Star.
London, England, 1823-02-27 00:00:00

.

ral.question. So far, however, as the ritndhoWer
was concerned,lt was to be recollected that thidebt
was contracted in a depreciated currency : but was
contracted at a time when an Act was enforced, sti-
pulating for the return to cash payments on tl:e re-
turn of hear).—He would admit that
it might be possible that they should be mistaken as
to the amount of the depreciation; but the principle
aod equity of the measure must be always the same,
and what was just in 1810 and'lBll must also be jnst
in 1819. What then was the Resolution of an au-
thority to which none could sooner bow, he pre-
sumed, than the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury—he
meant of Mr. Horner ?—(Hear).-r-lt was, that at the
expiration of two years from its date, not six months
after the peace, cash payments should he resumed
(Hear, hear).—What also were his (foal ines as to the
equity of the measure? He moved " that the pro.
missory notes of the Bank meant that they will pay
in sterling cash to the amount of the sum specified
on the notes."—lt was obvious, then, that the inten-
tion of Parliament was, when cash payments were
suspended, that whatever should be the intervening
depreciation, it should not be deducted from the cte-
ditor. Would it, under thesescircumstances, be fair
toideprirshirn of the estimated amount, ;:s proposed,
of the depreciation?, If Parliament had not foreseen
that there might be some alteration in the value
of the currency in which the promissory note was to
be paid, it would not have passed this Resolution.—
He would abstain, for the present, from saying any
more, further than that he still entertained everyone
of the opinions he had formerly expressed when the
subject was agitated. He begged the House to sus-
pend their opinions on the subject till a full and fair
discussion had been afforded upon it. In the mean
time, he would appeal to the difference in the state
of the country in 1823 to what it WAS in 1817, en-
treating, that when called upon to pronounce a final
judgment upon the Act in question, the House would
bear that difference in mind—(Hear, hear).
Mr. MONCK c-uld not allow the discussion. of
this question to go by without animadverting en the
tone of levity in which the Hon. Member for Port-
arlington alluded to the effects of the state of the cur-
rency in 1816. He differed from the Hon. Member
in the view taken by him. He thought that they
should be as scrupulous of doing injustice to the pub-
lic debtor as to the public creditor. But they were
about to do him injustice to perpetuity, and not tem-
porary, as declared. by the Right Hon. Secretary op-
posite. It should be remembered, that besides these
two, there was a third class, whom he, might call
neutral—he meant heirs at law, mortgagers, and te-
nants.—The Petition was then read, and on the ques-
tion that it be printed, . .
Mr.'RICARDO made a few observations in ex-
planation.—He repelled the charge of his Noble
Friend (Lord Folkstone) that he had at one time re-
presented that the effect of the Bill called " Peel's
Bill," was to altetthe prices only five per cent. and
then Admitted it to the extent of ten per cent. When
he talked of five per cent. it was under the supposi-
tion that the measure would have been effected in the
way specified in the Bill it,elf, viz, by payments in
bullion. On the contrary, however, it had been done
by means of sovereigns, which they were obliged to
have a Bill in that House to enable them to get rid
of. He could not admit he had spoken with levity
on the subject- of the currency of 1816: he felt as
much as any man on the subject: he had only said,
that from 1816 to 1819 there had been no change
in the currency at all.

Lord FOLKSTONE said, his Hon. Friend first de-
nied,
and then, In his explanation, confessed that he
had represented him correctly. He said that he was',
not discussing the Bill that had passed, butone which
was in the imagination of his Hon. Friend.