centum, which accordingly we find to be the actual rate of exchange with Belfast against Dublin. Agreeing with Mr. Parnell as to the fact of depreciation, the reader will also agree with him as to the immediate cause thereof, namely, an excessive issue of bank paper, which excess is clearly traced to the measure of what, in the financial cant of the day, is called "bank restric tion," but which ought to be called, sheltering the bank from the legal and just demands of its creditors; and this fatal measure, which in its consequences threatens the total and speedy overthrow of our mighty fabric of commercial credit, has already been traced back to the act of 1793, in which the Parliament yielded to the minister's proposition to remove those salutary checks which had been at first devised, and which had so long been preserved for the purpose of preventing a secret connexion and mutual connivance between the government and the bank. But, necessity, the standing plea; the "emergency of the moment," the "existing circumstances;" the "imperious necessily" of the case; this is, at last, the ground on which all these measures are justified. Were it worth while the plea might, in almost every instance, be set aside; for, it would be easy to show, that every one of the measures might either have been entirely avoided or rendered much less mischievous. But, admitting the plea; allowing the necessity to exist in a degree sufficient to justify the measures, where shall we find a justification for the system of politics and political economy, the pursuing of which produced that necessity? Yet, it is to this same system that we are still bidden to look as to the rock of our financial salvation! Even now; yea, this very evening (Tuesday), we bear to be reminded, and that too without any mark of indignation, of "the powerful and salutary operation of the Sinking Fund!" What! the powerful and salutary operation of that system under which we have arrived at our present state! That system which has reduced us to the neces sity of bank restriction, and silver notes; that has produced an income tax and has banished the precious metals from the land! Is this the system on the operation of which we can still suffer ourselves to be congratulated? But, it is no matter: the day of indignation will come. This system has, indeed, a powerful operation; and in no way does it operate more powerfully than in blinding the eyes and sealing the lips of the people. Few, comparatively speaking, yet see to the bottom of the abyss, and, of those few, scarcely any one will venture openly to declare what he thinks, there

being hardly a man of property in the community whose apparent interests do not, either directly or indirectly, induce him, if not to favour, or, at least, connive at the delusion. Thus, it is greatly to be feared, we shall be led along till it will be utterly impossible to escape the political consequences of a financial revolution.

STAMP DUTIES.-The very great addition about to be imposed upon duties of this description has occasioned a good deal of opposition to the bill which is now before the House of Commons making such imposition. That stamp duties should be raised at a time when all other duties and taxes are raised is by no means surprising; and, considered merely as a burden, it appears grossly inconsistent to complain of the augmentation of the duty on stamps, while the income tax is silently submitted to. The opposition above alluded to has, however, chiefly been confined to the augmenting of the duty upon those stamps which relate to law proceedings; and, in the course of the debates upon the subject, it has been clearly shown, that the stamps on such proceedings have already tended to shut the door of justice against a very numerous class of the community.

Of course to add to the amount of the stamps is to increase this evil, which is at the same time a very great disgrace to the country.- This subject will in all probability occupy a place in some future sheet of the Register, but it would not be right here to omit stating the substance of an observation made by a young gentleman of the name of Dickenson by way of reply to Mr. Serjeant Best. The latter, during a most able speech, had asserted and had proved, that, in many cases, the stamp duties with the proposed augmentation would amount to a prohibition; and that thus those who could not purchase justice would not obtain it. At this statement Mr. Dickenson expressed his astonishment, and observed, that if the learned Serjeant had taken time to reflect, he would certainly have made no such statement, seeing that there was a very considerable part of the administration of justice in this country which was totally unfettered by stamp duties, namely, all that valuable part which was left in the hands of the justices of the peace! As no attempt was made to weaken the force of this observation, such an attempt was, without doubt, regarded as hopeless; and if such was the light in which it was viewed by Mr. Windham, who spoke afterwards on the other side, it would be presumption to make the attempt here. It may not be amiss, however, just to ask Mr. Dickenson what are the papers, used in the

