could not have been met by the ordinary operation of law, he turned again to the noble lord, and asked, whether he could sup. pose that such a proceeding could be satisfactory either with a view to the vindication of the conduct of ministers, or the maintenance of the character of that House? Yet, if not to vindicate the conduct of ministers, for what pur pose was the proposed committee to be appointed? The noble lord's committee would probably recommend an act of indemnity. This committee would first praise the ministers for their wisdom and humanity, and next propose an act to shelter them from any legal responsibility thus asserting at once that ministers were right, and that they ought to be sheltered from the consequences of being wrong. They had, in fact, filed a bill of indictment against themselves, probably with a view to prevent others from doing the same against them; and then they came forward, in a tone of defiance, exclaiming, "This is our green bag-who dare touch our green bag?" But notwithstanding this tone, they appeared resolved that their green bag should not be touched by any but particular friends.

Mr. Bathurst observed, that the right hon. gentleman appear ed to think the course proposed on this occasion, quite a new mode of proceeding, forgetting, perhaps, that it was precisely the same as that adopted in 1801, with the support of the right hon. gentleman himself, and in opposition to arguments similar to those which he had just advanced. The manner was then quite agree

able to precedent. Parliament in that case felt as it must always feel; that government acting for the public safety should not be compelled to give up the sources of that secret information which had urged them temporarily to deprive individuals of their liberty. If, indeed, parliament declined thus to shield government, what government or ministers would be found to execute the powers granted by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act? Mr. Bathurst then followed the right hon. gentleman through several of his other positions. One of these referred to Oliver, of whom Mr. B. asserted that he had become acquainted with the conspiracy by accident, when he communicated his information to government, by whom he was employed to continue his connexion with the persons through whom he obtained his information. But he afterwards observed, in explanation, that what he had stated was, that Oliver went down in company with one of the principal conspirators, and by this means became acquainted with the designs that were in agitation among them. Certainly this statement appears somewhat at variance with Oliver's declaration "that he had become ac quainted with the conspiracy by accident."

Sir S. Romilly perfectly concurred in opinion with the noble lord, that an inquiry was necessary, but totally differed from him with regard to the nature of it. The present was, he maintained, quite a new course of proceeding; for there was no instance upon record of the refe

rence

rence of papers to a committee but with a view to some legislative measure. The noble lord, however, had stated, that no such measure was in contemplation. What then was the object of this committee? On the first day of the session, immediately after the lords commissioners, representing the crown, had stated that tranquillity was restored, and that nothing more was wanting to maintain it than the vigilance of the magistrates, it was declared by the ministers, that they meant to remove the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. No danger, therefore, could be apprehended by the ministers. And what then was the purpose of this committee? Why, solely to procure a report in defence of ministers, with the recommendation of an act of indemnity, which it was felt must necessarily be preceded by at least the appearance of inquiry into the present state of public opinion. It now appeared that ministers sought the shield of an act of indemnity; and when the administration of the trust was considered, the House was informed that a bill of that nature always followed a suspension of the constitution. He hoped the House would see the necessity of an ample investigation, and not suffer themselves to be deluded. The House, he trusted, would recollect, that though, according to the admission of the government, tranquillity was restored in September last, and though, acting upon the confidence of that tranquillity, they had restored persons to their liberty who had been six months in confinement, still they neglected to call par

lament together, and it was not until January that they thought proper to adopt that measure.

The transactions of last session were of such importance as called loudly for inquiry. He could not believe that the House would discharge its duty, or satisfy the expectations of the country, if it did not, by the fullest disclosure of all these transactions, make some atonement for the dangerous precedent which they had been induced in the last session to establish. Even the mass of individual suffering that was experienced under this act was far outweighed by the incalculable 'disadvantages entailed upon the general system of our govern. ment. What would have been the case if ministers had a precedent in the subject he was considering. The parliament might look forward to some future minister, anxious to increase the power of the crown, long after the grave had closed upon the present generation. They might suppose some future sovereign of the House of Brunswick, but feeling in his breast the principles of a Stuart, willing to avail himself of such a minister, and preferring rather to imitate the despots of Europe, than to reign in the hearts of a free people. It had been truly said by an honourable baronet on a former occasion, that the Habeas Corpus act might as well have no existence, as be liable to such interruptions. For when was the act of any use? Was it not in times when his majesty's government was complained of; in times of disaffection to ministers, which they were always willing to re

present

present as disaffection to their master. Yet in such times, that act, which gave them, he might say, a privilege above all other nations, might in future be taken away by the precedent established in the reign of George 3rd, or rather in the regency of the Prince by whom he was represented. The only excuse by which the appointment of committees by ballot could be defended was, the existence of such danger as rendered secresy imperative. Could such a ground be now advanced; or was there, in

fact, any other reason for resorting to it, than the necessity which was felt of obtaining a bill of indemnity?

