dreaded, in consequence of the continuance of the restriction, while it lasted. If such a result threatened to take place, the House would watch it, and take measures of precaution. Adverting to the character and duties of the governor and directors of the Bank of England, he allowed that they had services to perform to the proprietors, but he likewise contended, that they owed honourable conduct to the public. In order to obviate an objection made by a noble lord, he wished that, in the preamble of the bill, there should be introduced a clause declaratory of the expectation of Parliament, that at the end of two years, the Bank should resume its payments in cash. An amendment to that effect might be proposed in the Committee.

The House divided: For Mr. Horner's motion 73. Against it, 146.

AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

February 12, 1817.

On the 29th of January, Lord St. John took occasion to complain, in the House of Lords, of the lavish expenditure of the public money. "It had," he said, "long been the salutary usage, that all accounts of public expenditure should be audited by public accountants; yet lately, particular cases of exemption had been extended, and little doubt could be entertained, that such a departure from the ordinary practice was so extended as a favour. A right honourable gentleman, once a professed friend to economy, and who held the situation of Agent for the island of Ceylon, had had his accounts audited by the Treasury, and had obtained a certificate for the amount of 50,000l. issued under such circumstances." Mr. Arbuthnot having this day laid on the table of the House, "An Account of all Warrants or other communications from the Treasury to the Auditors of Public Accounts, during the three years ending the 1st of January 1817, transferring the audit of any accounts from the said Auditors to any other Board,"

• Lord Folkestone; the present Earl of Radnor.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, he thought himself called upon to make a few observations, for the purpose of removing an imputation upon his character, which the present paper would at once shew the injustice of. He was not present in the House when it was moved for; but he felt obliged to the honourable and learned gentleman who had done so,* for the opportunity which he had thus given him of correcting a mistatement, or misrepresentation, that had gone abroad through the usual channels, deeply affecting his character. In that statement it was asserted, that 50,0007. had been issued to him, by order of the Treasury, as agent for a colony; that no account had been required of him, how that money was expended; that the Treasury, out of favour to him, had issued a warrant to the general audit office, not to intermeddle in auditing his accounts, but to transfer those accounts to the Treasury. It insinuated a charge of gross corruption on the part of the Treasury; first to favour, and then to shelter him. These accusations had been brought forward in another place, which might be supposed to be free from such misrepresentations, and by an individual whose character gave weight to his assertions. The account on the table would show how to

tally unfounded such charges were. In the first place, no money had been issued to him, to the amount, or in the manner, alleged; secondly, no warrant had been given to transfer the audit of his accounts from favour; nor had he ever solicited, or expected, a favour in the passing of those accounts. What could be the motive for spreading such an injurious and unfounded report—what was the object of the persons who deceived the noble lord, by imposing upon him such a story-whether it were private malice or party purposes that they intended to serve he could not pretend to say; but he thought, that the gross misrepresenta• Mr. Brougham.

tion which had thus been propagated ought to operate as a caution against bringing forward imputations on character, without some previous inquiry into the grounds on which those imputations rested. He was as little disposed as any man to enter on any thing that concerned himself personally; but he could not suffer the present opportunity to pass without correcting a mistake, in which, perhaps, the motion for the papers originated. He begged pardon of the House for detaining it so long with a matter entirely personal, and thanked it for the patience with which he had been heard, as well as the honourable and learned gentleman, for giving him an opportunity of clearing himself from an unfounded charge.

Mr. Brougham declared, that on moving for the account, he had acted under no conviction of the truth of the charge, which the right honourable gentleman had so satisfactorily answered. Indeed, he knew, at the time he made the motion, that the charge was unfounded, and proceeded on a misconception.

MR. GRENFELL'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND. February 19.

Mr. Grenfell moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the engagements now subsisting between the public and the Bank of England, and to consider the advantages derived by the Bank from its transactions with the Public, with a view to the adoption of such future arrangements as may be consistent with those principles of equity and good faith, which ought to prevail in all transactions between the Public and the Bank of England." After the motion had been opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and supported by Mr. Marryatt, who contended that the Bank would not be able, in July 1818, to resume its payments in Cash,

Mr. HUSKISSON observed, that the latter part of the honourable gentleman's speech contained arguments which were directed to a different question than that now before

the House, and should have been reserved till July 1818, when the period fixed by Parliament for the resumption of Cash Payments by the Bank would arrive. There was every reason to believe that the Bank would be able, at that time, to fulfil the hopes of the House and the country; and until the experiment was tried, there was no necessity for instituting an inquiry, especially after the mature deliberation which the subject had undergone last session. The honourable mover and the honourable gentleman seemed to be completely at variance with each other in their statement, although they both supported the same measure. The honourable gentleman who had spoken last had stated, that the Bank had advanced twenty-four millions to Government, while its capital was only fifteen millions, and that, consequently it could not make good its engagements; while the other honourable member had stated, that it had eleven millions in savings or surplus capital; thus making its capital to exceed its loans, and that there was, therefore no danger to be apprehended from its excessive advances.

But it was not to be supposed that the means of the Bank were limited to this sum. It had private balances in its hands, like other banking establishments. The whole amount of its capital was not and could not be known. The honourable member who brought forward the present motion believed that it was very great, and that the amount of its surplus profits was also very large. The Bank Corporation had a right to use their profits as they pleased, and might make advances, whenever they thought they could do so with safety. He rejoiced to see the period approaching in which cash payments would be resumed, and he entertained a sanguine hope, that it would not be delayed beyond the period contemplated by parliaHe rejoiced at this the more, as the interval between the withdrawing, or absorbing, of a great part of our excessive circulation, and the return to another state of

ment.

currency, must be a time of severe pressure, not only in this country but throughout Europe.

The honourable member who spoke last had given as a reason for an inquiry into the profits of the Bank, with a view to a more equal participation in those profits by the public, the circumstance, that the Bank of the United States transacted the public business for nothing. He did not know what advantages the Government of that country allowed the Bank; but to make the comparison a fair one, the circumstances of both establishments should have been stated. It should have been mentioned, whether the Bank of the United States lent the public three millions without interest, and whether it had paid large sums for repeated renewals of its charter. The honourable mover had enlarged on the great profits of the Bank during the war, and seemed to consider its profits as losses to the public: but, he had forgotten, that other corporations and societies likewise made great profits. He had complained that these profits had accrued under the operation of the Restriction Act, and recommended a participation in them, because they had originated from the interference of the Legislature. Now, although he allowed these profits to be great, he thought it would not be consistent with the dignity of the Legislature to share in the profits that resulted from a measure which had been enacted, not with a view to pecuniary advantages, but for the purpose of national security.

He objected to a committee of inquiry, because inquiry had already taken place, and none of the facts on which the present motion was grounded were pretended to be new. Almost every account and every fact was before the committee of 1807, which had embodied almost all the honourable member's observations in their very able Report. If, in consequence of the information then collected, and the perfect knowledge of all the grounds on which the public could claim a participation in Bank profits, no better bar