when not a guinea was to be seen in this country, rents were all paid in the north of Ireland with gold. This supported the view he had taken, namely, that gold and paper could not exist together; either from some law, or rather he believed from the practice of the people, they adhered to the gold circulation, and bank notes were nearly unknown. his conviction, that that part of the kingdom owed the prosperity she was enjoying to the mode in which the circulation was there managed? He would venture to say, that there was no manufacturer of any description in that country who would not tell the noble earl, that the ruin of that branch of manufacture to which he belonged would inevitably follow, if the present circulation were meddled with. He conjured the noble earl and the House to ponder well before they adopted a measure calculated to overturn the prosperous condition of so important a portion of the kingdom. The House having gone into a com The Earl of Lauderdale said, that one cause of that curious fact alluded to by the noble earl, was this, that the landlords of Ireland would only take their rents in gold, so that the tenants were compelled to pay them in that manner. This might have satisfied the noble earl; but, if he had gone further, he would have discov-mittee, ered a circumstance quite as curious as the fact itself; and that was, the mode in which these payments were managed. When rent-day approached, the sum of five hundred guineas was sent down from Dublin, and given to one set of tenants, in exchange for their notes; they then paid their rent in gold; which, as soon it was thus received, was handed to another set of tenants in exchange for their notes; this being repeated till all the tenants had paid their rents, it might be literally said that they all paid their rents in gold. The money was then returned to Dublin, from whence it came, there to remain till another-rent day should require it to make a second journey into the country. The Earl of Blesinton denied this statement, which he characterised as a mere piece of ingenious humour. The Earl of Limerick supported this denial, declaring, that to his certain knowledge, there was not at the time alluded to a single guinea in the south of Ireland. The Earl of Roseberry asked whether it was the intention of ministers to submit to parliament any measure for the suppression of small notes in Scotland, and if so, what was the nature of that measure? The Earl of Liverpool answered in the affirmative as to the first question; but as to the second, he was not prepared to say what would be the exact nature of the measure he should offer. The Earl of Lauderdale rose, to state his conviction, that there was no man of any class, or of any party, who would for one moment hesitate to express his complete satisfaction with the state of the currency as it at present stood in Scotland; nay, who would not declare it to be The Earl of Liverpool said, it was now his duty to call their lordships' attention to a clause which, upon consideration, it was deemed adviseable to introduce on the subject of branch banks to be established by the Bank of England. It was his opinion, that the Bank had already the power of establishing branch banks in any part of the country which they thought proper. A doubt, however, existed in the mind of the highest authority, upon such a subject, that without some specific clause for the purpose, they would be prevented from giving effect to that power. They had the power to appoint agencies in the country; but then it was doubted whether this bill, in its present form, enabled the Bank to give them the authority of acting on their own discretion, and not as mere agents; for without that authority they could not answer the purpose contemplated in the formation of them. On the authority, therefore, of the opinion to which he had before alluded, namely, that without a specific clause for that purpose they could not exercise a discretional authority, a clause to that effect had been drawn up, which it was proposed to introduce into the bill, in order to enable the Bank to establish branches throughout the country, on such a footing as would render them beneficial to themselves and of important advantage to the country. If, however, it should not lead to the establishment of branch banks by the Bank of England, he trusted that they would have liberality enough to say, that although they themselves were not disposed to act upon this plan, they would not stand in the way of allowing the formation of other banks, on a principle calculated to afford the same advantages to the public. He was anxious that they should have the opportunity of trying the experiment; and should be sorry that there should be any thing in the state law that would operate as an obstruction to their so doing. With that view, he would propose the introduction of this clause, when the report should be brought up on Friday. The Marquis of Lansdown did not now mean to offer any objection to this clause. He would, however, suggest to their lordships the propriety of introducing a clause providing, in case the Bank of England should think proper to establish branches, that they should be bound to pay their notes in gold, in the same part of the country in which they had been issued. Great inconvenience had been experienced in Ireland in this respect, in consequence of the Bank of Ireland having attempted to refuse paying their notes in gold in the country where they had been issued by their branch banks, stating that they were only bound to pay them in Dublin. The point, however, he he believed had been given up by the Bank; but then he had been given to understand, that they had attempted to evade that, by issuing Bank of Ireland notes dated from Dublin. He should hope that no such evasion would be attempted by the Bank in this country; and that it would be provided by the bill, that they should pay in gold in those places where branch banks would be established. He trusted the noble lord would see the importance of introducing such a provision; because, without it, whenever a panic occurred in any part of the country, a run would take place upon other banks, while none could be made upon the branch banks of the Bank of England, inasmuch as they could only be compelled to pay in gold in London. Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that this was the most important clause in the bill. He was disposed to give every fair facility to the establishment of branch banks; but he greatly feared, that without a very considerable enlargement of the capital of the Bank, branch banks could not be established with any benefit to the country. Under the present system, the branch banks would be counteracted by the country banks; and ignorant of the extent of their circulation, and unable to meet it, they would find it impossible to do that duty which the country would require at their hands. Now, he thought these branch banks ought to have a metallic capital, that would be capable of driving the paper of country banks out of circulation. The more he considered the subject, the more he was convinced, that the fluctuations attending the introduction of this measure would be very great, and he thought it ought not to be introduced unless it could at once be rendered 'effectual. The bill was ordered to be recommitted to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, February 20. PETITION OF MR. KENRICK.] Mr. Denison said, he had received a petition from Mr. Kenrick, whose case was before the House on Friday last, with a request that it might be presented. He would, therefore, move that it be printed, in order that it might be in the hands of members before the discussion on Mr. Kenrick's case tomorrow. The petition was read, and in substance stated, that, about eleven or twelve years ago, James Rose, a constable, at Betchworth, who, he believed, had died in 1816, came to him and stated, that two sheep had been driven from a field belonging to Henry Peters, esq.; that one of them had been much mutilated and killed; that he had found a knife near the spot, which he knew to belong to Franks, having seen him use it; that he had also found near the same spot, a paper which appeared to belong to Franks, and that both knife and paper were bloody; that he mentioned the matter to no one else, until he came to him to ask his advice about the matter; that the petitioner advised Rose, the constable, to say nothing about the affair to any one else, until he stated the circumstance to Mr. Peters, to whom he advised the constable immediately to go; but that Mr. Peters, it appeared, did not think proper to do any thing therein. That, under the impression that these particulars had been communicated to Mr. Peters, he, upon an attack having been made upon him in "The Morning Chronicle," wrote a letter to Mr. Peters, inclosing a draft of an affidavit referring to the circumstances, thinking that they would be remembered by Mr. Peters; but that he found the circumstance had escaped the recollection of Mr. Peters. That upon receiving an answer to the above effect from Mr. Peters, he struck the matter out of the draft of affidavit. That, considering the draft as useless, he surprise that Mr. Peters should have forgot such and such circumstances; and now wished that this paper should be printed and circulated among the members, when Mr. Peters was absent. If the House had any inclination to do justice, it would not suffer such a paper to be laid on its table. had thrown it aside, and it could not be discovered. He prayed the House to take these circumstances into consideration when they came to discuss his case. The petitioner stated, that he had found the original letter of Mr. Peters, in which it was stated, that Mr. Peters had no recollection of granting any warrant against Franks; and as to the sheep, it was merely a matter of suspicion at the time, and that the real thief had been discovered, tried, and convicted. A copy of this letter was subjoined to the petition upon the same paper. The Speaker requested the hon. member to state in what character this paper was presented; for, as far as he could understand it, there was no proper prayer to it. Mr. Denison said, that the prayer was, that the House would consider the statement. The object was, to have it printed, and put into the hands of members before they entered upon the discussion of the case. The Speaker said, that if it was a petition, the House would be much inclined to receive it, as great latitude was allowed to petitioners, especially to such as stood in the situation of the individual accused. But then, if it was no petition, but simply a defence, that was matter for his counsel and evidence; and he did not know how the House could receive this paper in the double character of petition and defence. It was certainly contrary to the usual practice. Mr. Wynn observed, that the paper was merely a defence, and no petition, and had a copy of a letter attached to it on the same paper, which could not be regularly annexed to a petition. Mr. Abercromby said, that this was certainly a most extraordinary and irregular proceeding. The House had gone into a committee on the charge, and had allowed Mr. Kenrick to attend by his counsel, witnesses, and agents. But, after he had an opportunity of fully making his