Bill. Some remarks, well worthy of pub- | lic attention, were made by the Lords Grenville and King, and by his Grace the Duke of Norfolk. Lord Hawkesbury replied to some of those remarks. The conversation, for such it was rather than a debate, was interesting; and the apathy of the nation as to the subject was tolerably well pourtrayed in the number of peers present, which amounted only to fourteen!Lord Grenville dwelt much upon the vast increase of private paper, and apprehended the worst consequences from the further increase of it, because, he said, being payable in specie, it was likely to obtain a preference to the bank paper. But, this notion seems to be erroneous, because all private paper is payable in bank paper, at best, seeing that, of whatever sort the private pape may be, it can never be more than the evidence of a debt, and for no debt can a man be arrested, provided he tender bank paper to the amount of it. His lordship thought, that a joint committee of the two houses of parliament, or a committee of each house, ought, as soon after the recess as convenient, to be appointed to examine into and report upon, the state of the bank, and of the currency of the country; and, he also wished to see some measure prepared, for supporting, in case of invasion, the credit of the private paper of the part of the country, in which the invasion might take place Lord Hawkesbury having observed, that he doubted of the increase, of paper, since the first act of restriction on the bank, Lord King produced the accounts to shew, that the bank paper had nearly doubled since that time, whereupon Lord Hawkesbury said, that he did not mean the bank paper, but the private paper! Every mau at all conversant with the subject knows, that, as Lord Grenville stated, since the first act of restriction, the private paper has increased more than the bank of England paper. Driven from this, Lord Hawkesbury seemed to contend, that the increase of paper was owing to the increase of "trade, capital, and national prosperity;" and, if his lordship's position be true, the progress of the increase of paper must be peculiarly encouraging to the people. The bank of England notes in circulation,

In August, 1797 amounted to £10,828,880

What a cheering prospect! According to Lord Hawkesbury's doctrine, our trade, capital and national prosperity, have been almost doubled in the space of six years! This is the sort of accounts, this is the financial view, to send to the different courts of Europe! Prosperity doubled in the short space of six years! Freak your heart, Buonaparté, it is useless for you to contend with Mr. Addington and Lord Hawkesbury!--And, not only has our prosperity been increasing along with the increase of bank notes, but, which is something truly curious, the value of our silver and gold, and of every thing else, even down to our bread and cheese, has also been increasing, and, except in peculiar cases, this increase has kept an exact pace with that of the bank notes! Happy, thrice happy, people!-Lord King stated, that, though there were, perhaps, few instances, in which English bank notes underwent, as yet, a positive discount, still, they had depreciated, as clearly appeared from the price of standard silver, which, previous to the stoppage of cash payments, was 54. 2d. an ounce, and which is now 5s. 8d. This is a rise in the value of silver, or a fall in the value of bank notes, of more than nine per centum. There is no arguing against this fact. It is decisive as to the depreciation of bank paper; but, whether that depre ciation be a mark of prosperity, or of the contrary, shall be left for Mr. Addington and his supporters to decide-Both Lord Grenville and Lord King alluded to what had been said by Mr. Addington relative to the sin of boarding. They thought the imputation of unpatriotic motives," extremely absurd. In times of scarcity, they observed, nothing was so common as to hear a clamour against the hoardings of the mealmen, corn-dealers, and farmers; and this clamour was just as unreasonable, but not more, than the clamours of those, who are now railing against persons hoarding money ; for that, as in times of scarcity of provisions, the hoarding of corn and flour was the only effectual security against famine, so, in times like the present, the hoarding of money was the means most likely to prevent a total want of the precious metals. Lord Hawkesbury observed, that his colleague, Mr. Addington, recognizing as he did, the principles of freedom of trade, could not, in a tone of censure, have alluded to the amassing of gold and silver as objects of commerce, but only to the hoardings occasioned by a want of confidence in the country. To this Lord King replied, that, as to the blame cast on persons whom a want confidence led to hoard, it put him in mind of the history of the assignats, Robespiere, his lordship said, in order to re