administration of justice by the inferior magistrates, which he could possibly tax, and which are not already taxed ?——Mr. Addington, who came forward to take his full share of whatever blame might be attached to the proposition before the House, the proposition having, in substance, origi nated with himself, acknowledged that there was much weight in the objections which had been urged against particular parts of the measure, by several persons, but especially by Dr. Laurence. He said, that he could, from the beginning, have wished not to impose any additional burden upon law proceedings, and that "necessity and neces"sity alone induced him to include in his "proposition the stamps relative to such "proceedings." This was the best defence of the measure itself; but, as in other cases of the same kind, who will furnish a defence of those by whom this fatal necessity has been created? What must be that system, what must be that series of measures, which have produced a plea of absolute necessity for the imposition of a duty which is acknowledged to be fairly liable to objections. of such a nature? Mr. Pitt, indeed, acknowledged neither the force of the objections nor the extreme necessity of the tax; but none of his arguments showed the objections to be groundless, and as to his not expressly acknowledging the absolute necessity of the tax, he had evident reasons, which could not operate so strongly with his predecessor.

FORMATION OF THE MINISTRY.-Upon this subject there were certain observations made by Mr. Pitt, in his speech of the 18th ultimo, that ought, long ago, to have been noticed in the Register. On the occasion alluded to, Mr. Canning, who, for reasons that it would not, perhaps, be very difficult to explain, chose to make a party matter of the bill for raising a permanent additional military force, brought a reply from Mr. Sheridan, who, in the course of that reply, observed, that the minister would probably take the hint given him in the recent divisions, and, in imitation of the example of his modest predecessor, resign the reins of power into other hands. "Glad of a quarrel" upon this score; rejoicing at an oppor tunity of giving a personal turn to a debate in which he was evidently appearing to great disadvantage, Mr. Pitt took up the far greater part of the time, occupied by his answer to Mr. Sheridan, with matter having no con'nexion with the bill before the House, and this he did under the pretext, that the persoas opposed to the bill had made a mea"sure directed to the public defence a rallying point to display sentiments and exert "efforts dictated by motives wholly different

from the merits or demerits of the question." So; one of his own party, one of his very dependents, first gives to the discussion a personal turn; first he accuses Mr. Addington of having commenced "a systematic opposition," because he now opposed a mea. sure which was the exactly reverse of one which he himself had proposed to the House; then accuses Mr. Fox and Mr. Windham of making an opposition to the men rather than to the measure, though neither of them had ever expressed their approbation of any such scheme; and, because he is replied to, because the conduct of Mr. Addington is compared to Mr. Pitt, because, in short, a party speech of Mr. Canning draws forth a party speech from Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Pitt gets up and affects to regard all the opposi tion that has been made to his measure as arising merely from party and personal motives!" Is it," said he, pursuing this notion, "reconcileable with any ideas of constitu. "tional principle and public duty, that, "when a ministry has been changed, their successors should be obstructed in their very first operations by any combination "founded upon any circumstances connected "with the recent exercise of bis Majesty's

66

66

prerogative. The Hon. Gentleman ad"mits the real object of the extraordinary "zeal, with which this bill has been con"tested, and I am sanguine enough to hope, "that this object being now avowed, the "bill will make its way through the House "with increased concurrence." This was after the manner of Mr. Pitt, than whom no man is more artful and dextrous in debate. But, how did this representation agree with the fact for that is certainly a question of some importance to us, the people, at least. The fact was, that the gentleman to whom Mr. Pitt was answering, had made no such admission as that ascribed to him. He had not avowed, either directly or indirectly, that the real object of the opposition to the bill was at all "connected with the recent "exercise of his Majesty's prerogative" in choosing a rainistry. This admission and this avowal were, therefore, (to use the most gentle phrase that the case will admit of) assumed by Mr. Pitt, without the least foundation, and for a purpose too obvious and too strongly marked to stand in need of being either pointed out or characterized. Let any one refer to the report of the debate: he will there see, that the question was, by all those who took any considerable share in the discussion of it, discussed entirely upon its own merits, and that, by these persons, not even an allusion had, previcus to Mr. Canning's assault, been made to the change in the ministry, or to any one