defence, was he now to come with a statement of his own view of the facts? Any statement he had to make would be made by his counsel; but it was not to be tolerated, that he should proceed in this most extraordinary and irregular manner. How did the case stand with respect to Mr. Peters? He had brought a charge against that most respectable gentleman in his absence, after he had an opportunity of cross-examining him at the bar, and had declined to do so. He expressed his Mr. Denison said, he had considered it his duty to present the petition, and the House would dispose of it as it thought proper. Mr. Wynn wished to ask the Speaker, whether it was regular to present a petition with a copy of a letter referred to in the body of it subjoined to the petition, on the same paper? The Speaker replied, that it was irregular, and that there was the double objection, that the copy only was produced, the original being in existence. It was obvious that the paper could not be printed. Mr. Peel said, that the House certainly would be extremely unwilling to refuse, upon a mere point of form, to hear any thing which an accused person might think material for his defence; but this was certainly not a petition, and no injustice would be done by rejecting the paper presented in this shape, since every statement of that kind might be stated by counsel in the defence. The petition was withdrawn. PRIVILEGE OF MEMBERS TO BE EXEMPTED FROM SERVING ON JURIES.] Mr. Holford rose, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject in which, as he conceived, some of its privileges were concerned. He had received, some short time ago, a summons to attend as a juror in the court of Exchequer, and for not attending he was fined. This, he conceived, was contrary to the provisions of the late act for the regulation of juries. In the former act, it was understood, that members of parliament were exempted from attending as jurors during the sitting of parliament, and he had thought that the same provision was continued in the late act. He had felt it his duty to mention the circumstance to the House, but he was not prepared to submit any motion on the subject. Mr. Davenport said, that he was in the same situation as his hon. friend. He had been summoned, and fined for nonattendance. Mr. Scarlett said, that the courts were 1 disposed to excuse members of parliament from attending as jurors, but not as a matter of right. Mr. Wynn expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should not be aware of the fact, that members of parliament, as matter of privilege, were exempted from attending as jurors during the sitting of parliament. The duties of a member of parliament were so important, that he thought there could be no doubt that they exempted members from being obliged to attend in any of the courts as jurors. There was a case which the learned gentleman would no doubt recollect, in which lord Hardwicke fined the member for Shoreham for not attending as a juror, parliament not being at that time sitting; but he did not deny the principle, that when parliament wassitting, the member would be exempted from attending. Mr. Scarlett repeated his remark, that the excuse would be admitted by the courts of law, but not recognized as a matter of right. Mr. Ellice said, that he, too, had unfortunately been fined in the same court for not attending as a juror, though an excuse was offered for him by another juror, that he was prevented from attending by his duties as a member of parliament. The court, however, refused to accept of that excuse, and held that the privilege of a member of parliament did not exempt him from attending as a juror. Mr. Peel said, it appeared to him, that there was no doubt that the privilege of parliament did protect a member from liability to attend as a juror, and he thought the decision of lord Hardwicke, just cited, was decisive that it had been so held in the courts. If, however, there now existed any doubts on the subject from the wording of the new act, he thought it should be expressed more clearly; but, as it appeared to him, the thing was already quite clear. If it did not appear in the same light to any of the courts, means should be taken to set the matter at rest. Mr. Abercromby had no doubt that the privilege of parliament did exempt members from being called upon as jurors. If, however, any doubts arose in other quarters, they should be removed by a precise exemption. Mr. Wynn repeated his opinion, that there could be no doubt that members were exempted from attending as jurors by their privilege; but, to set the matter at rest, he would suggest that the question should be referred to the committee of privileges, in order that it might be ascertained by their report, what were the privileges of members in this respect. Mr. J. Williams said, he was present in the court of Exchequer when the fine was ordered to be levied on his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice). The opinion of the Court was not given without a reference to the late act. That act was referred to, and it appeared that the Court did not consider the words sufficient to exempt members on the ground of their privilege. His own opinion was, that it did, and it had always been so held: but the Court was of a contrary opinion; and he would say, only that he did not wish to bring the learned baron of the Exchequer to the bar of the House, that his decision was in contempt of their privileges. Mr. Peel said, he had not made any special exemption of members of parliament in the late bill for regulating juries, because he thought the question already established. An exemption of practising physicians had been