store.confidence, passed a decreee to prevent people from keeping more than a certain sum of gold or silver in their possession, the effect of which decree was the total annihilation of the assignats.The hoarders of France were accused of incivism; people here are accused of unpatriotic motives. The former wanted confidence in Robespierre's government, the latter in the government of Mr. Addington, who is not less the cause of national ruin in political, than in commercial concerns. The contemptuous opinion which the world entertains of his administration, keeps all the courts of Europe aloof from us; it has dipped us into a most dangerous dispute with America; it has shaken the confidence, which foreigners have heretofore had in our pecuniary establishments, and our public securities; and, amidst all this, shall the people be blamed, if they wish to provide a few shillings, which is all that seems to be now left, against an hour of calamity? Shall every man be accused of "baseness" (that's the word he made use of) if he refuses, by way of proof of his confidence in Mr. Addington, to suffer his children to starve for want of bread? Besides, Mr. Jekyll, who first complained, in parliament, of the unpatriotic practice of hoarding, and whose observations the minister highly applauded, seems, when in asserting, upon the authority of a banking-house, that, unless hoarding was "put a stop to," there would not, in a short time, be any hard-cash to be seen; when citing this authority, he seems to have forgotten, that there had long been in circulation a pamphlet, written in and published from a banking-house, which pamphlet, agreeably to its title, inculcates the doctrine, that "guineas are an unnecessary and expen"sive incumbrance," and that there ought to be no currency but that of paper. From such a quarter, instead of a complaint against hoarders of hard money, one would naturally have expected an eulogium on their useful labours, for what can be more pleasing or of greater utility than that which tends to rid us of " an unnecessary incumbrance?" It has, indeed, been very well, and perhaps, very truly observed, that, as familiarity seldom fails to create contempt, guineas may now be viewed, in banking houses, as well as every where else, with a little more respect than formerly; but this circumstance, it is to be presumed, ought by no means to weigh against those who are vying with the bankers, in testifying this respect--At the close of the conversation in the house of lords, the Duke of Norfolk observed, that

И

if ministers would, whenever the bank-directors pleased, come to parliament and obtain a law to protect thsoe directors against the legal demands of their creditors, it might be feared; that, in return, those directors might, at some time or other, give ministers such aid as would enable them to dispense, for a time at least, with the concurrence of parliament. In answer to this, Lord Hawkesbury denied, in the most positive terms, that the bill was introduced at the request, or even at the suggestion, of the bank directors. There was, indeed, an incontestible proof of this, and it is a wonder his lordship did not cite it; to wit; that the bill is to "restrain" the directors from paying in specie, which, therefore, they are, doubtless, very desirous of doing! But, why then, not take off the restraint? Why not let these gentlemen give a loose to their noble natures?—The fact is, that this connection between the bank and government, that is to say, between the bank directors, and all the bankers and partners in banking. houses through the kingdom, on the one part, and the ministers on the other part, is one of the new and great points of our national situation, and one of the principal causes of our disgraceful acquiesence in every mea sure, the immediate object of which is the increase of factitious wealth. Let the No bles, let the Clergy, let the Gentry, let the Merchant and Manufacturer, think well of, and be duly prepared for, the final consequences of this connection. It is an object, which the statesman, who would rescue his country from ruin, ought to have constantly in view. He must, indeed, expect to be loaded with obloquy by the numerous and the ever-active swarm of paper-dealers, and by the news-papers, almost the whole of which these dealers have, either directly or indi rectly, at their command; but, that obloquy he must set at defiance; the current, of rather the torrent of events, which is fast rolling on, will soon wipe from his memory the recollection of the falsehood and abuse, with which he is now assailed. When one looks forward only to the distance of five or six years; when one considers, not what may, but what must happen before the end of that time, with what contempt, or rather, with what perfect indifference, one looks down upon those ignorant and venomous beings, who are railing at and cursing every man, who has the sense (and it does not want much) to perceive, and the honesty to forewarn them of, the dangers and calamities that await them!