circumstance at all connected, even in the most distant degree, with the recent exercise of any prerogative of his Majesty. Look at the speeches which Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Fox had made during the debates. Not a word will be found fo reign to the legitimate subject of debate: scarcely any passage can be called digression nothing of a party nature. And, it should be observed, too, that the objections urged by Mr. Windham to the principle of the bill, were objections, which, on several occasions, he had before urged. It will be found, further, that, even out of the House, the observations upon the bill were kept entirely distinct from all matters of a different nature; and that, from first to last, no measure ever was more fairly tried upon its own intrinsic merits or demerits. Nor should it be forgotten, that the persons who were opposed to the measure consisted almost entirely of members of that part of the kingdom where alone the bill was to operate, and that amongst them were about two-thirds of the county members of Eng. land. Were all these persons actuated by party motives? Were they all acting upon considerations" wholly different from the merits or demerits of the question?" Or, was this imputation a mere device to turn the attention of the House and the public from those merits or demerits?-As to the question of prerogative, the first thing to be asked is, bow long Mr. Pitt has been the champion of this part of the royal rights, or, indeed, of any of the essential rights of his Majesty? I "trust," said he, that the gentlemen on "the other side will not feel themselves under the necessity of questioning the King's right to choose his own ministers." He might safely have said this, without any insinuation to the contrary; for no one did question the King's right in this respect; no one attempted to do it; but every one maintained, or, if called upon, would have maintained, the right of Parliament to endeavour, either by direct or indirect measures, to prevail upon his Majesty to chauge his ministers, which in other words, is to drive ministers from their place. Yet this doctrine Mr. Pitt seemed to deny by describing, as unconstitutional, an attempt to turn him out through the means of a discussion on a bill relating to the defence of the country. Why not through the means of that discussion as well as through the means of any other discussion? When he spoke in the debate of Mr. Fox's motion, of the 23d of April, he did not seem to think that there was any such distinction to be observed. The whole of his speech upon that occasion was evidently designed to drive the ministers from

46

66

their places. That such was the intention and such the tendency of it will not be denied by the Attorney General at least, who asserted it, and with perfeer truth. "If "the question be carried this night," said hé, "in favour of the motion, and especially upon the arguments of the right hon. gent. "under the gallery (Mr. Pitt), there can be no question of its being followed by the "resignation of his Majesty's minister. "But i will ask the right hon. gent, if this "is the specie of conduct I am to expect "from his candour? Is it on a motion of "this sort" [on a motion relating to the defence of the country]" that I am to expect a decision in which is involved the ques"tion, whether or not the ministers shall any longer retain the confidence of this "House, or continue to fill their present si"tuations? Could I have expected it from "him, to choose such a mode or such a "subject, to collect every stray vote and

66

The

every stray opinion?" If this charge was not true, let Mr. Pitt demand a recantation from the gentleman by whom it was made, which he can the more conveniently do, because that gentleman now sits upon the same bench with him. It was true, as far as rela'ed to the object of the speech; but those who hold that the object was legitimate will, of course, think nothing of the charge. It is a charge against him only, who now finds it convenient to adopt the very principle upon which the charge was founded by the Attorney General; and, it is curious enough to see Mr. Pitt supported in urging this charge by the gentleman, who had before so resolutely urged it against himself.tenderness shown by Mr Pitt towards the prerogative of the crown, upon the subject of choosing its ministers, is extremely well delineated by Lord Archibald Hamilton in his "Thoughts on the Formation of the present "Ministry," where he completely exposes and refutes the apology made for Mr. Pitt's conduct upon the ground that it would have been unconstitutional to force a ministry upon the King." If the word force," says he, "is to be applied at all, and if a tenderness "towards the crown" (on the part of Parliament)" in this respect be recognized as "sound.doctrine, and a salutary principle, "sull it is evident, that Mr. Pitt's opposition "to Mr. Addington, and subsequent accep"tance of power upon the basis of exclu❝sion, cannot be justified upon any such "ground; as it certainly has evinced no "such tenderness. It appears, upon a view "of the whole transaction, that his Majesty "bas been forced, (in that sense of the word, which, in behalf of Mr. Pitt, has been disclaimed), to relinquish Mr. Addington,

