During the discussions upon this measure, several hints were thrown out as to the courts of law setting their faces against those who should demand payment in gold. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY observed upon what Mr. Manning said about the law being too strong for the landlords, that it alarmed him to hear such language; and that he thought it dangerous in the extreme to expose men to such uncertainty as to the real meaning of the law. But, Mr. FULLER and Lord STANHOPE, as appears from the reports in the news-papers, came to the point at once. The former is reported to have said, in the debate of the 9th of July, that he wondered to hear "any doubt of the solvency of the Bank, "as it was to be supported by the solvency of Government; and Government I surely had ships and stores, and plenty "of valuables besides. He (Mr. Fuller) "did not understand the objects of the persons who had brought forward the question, but he was convinced they "were something sinister. (A laugh.) As "to Bank-notes, if any landlord was "offered payment in them, and he wanted gold, he (Mr. Fuller) did not know what "might be done; but of this he was sure, "that THE WHOLE TENANTRY OF "THE COUNTRY WOULD MEET " AND TOSS HIM IN A BLANKET. (laughing.)" And the latter is reported to have said, in the House of Lords, on the 22nd of July, that " his Noble Friend "(Earl of Lauderdale) had called the Bitl "a legislative HINT: but it was a pretty "broad hint, too. He did not know whe"ther his Noble Friend had been educated "at any of the Universities: but, he be"lieved, not at Oxford. There was a "story there about a broad hint, which "they called " John Keale's broad hint." "There was a man that John Keale did "not like: John gave him a hint that he "did not like his company : but he "would not go away. "What did you ""do, then," says one to John?" Do," "says John Keale, "why, I kicked him

"and if he followed up this business, why, "when next Session came, he would give " him a BROAD hint! (a laugh.)" Quite a wit, I declare: "Quite a sea-wit, Mr. "Benjamin!" Well, you know, Gentlemen, that there is a time for all things, and, of course, a time for laughing. But, it is well worthy of remark, that this war (for it is the same that began in 1793) was waged for the "PRESERVATION "OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY "AGAINST REPUBLICANS AND LE"VELLERS," that was the title of the Association at the Crown and Anchor. This is well worthy of remark; now is the time to make such remark. This war has now been going on eighteen years; this war for the support of order and law and property, and now, behold, we hear, in the two houses of parliament, the supporters of this system, talk of tossing a landlord in a blanket and kicking him down stairs, if he should persist in demanding payment of his rents agreeably to the contract in his leases!

Gentlemen, if you have read the reports of the debates in parliament, upon this subject, you must have observed, that the people in the ministry have very loudly disapproved of the conduct of LORD KING for demanding of his tenants payment in gold, or in notes in sufficient amount to make up for the depreciation of money. Now, observe; they have brought forward, several times, propositions for large grants to the King and to others, on account of the rise in prices, which, as I have already explained to you, is only another name for the depreciation of money. I beg you to mark well what I am now going to state to you; because it will give you a clear insight into this whole matter.

In 1802, eight years ago, a large sum of money, no less a sum than 990,0531. (why not have made it a round million ?) was granted by parliament "to the King "to discharge the arrears and debts due apon the CIVIL LIST on the 5th of January, 1802." The Civil List, Gentlemen, is the King's establishment of servants and officers of different sorts, and, in short, of all his expences. The King had a permanent allowance, fixed by Act of Parliament, of 800,000l. a year for these purposes; but, in 1802 (the time

since the Bank stopped its payments in gold and silver. The first was, in the year 1799, two years only after the passing of our famous Bank Restriction Act. The two Chief Judges, whose incomes were very large, underwent no augmentation by Act of Parliament; but, the pay of all the rest was augmented by the Act, Chapter 110, of the 39th year of the King's reign; and, no trifling augmentation did their pay receive, it being upon an average nearly, if not quite, half the whole amount of their former pay. The Chief Baron of the Exchequer had £.1,000 a year added to his former £3,000 a year; and all the nine Puisne Judges had £1,000 each added to their former pay, which was, in some cases a little more and in some cases a little less than £.2,000 a year before. And, besides this, the Act enabled the King, that is to say, his advisers, to make a permanent provision for any judge that might become superannuated, and it fixed on great pensions for them in this case, which pensions can, in consequence of that act, be granted without any particular consent of the parliament, which was not the case before. Mr. TIERNEY opposed this measure in a very able manner. He said, that the House of Commons would thus lose all check and controul as to such remunerations; and that the influence of the Crown would be thus greatly and most fearfully enlarged. The measure was, however, adopted; and thus the Judges, in Scotland as well as in England, received an ample compensation for the depreciation of money, up to the year 1799.

Having gone on with this pay for ten years, it appears to have been thought time to give them another lift; and, accordingly an Act for this purpose was passed in the year 1809, of which the people seem to have taken not the least notice. It seems to have escaped every body's attention; but, indeed, the Acts now passed are so numerous, that it is next to impossible for any single man to be able to pay attention to them all, or to a quarter part of them. This Act, which is Chapter 127 of the 49th year of the King's reign, makes an addition of £1,000 a year, to the pay of the Chief Baron of the Exchequer; also an addition of £.1,000 a year, to each of the nine Puisne Judges; and it gives an additional £.400 a year to each of the Welsh Judges. Thus, at the end of twelve years from the time when the Bank stopped paying in gold, the pay of

the English Judges was nearly doubled; and, shall my Lord King be represented as a pedlar, a jew, and a smuggler, because, at the end of nine years of depreciation of money, he wishes to put a stop to the ruinous progress? And shall he be threatened with the hostility of these same Judges, in case he should attempt to enforce his legal claim? Shall he be told about being fought off in the courts, and about the law being too strong for him?