LETTER

LETTER IV.

FROM A CONTINENTAL OBSERVER.

Hamburgb, Nov. 4, 1803.

SIR,-In my three former letters, I took the liberty of discussing four questions, relating to the proposition which your correspondent Inquisitor had previously made, for the open and complete restoration of the ancient French monarchy, in the person of Louis XVIII. the lawful heir to the throne, You may, perhaps, have thought me incompetent to the discussion of a subject so important; but I must beg your forbearance a little longer, while I offer some reflections on the principle which ought, and must, constitute the basis of that grand and glorious project. The congress proposed by Inquisitor, is intended chiefly for the regulation of the respective interests of the different states of Europe; and, among others, of the re-established French monarchy. Undoubtedly, it will also combine and direct the various means of adjustment, which circumstances may render necessary. All these are points, however, upon which it becomes me to preserve a respectful silence-But what I propose to examine is, the principle by which the power to be given to Louis XVIII. for the internal government of France, should be regulated.-What, then, will be the previous stipulations which will be made with the French, relative to the great changes which must take place in the internal regulation of the kingdom? Will they be told that every thing shall remain in its present state: or, on the contrary, will it be agreed that every thing shall be restored, as nearly as possible, to the state in which it was before the revolution: or, will they acquiesce in a state of mezzo-termine which will leave some of the most durable traits of the revolution, and will not completely obliterate the rest or, rather, will not all explanations relative to these objects be carefully avoided?By attempting to put a period to the revolution, and to destroy the revolutionary government, Great Britain attempts the overthrow of that which is unlawful in its nature, iniquitous in its operation, and ever dangerous in its consequences: and, by the re-establishment of the monarchical authority, she performs an act which is just, lawful, and good. The revolution, though in reality so strong and so rich, is, neverthe less, destitute of all right; and, by all her efforts, has never acquired what rebellion can never produce. The rights of the lawful Sovereign are, therefore, as perfect as if they had never been violated: and, to re-establish the monarchy is therefore, speaking strictly VOL. IV.

with regard to its rights, to replace it as it was, and to endow it with the same power which it possessed before the revolution.. Generally speaking, it would be more easy to re-establish it, simple and entire, than with modifications, such as they may be, which would open a door to new discontents and new struggles, both now and hereafter, and would render more complicated that which cannot be too plain. By adopting that principle, Europe would find it of great advantage in promoting and accelerating the restoration; and it would be of greater advantage in future, because the King would thereby be rendered better able to perform the engagements which he might have made with other states, at the impor tant moment of his re-establishment. France would also find it of infinite benefit to her internal tranquillity and security. Betore, it would have been impossible for her to be governed without the aid of military power, because all the bonds of authority were bro ken: but the revolutionary government has ? rendered the king an essential service, by taking upon itself, all the odium of an authority preserved by such means. I believe that there is scarcely an individual to be found, who does not think that France ought, at this time, to be governed by a power per fectly free, and totally unshack'ed. For my part I go further, for I think it absolutely necessary, that at first, the Monarch should be endowed with a power superior to that which he possessed before the revolution.I am aware that it will be said, that I make France but a poor present, in restoring her a government, against the abuses of which so much complaint has been made: a govern. ment where the authority of the Frince is not sufficiently limited; in fact, government which, when we recollect the wonderful ease with which it was overthrown, most be supposed to conceal great and numerous defects. This objection is plausible; and, therefore, lest any should be misled by it, let us examine its force.--Abuses in government are like rust, they attach themselves to that which is most hard and most solid; and nothing but the most assiduous care can prevent them from destroying it by slow and almost imperceptible degrees. This care constitutes one of the most essential parts of the art of governing. If we examine the vau rious governments of the world, ancient as^! well as modern, we shall always find that it w is this rust which, sooner or later, produces their decay. The more closely we investi gate this subject, the more certain will be our conviction. For my part, I do not think that, before the revolution, the laws of Ff