made; but it was not conceived that there was any necessity for mentioning what it was supposed had been already so well understood. However, it would be proper that the point should be placed beyond further doubt. It was then ordered, "That the matter of the said Complaint, be referred to the committee of privileges, to examine the same, and report their opinion thereupon to the House." Also, that it be an instruction to the committee to sit tomorrow. PROMISSORY NOTES BILL-PETITION oF WILLIAM COBBETT.] Lord Folkestone said, he held in his hand a petition which he had been requested to present to the House, and which proceeded from an individual who, he should make no scruple in saying was, in his opinion, one of the ablest men in the country, and he believed, when heinformed the House that the petitioner was Mr. William Cobbett, most hon. members would agree with him in this opinion. The petitioner stated, that he had, for the last sixteen years, observed the calamitous effects which had at different times during that period been caused all through the country by the fluctuations which had occasionally taken place in the value of the currency; that these fluctuations, and the misery con- | before beheld; that all this ruin and sequent thereon, had arisen entirely from the measures of this House, and had always been correctly prognosticated by the petitioner. That the petitioner thought that the plan which was at present under the consideration of the House was deserving of the highest approbation, and that, if it were accompanied with other measures, it would be most beneficial to the country; but that unless it were so accompanied, it could not possibly be carried into effect, and the attempt to carry it into effect would be productive of most disastrous consequences to the nation. The accompanying measure recommended by the petitioner was a reduction of taxation; for the petitioner conceived, as we were now about to return to a metallic currency, that the amount of the taxes ought not to exceed the amount they were at before a paper-currency was adopted. The noble lord concluded by moving that the petition be brought up. Colonel Johnson seconded the motion, and observed, that it was with feelings of great regret that he found the chancellor of the Exchequer had been induced to vary from his original resolutions. Such variation had raised apprehensions in his mind, that something would again occur to defeat the measure, and prevented his feeling any certainty that it would ever be carried into execution. The Petition was then brought up, and read as follows: "The Petition of William Cobbett, "Most humby sheweth-1. That your petitioner, perceiving that there is a bill before your honourable House, 'to limit, and after a certain period, to prohibit, the circulation of promissory notes, under a limited sum, in England,' most respectfully begs leave to pray your honourable House to reflect on the evils that may proceed from such bill, if unaccompanied by other measures, which other measures do not appear to be in the contemplation of your honourable House. "2. That the last sixteen years have witnessed four sudden changes in the value of money; that every change has been attended with great masses of ruin; that, at every change, the working classes have been sunk deeper and deeper in poverty and want, till, at last, they present a spectacle of human wretchedness and degradation, such as the world never misery have been caused by acts passed by your honourable House; and that, previous to the passing of every one of these acts, your humble petitioner has distinctly and publicly predicted the fatal consequences of the said acts respectively, each and every of which has fulfilled his predictions to the very letter. "3. That, in the above-mentioned bill, now before your honourable House, your humble petitioner sees a design to cause gold and silver to be the circulating money of England, that he knows, as well as he knows that fireburns, that if gold and silver be the circulating money of England, that more than half the present nominal amount of the taxes cannot be levied, without producing ruin and wretchedness absolutely insupportable; and that, therefore, while he expresses his gratitude to your honourable House for your laudable design to restore to the people the security given by his majesty's coin, he most humbly, but most earnestly, prays your honourable House to reduce the taxes to an amount not exceeding that which was their amount before the small paper-money supplanted the coin of his majesty. And your petitioner will for ever most humbly pray, "WILLIAM СОВВЕТТ." "February 20, 1826." Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. PROMISSORY NOTES BILL.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Lord A. Hamilton observed, that on a former occasion, he had applied to know whether this measure was, or was not to apply to Scotland. He had understood the chancellor of the Exchequer to say, that it was intended to apply to Scotland, at the end of three years. He now understood that the prime minister of the country, had said elsewhere, that the intention was, that the bill should be brought in, but should not commence for three years from this time, and should then take three years to complete its operation; thus extending the period for working its effects over six years from this time. He begged to state, that the agitation now pervading Scotland upon this subject was extreme. The Scotch thought this measure hostile to their interests. It was a very different thing to petition for the repeal of a measure, and to petition against a new measure. He had, therefore, a right |