sury Bench, but not far enough, to place "the government in the hands of a com"prehensive and efficient administration. "His Majesty has been forced, far enough to establish the constitutional precedent, "but not far enough, to secure the consti"tutional benefit in view. Does this con"duct exhibit any tenderness to the crown.? "It is strange and unaccountable, that any man should approve and execute this "harsh system of force, just to the degree "that should force himself into office, "to the exclusion of those whom, it had been "the common object of all parties, as well 66 as of himself, to introduce. Nor is it less

66

jurious imputations, not to be, at once, "and without consultation with any one, "the only person of all who had co-operated "in this system of forcing, to be benefited "by its partial success.' This was very strange indeed. Yet, it will appear less so, when we look back to the intrigue for place in the spring of 1803, and the subsequent conduct of Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville when the motions for censure were brought forward by Col. Patten and Lord Fitzwilliani. Lord Melville objected to the motion, because it might drive out ministers, “ before there were any persons prepared to take their " places." Indeed the whole of their cou-.

duct, from their resignation in 1801 to the p present day, shows that they have had no other object in view than that of coming into power again, unchecked, with the association of any men of talents, character and influence, and to retain that power as long as possible. Being out, they could use every possible exertion to drive the late ministers from their places; but, being in, they cry out upon a bear suspicion of a similar attempt against themselves; and, in resolving to cling to their power, in defiance of the wishes and the votes of Parliament, they affect to regard themselves as the champions of the royal prerogative! The pretext will avail them little: few persons will be deceived by it: whatever Mr. Pitt may think: whatever his dependents may tell him, he may rest assured, that the resolution which he expressed, that the Iarliament" might get "rid of the bill but should not get rid of "him," will, by every just and sensible man in the country, be attributed to selfish ambition, to infatuation, to despair, or to any thing rather than to a tender regard for the prerogative or the feetings of the King. "My right honourable friend (Mr. Pitt,") said Mr. Canning in his speech of December.8, 1802, “ is incapable of playing so "dishonourable a game as that attributed to

him" that of undermining the minister. whom he himself had recommended, in order to thrust him out and take his place] No man was ever less likely to furnish by "his conduct any grounds for such an impu"tation. Never did young ambition labour

so much to attach popularity and power

as my right hon. friend has laboured to "detach them. He has laboured rot for "fame but for obscurity." When, therefore, Mr. Canning heard this very same right. hon. friend express the resolution above mentioned; when he saw him flying up from Kent to meet his northern associate, who was approaching the scene of action with a flight as strong and as swift as that of a Turkey Buzzard, which is said to scent a dying horse from New England to Carolina; when he saw him, after assisting at debates and counting in civisions, with the clearly understood object of obtaining for the country a comprehensive and powerful administration, an object loudly proclaimed by Mr. Canning himself; when he saw him immediately after this, eagerly grasping at place in company with six out of ten of those very ministers whom he had openly accused of being unfit to be entrusted with the affairs of the nation, and on whom he had bestowed, even to prodigality, marks of censure and contempt; when Mr. Canning saw this, and when he afterwards heard his right honour

able friend, at a moment that, from every part of the nation, and from every description of persons, from the court, the parliament, the country, and the city, "get out!" was echoed in his ears, cooly answer, with Loony Mactoulter in the farce: " By the "Lard, now, and I sheant get out! I shall "stay where I am, Mister DEPUTY BULL; "for if you don't know when you have got

a good sbarvent, I know when I've got a "good place." When Mr. Canning heard this, with what mortification he must have reflected on the description, which, with sublimity and pathos almost poetic, he had drawn of the disinterested, the modest, the lowly views of his right honourable friend!