restore moderation.- If the French mo. narchy is destroyed, let it not, therefore, be said that it should have been destroyed. The numerous personal errors of that govern inent, which, at the time, may have appeared to the inattentive or undiscerning, as harmless, or even advantageous, have since made forcible impressions on the greatest part of those who possess upright minds and honest hearts. Now that we can, at a glance, compare the daily conduct of the French government, particularly from the year 1787, to the ever memorable 14th of July, 1789, with the constant effects of that conduct, we must be very weak indeed to suppose any thing else possible than that it must have been overthrown. But the faults of individuals are not the faults of the thing itself. The truth is, that the revolutionary party would not have prospered as it has and, indeed, would never have prospered effectually, if those persons who had the greatest influence in the government, had not from weakness and from the intoxication of novelty, as well as from corruption and wickedness, abandoned it to the direction of the very party that sought its destruction. Nothing has ever yet been sustained, and nothing ever can be sustained, even against the weakest attack, when the means of its defence are at the disposal of the assailants. Those who have written on the revolution have endeavoured to disguise these things as much as possible. But, if the restoration should be accomplished, truth, liberated from its chains, would be seen rising from among the ruins of the monarchy, and ascending, like the smoke of Abel's sacrifice, to the heavens; and the discoveries which would be then made, together with all the witnesses and proofs which would be brought forward, would de stroy that edifice of falsehood and malignity with which Europe was so long deluded, and which, even at this day, some do think, and many affect to think, a sound and beau tiful fabric.- The very reason why I think the French government should be clothed with extraordinary power, on its restoration, is because it was hurried by a train of unpardonable weaknesses, into the Vortex which overwhelmed it.Will it be thought possible to prescribe to the French on the one hand, and to the mo narch on the other, new and different limits to the regal authority? No: neither would be satisfied. The Prince would find his sceptre weak, at the very moment when it should be powerful; and his subjects would find themselves, more humiliated than benefited. To adjust the terms of a social compact for France, would not, even if it were

possible, be an easy or trifling affair. Tyranny will pursue her own course in spite of compacts. This is a truth, which in our day, has been so legibly and forcibly written, and in such dreadful characters, that the very recollection is sufficient to terrify those who rely upon the stipulations of a compact as a rampart of defence against the oppression of power. And, does any one suppose that a people who, from any cause whatever, are disposed to revolt, will be restrained by the conditions of a covenant? Will those, who are influenced more by the circumstances and feelings of the moment, than by a regard to their true interest; who, to day, do not think themselves bound by their promises or their deeds of yester. day; and whom every government by which they have been swayed, whether arbitrary or moderate, has, for its own preservation, been obliged to restrain by the most rigerous and the most violent means; will they, I ask, be the willing performers of a contract? And, if there should be no violation of the compact, are there not always real or imaginary pretexts for discontent and revolt? A new compact, though it were the work of angels, would, at best, possess all the uncertainty and all the unpropitiousness of novelty. In those countries where they exist, an ancient and formal compact with their Sovereign is justly regarded as the palladium of their rights; and is, undoubtedly, a jewel of inestimable value. I do not scruple to say, however, that liberty, ge nuine, rational liberty, the only liberty, indeed, which is worthy of the pur-uit of truly honest men, is, at all times, and in all countries, independent of written compacts, and of a nature far superior to that which is established by written constitutions. But, in the present case, the most certain, and evidently, the immediate effect of a new compact would be to declare not only to the people of France, but to the people of all other countries, that notwithstanding every thing, rebellion answers some good purposes; for if the Fren b bad never rebelled, they would never have dictated laws to their monarchs. It will not be denied, that such a monument of the power of rebellion, will be a most encouraging example for the discontented and seditious of other countries, The true and solid compact between the French monarch and the French people is engraved on the hearts of both it is scattered through the monuments of their history; and is covered with the venerable mould of great antiquity. We should never forget, that if it be feeling, rather than litigiousness, by which the people are led ta