dition of the creditor by the clause was this, that the bank-note stood as a security for his demand until he should in a due course of law obtain his judgment. The clause was brought up and read a first time; but upon the question for the second reading, Mr. Fox observed, that by the clause if one man had a demand upon another for 1000l. and he proceeded against him, he could have no other security than that of a bank-note; a very good security he hoped it would be, but then if he took it, and owed another the same sum, and that other did not choose to take it, he must incur the penalty which would attend the litigation of that demand.

Mr. Alderman Curtis stated, that the clause had been laid before the bankers, and that they were satisfied with it.

Mr. Fox then moved "That it shall not be lawful for the bank to issue any cash to government by way of loan to any foreign power, pending the operation of the restriction laid on the bank by the late minute of council."

The chancellor of the exchequer said, that he felt no objection to the principle of the clause, but thought there should be some exception introduced into it, confering a power of issuing money to a limited amount; suppose 600,000l. and that only on the eredit of the exchequer bills already authorized by a vote of parliament. The clause, with the exception, was agreed to.

Mr. Nicholls moved for leave to bring up a clause for limiting the amount of the debts which the bank might be allowed to contract during the continuance of the present bill. After some observations from Mr. Pitt and Mr. Thornton, this clause was put and negatived.

The chancellor of the exchequer, on the 31st of March, proposed to add a clause to the bill, the purport of which was to allow the bank to re-pay, at different periods, in cash, those who might at their discretion hereafter deposit cash with the directors of the bank, so that no more than three-fourths of such sums should be repaid by the bank in cash during the continuance of the present bill. This clause was opposed by Mr. Fox, and strongly supported by Mr. Thornton after which it was agreed to without a division.

Mr. Pitt next introduced a clause to enable the bank, notwithstanding the present restriction, to issue for the accommodation of private bankers and traders in the metropolis a sum in cash not exceeding 100,000l. which was adopted without a division. The report was ordered to be received on the Monday following. On that day, however, it was further postponed; but the bill was read a third time on the 4th of April. On that day Mr. W. Bird presented a clause by way of rider, that in all cases where bank-notes might be tendered in payment for rent, it should not be lawful for the person to whom the rent was due, if he refused such tender, to seek a remedy by way of distress.

The clause was brought up and read a first and second time; but after some observations made by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Manning, it was negatived without a division.

Sir William Pulteney next proposed a clause, the object of which was to require the bank within a certain short period after the passing of the act to come forward, and to declare whether they wished the restriction to continue, and if they did not, that the prohibition should immediately cease.

The chancellor of the exchequer poposed

opposed the clause, and Mr. Fox supported it.

The house divided on the question, that the clause be brought up. Noes 79, ayes 43.

On the 7th of April upon a question of the duration of the bill, sir W. Pulteney proposed an amendment to the clause which limited the bill on the 24th of June, by leaving out that period and substituting the 6th of May, which was negatived.

The bill was then passed, and the chancellor of the exchequer was desired to carry the same to the lords for their concurrence.

The bill went through its several stages in the house of lords without any alteration, and was passed into a law a few days afterwards.

The next subject which engaged the attention of the house of commons relative to this business was a motion made by sir W. Pulteney "for leave to bring in a bill for the establishment of another bank, should the bank of England not open for payment in specie on the 24th of June next." Sir William submitted this motion to the house on the 30th of May. He prefaced it with an historical account of the late failure of the bank. He allowed that the monopoly of the bank of England was an obstacle in the way of his proposal, as its charter did not expire till 1812, and the company took care always to have their charter renewed a considerable time before the period of its expiration. He did not go so far as to say that their stoppage in the first instance was a violation of that charter, though considerable doubts were entertained upon that subject. But if they should not be enabled to open for payment on the 24th of June, there

could be no ground for continuing their monopoly any longer; if they should at that time open for payment in money, his proposal would do no harm, and no second bank would be established. At all events, however, he thought, that if another bank were instituted, it would aid the operations of the old bank. Scotland had two banks, and the affairs of the old one were much more prosperous since the establishment of the new, though all the arguments were previously opposed to it which could be urged against a new bank of England on the present occasion. He contended, that the monopoly of the bank was injurious; that an open competition would be of public service; that in several instances the directors of the bank had been improvident. They had complained to Mr. Pitt of the high price of gold in Portugal, when that was not the best market for it. The price of gold in Portugal was 41. 8s. Od. per ounce, when gold could be had at Hamburgh for 37. 1s. 6d. per ounce.

Mr. S. Thornton contradicted the statement which had just been given of the price of gold at Hamburgh, and defended the bank upon its present plan.

After some observations from Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Pitt, the house divided-for the motion 15, against it 50.

The limits of this publication would not admit of a more extended detail of the parliamentary debates

on

this subject; but we shall subjoin a few remarks on the report of the committee which sat on the affairs of the bank. There is the utmost reason to believe the report in every respect was a fair one, and the statement must be allowed to be in a great measure satisfactory

From

With respect to the public, there

Five per cents, 1797

Treasury bills paid for

government

Loan to government

without interest Bills discounted, unpaid

Treasury and exche-}

quer fees

Interest due on differ

ent sums advanced to government

a solvent company, whose assets are

the

1,000,000

or}

1,512,270

376,000

88,120

740

554,250

17,597,280