Several Speakers on both sides appeared in succession. The question was at length put and agreed to; as were the questions, that it should be a committee of secresy, and should consist of 21 members.

On the question "That the committee be chosen by way of ballotting," the House divided; Ayes 102, Noes 29.

CHAPTER

pose of obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some information respecting two import ant questions intimately connected with the financial and commercial interests of the country, which ought to be given without delay. These, in the first place, alluded to the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England, which, as at present fixed by law, would take place on the 5th of July next. After the promises so often renewed by the government and the Bank, it was natural to suppose that no uncertainty would prevail in any quarter as to the probability when the period of cash payment would actually arrive; yet considerable doubt did exist in the public mind upon this subject, especially among the class described as the money interest. It was desirable that this doubt should not continue a moment after his majesty's ministers had it in their power to remove it. No one who had a practical knowledge of what was passing in the city, could be ignorant of the very large transactions of a speculating nature which depended on this contin

gency; and it was obvious that

becoming acquainted with the intention of the ministers, must possess a material advantage over those who were not in the secret. For these different reasons, he hoped it would not be considered as making an extraordinary request in behalf of the public, if he desired to know whether any event had occurred, or was expected to occur, which in its consequences would prevent the resumption of cash payments on the 5th of July next.

There was another question

upon which he was desirous that some information should be afforded, as it equally related to the subject of the connexion between the government and the Bank. The public stood in the situation of debtor to the Bank, one sum of three millions advanced without interest, the other of six millions at an interest of 4 per cent, which would soon become payable. Until those loans should be repaid, the Bank had secured to themselves the undisturbed possession of a balance upon, the public money deposited in their hands, which, for the last twelve years, had never fallen short, upon an aver

age,

age, of eleven millions, or two millions more than the sum which they claimed due from the public. He was convinced that it would be highly advantageous to the public interests that the government should be unfettered by these obligations; and what he wished on this occasion was, to know, whether any arrangement was in progress, or had been concluded, either for discharging the loans in question, or placing them on a better footing; and if any, what arrangement?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his wish to give a distinct answer to the important question which the hon. gentleman had thought proper to put; namely, whether it was the intention of his majesty's ministers to propose any farther restriction upon cash payments by the Bank. He was enabled to say, that the Bank had made ample preparation for resuming its payments in cash at the time fixed by parlia ment, and that he knew of nothing in the internal state of the country, or of its political relations with foreign powers, which would render it expedient to continue the restriction; but that there was reason to believe that pecuniary arrangements with foreign powers were going on of such a nature and extent, as might probably make it necessary for parliament to continue the restriction, so long as the immediate effects of those arrangements were in operation. As to the loan of six millions from the bank at 4 per cent interest, he should, ere long, have to submit a proposition to the House for the payment of that debt; but with

respect to the three millions without interest, which, for obvious reasons, was rather to be regarded as a gift than a loan, he rather thought that neither the House nor the hon. gentleman himself, would be reconciled to any proposition for depriving the public of such an important accommodation.

In the House of Lords the topic of the Bank restriction was opened on February 3rd. The Earl of Lauderdale said, he would trouble their lordships with some motions connected with a question of the greatest moment. The time was fast approaching when the subject of the resumption of cash-payments by the Bank must come before their lordships. He trusted that parliament would not consent to continue the restrictions without a full inquiry into the circumstances of this question, upon which, more than any other, the welfare of the country depended. He concluded by moving for accounts of the weekly amount of Bank notes in circulation in the years 1815, 16, and 17; the average amount, the highest and lowest amount in each year, distinguishing the notes of different. sums, the rates of exchange, the number of licences granted for the issue of notes, &c; all which were ordered.

Lord King felt himself called upon to advert to the subject of the Bank, in consequence of its being asserted, from official authority in another place, that doubts existed whether payments in cash could be resumed at the Bank at the period appointed for that purpose. The reason as