At the time when these Acts were passed for augmenting the pay of the Judges, one of the arguments was, that such augmentation was necessary to support the DIGNITY of the office of Judge. Now, in what way was an increase of pay to produce such an effect? Certainly in no other way than that of enabling the Judge to augment his expences of living; for, as to his authority, as to his powers, as to his station, the money would make no alteration at all in them. This being the case, there appears to have been no good reason for augmenting the Judges' pay any more than the pay of the officers of the Navy, or of any other persons in the public employ. MR. TIERNEY used, at the time when the first augmentation was proposed, an argument very applicable to our present purpose:

If," said he, "an augmentation of in"come be necessary to support the sta"tion of a Judge, has the country no in"terest in enabling the officers of the “ Army and Navy, or the Ministers of the " Church, or the Magistrates, to maintain "their station of society? If the circum"stances of a Judge, who has 2,000l. a

year, require that he should have an ad"ditional 1,000l. we know very well what "must be the situation of a private Gen"tleman with an income of 2,000l. a year."

This argument applies precisely to Lord King.

The answer to Mr. Tierney was, that the private Gentleman, if his estate was in land, would, of course, raise his rents, in order to make his income keep pace with the depreciation of money. But the reply to this is, that, if his estate was let upon lease, as Lord King's is, he could not raise his rents, till the expiration of that lease; and if he let a farm upon a fourteen years' lease in the year 1798, he has been receiving money at the rate of that time, during the last thirteen years, whereas the pay of the Judges has been doubled in the space of twelve of those years. This is, in fact, the situation of

concludes with some observations as to the duty of patriotism, in this case; and says, that, "On an occasion in which ALL "SUFFER, the man who first abandons "the general cause for his own personal "interests, must needs make a very sorry "figure before the world, just like the "coward who is the first to fly in battle, "while victory is doubtful. But if this "man were an high officer, a Legislator, "an hereditary Counselor of his Sovereign, "whose peculiar duty it is to set an exam"ple of bravery, of fortitude, of contempt for "personal consequences in the general cause, "with what feelings could we view his "conduct?" Now, it is to be observed here, that all this talk about the public cause is most shocking nonsense, and what no man in the world besides one of these hirelings would be found to put upon paper. But, if to demand merely the fulfilment of contracts in order to preserve his fortune against the effects of depreciation of money, if this be to "aban"don the general cause for his own personal "interests," if this be to resemble "a "coward who is the first to flee in battle," how will this venal man speak of the King and Royal Family and the Judges? The King has, since the year 1799, had two great grants in augmentation of the sum allowed him, the Junior Branches of the Royal Family have had one additional grant (in 1806) and the Judges have, as we have above seen, had their pay doubled, actually doubled, since that time. And yet this venal man accuses Lord King of BASE "LUCRE" because he is endeavouring to get what is his due; because he is endeavouring to get his own; because he is trying to protect himself against that ruin which he foresees will come upon him, if he does not now begin to obtain the fulfilment of his contracts.

Judges of England alone have received, since the year 1799, in virtue of the two Acis above-mentioned, no less a sum than 120,000l. that is, one hundred and twenty thousand pounds of principal money, more than they would have received had not these two grants been made to them; and if we include the interest, as in all such calculations we must, they have received, since 1799, over and above their former pay, about 145,000l. And, yet, my Lord King is, by this venal scribe, accused of motives of " BASE LUCRE," because he wishes to prevent the whole of his income from being sunk in the depreciation of money. The Judges have actually put in their pockets this large sum of money; they have actually touched it, since the year 1799, and, of course, the National Debt is so much the greater on that account; the interest upon that Debt is so much the greater on that account; the quantity of bank notes to pay the Dividends are so much the greater on that account; and, of course, these two Acts of Parliament have tended, in some degree, to hasten the depreciation, and to produce the very effect which now threatens to ruin Lord King, and to find out a remedy for which puzzles so many men who think themselves wise. Lord King's measure does not tend to add to the national Debt; it tends to produce no addition to the Dividends or the bank paper; it is a mere measure of management of his private affairs, which does not trench upon the public good in any way whatever; and yet, he is lumped along with Jews, Pedlars, and Smugglers, and is accused of a want of patriotism!

If

"On an occasion," says this venal man, "in which ALL suffer." No: not all. The king has not suffered from the depreciation, nor have the Judges, whose pay has been, as we have seen, actually doubled since the stoppage of cash payments took place, and who, of course, would be now as well off as they were before that time, if the pound bank note were worth only ten shillings, and Mr. HORNER tells us it is yet worth about sixteen shillings. "ALL" do not suffer, then. The Judges, so far 'from suffering have gained very greatly; and yet, no one has ever charged them with motives of " BASE LUCRE."