This part of his conduct was, however, much more excusable than some other parts, particularly his reproaching the members of the Grenville family with being now in opposition against him after having, on a former occasion, called for him as the only man capable of retrieving the affairs of the country. I will say nothing of the lowness of this reproach. I will not attempt to describe the state to which it would induce us to suppose the person having recourse to it was sunk; because I hope, and I believe, that it arose from the suggestion of some of those mean persons, with too many of whom, unfortunately, Mr. Pitt is always surrounded. I will confine myself to a few remarks chiefly as to matter of fact. The mark of approbation I believe to have been sincerely bestowed. There is no reason to suppose, that Lord Grenville and his noble relations did not think what they said upon the subject; but, on the other hand, if they thought Mr. Pitt the only man capable of retrieving the affairs of the country, will any one say that they meant, or could mean, that Mr. Pitt was able to effect this object alone, or, which is the same thing, or rather worse, in company with persons, whom he as well as they had declared to be utterly unfit to be entrusted with power? It is evident they never meant any such thing, but only that, in order to bring about the wished for alteration, it was necessary for him to be again at the head of affairs, he being the person in whom the nation had most confidence. Nor must the time when this opinion was expressed be forgotten. It was in the month of Novem ber, 1802. And will any one undertake to show, that, since that time, Mr. Pitt's conduct had been such as could furnish them with no reason for changing their opinion? "My noble relation [Lord Temple] ex"presses his disapprobation of the present "ministry," said Mr. Pitt, " because there 64 are joined with me in it so many of the "late administration. But, does my noble

"relation think, that, on this account I "have forfeited the confidence of him and his friends? There was a time, not very distant, when, both in this and another place, a noble lord and his friends were so partial "to me, that they declared, that my ad"mission to power would remove the dan"gers of the country. I hope I have not, "by concurring very frequently and acting very cordially with them and their friends, "forfeited the good opinion they were then so partial as to expres of me. I confess

my suprize too, that after such public "declarations concerning me, they so soon "found themselves compelled to withhold "their services from the public, on account "of the exclusion of an hon. gent. (Mr. "Fox), with whom they had, at least till "lately, been so little accustomed to think " or act in unison." To reproach them with thinking and acting in unison with Mr. Fox, at the very moment when his own justification with the public rested entirely upon the truth of the assertion, that he had used his utmost endeavours with the King to admit Mr. Fox into the cabinet, was certainly an instance of boldness that has seldom been surpassed, or even equalled, in an English House of Parliament. But, not to dwell upon this point; I answer, as to the other; no: you did not forfeit their good opinion by concurring very frequently and acting very cordially with them and their friends after the time when they expressed their approbation of you: by no means; but, was there nothing else, Sir, that you did, and that you left undone, after that time and before the time when you reproached them with inconsistency? Had they, think you, completely forgotten the intrigue for place in the months of March and April, 1503; could they have forgotten the subsequent speeches and votes upon Mr. Patten's motion, and upon other occasions? And had they not seen a specimen of your measures in your new character as a projector of means of defence? In short, had they not seen and heard quite enough to justify even a radical change of opinion? have changed your opinion of persons, with whom you had previously been acquainted all your life, upon much slighter grounds. Lord Hawkesbury, indeed, is now restored to his former place in your estimation, but Mr. Addington seems to be banished for ever. Nor was the time so little distant

You

as you would appear to infer. The time when the members of the Grenville family expressed their confidence in you, was in November, 1802, eighteen months before the date of your reproach, a longer time, give me leave to remind you, than elapsed