with had led say that this was caused by the reduction to the pressure of them had ceased, he of paper, though afterwards, when the thought with an extraordinary foreign exissues of paper increased, their exchange penditure for the last few years, occawas greatly recovered. From the view sioned by the war in Spain, and expences which he took of the subject, he appre- incurred in the Baltic, the effect produced hended that there could be nothing found on the exchanges might reasonably be in the three cases mentioned, those of the ascribed to causes similar to those from Bank of Ireland, the Bank of France, and which the evil was known to arise before. the Bank of England, that could encourage The Committee did condescend to admit them to adopt the line of conduct recom- that these causes might, in some measure, mended by the Committee. It was quite contribute to the effect produced; but impossible for him to go through all the they could not deny this; they would not points on which he could wish to speak, allow them their due weight. The rehe therefore would confine himself merely sumption of cash payments was impossito those which it might seem improper for ble. Gold could not be procured, and if him to pass by. Adverting to what had it could, the Bank would immediately be been said with respect to the dollars, he drained of it, without any advantage to the wished to know what those who censured public; and that proposed as a remedy the late proceeding were of opinion should would but aggravate the evil, and accelehave been done on such an occasion?eate that it was their most anxious wish to That a something was necessary to be rvoid. Under these circumstance, howdone, he believed no one could deny; aver, the rational Resolution proposed by |