Star.
London, England, 1816-05-02 00:00:00

•\-
• .trgtee

brj4Wl.o.a.—Fi
01

PRICE StVEN-PENCE.

the question from the Right Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Baakes). The House wneld abancler its pri.
vileges if it agreed t. the previous question. This
is no naval ur military situation, it was only advance-
ment in the naval or military service, that did not
require vacating a•seat in that House. Ile shopld
therefore vote lestiner the previous .question.
Mr. ABER CROM IIY argued, t4at voting for the
previous question would be directly in the teeth of
the Act of Patliamcnt, on the subject, for no one
doubted that this was neither a naval nor military ap.
pointtnent. This was also an of:ice hell during the
pleasure 44 the Crown, and therefore Sir T. Thornp-
sott's not vacating his seat was objectionable as in-
creaing the inflaence of the Crown.
Mr. G. ROSE perfectly agreed with Isis Honour.
able Friend (Mr. Bar kes), and thought that the atm--
logy pointed out by him was fully sufficient.
Mr. PONSONIBY never heard more extraordinary
arguments than those advanced by the Hon. Gentle.
man (Mr. Bankes). This was an office during plea.
.sure from the Crown. There was no exception from
vacating a seat in that House on accepting a piece
nnder es: Crown, except with respect to naval and
military situations. This situation was neither naval
nor military. On • what grounds then could the
House ref use to issue the writ ? The Hon. Gentleman
said, on that of analogy. There was no analogy to
justify this breach of the Act of Parliament. The case
that was brought forward to establish the analogy
had never been brought into question, and therefore
there was no analogy in it. In the case of the Trea.
surer of the Hospital which had been brought into
question, the Howe had issued a writ, and he va.
cated 11:.s seat, and therefore the analogy was against
the Honourable Gentleman's arguments. And what
was this contradiction of an Act of Parliament for?
Was it in favour of the liberties of the subject, was
it to protect the privileges of the House ? No, it wag
against them. The Honourable Gentleman could
find neither law, nor fact, nor decision in favour of
his arguments, and yet he desired the House to act
in direct contradiction to an Act of Parliament. If
ever there was a casein which the House should pro-
ceed with a sense of its privileges it was the present.
L•srd CASTLEREAGH thought, that the law
should have souse. latitude. Professional advance-
meat was excepted, and this was so similar that it
established a sufficient analogy. It would set no ex-
ample in favour of a general practice contrary to the
Act of Idarliathent. He-also believed there was a
pseceJent of st• giiiveyor:Gerieral of the Navy. He
tharefore vote forthe previous question.
Loid A. HAMILTON contended, that Sir T.
Thompson's not vacating his seat would set an ex-
ample of 'the general practice.
Mr. NV YNN replied, and tats Hustle divined, when
the nutubers were--
Fur the previous siltation
Against it
Majority

6S
47
1

- eamic eneerese.
Mr. HORNER, in rising to move for a select
Committee to inquire into the expediency of calling
on the Bank of England to resume their Cash Pay.
mem., observed, it was a great satisfaction to him,
that his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the •
Exchequer) had allowed lijm to submit his motion to
the House, before any farther progress had been
made in the Bill for renewing the Bank Restriction
Act ; because he was quite sure that it must be the
expectation of all those Members of the House, who
had at any time paid attention to this subject, that,
in the present situation of the country, before the
measure of restriction was renewed (hot for a short
time, but for a pet loaf of two years), the notice of the
Legislature should be called to it, in a detailed and
particular manner—in order that they should under-
stand how far a measure, which originated under
very different circumstances, should be continued at
present—in order that they might learn why Minis.
ters should adopt a restriction from cash payments,
as almost a permanent part of their present system of
finance. The Astonishment which lie felt whets he
heard that it was meant. to propose the measure for
two years, was, he believed, generally felt through-
out the country. From what his Right Hon. Friend
had said, on a firmer occasion, the people thought,
that, after a cessation of hostilities—when a time of
peace had arrived—an end would be pat to this sys-
tem, which, whether right or wrong, was adopted in
a period of war—and that we should resume that
course of law and practice, with respect to cash pay.
melts, on which the prosperity of the country de.
pended, and on which the trausactiuns between man
and in in, could alone by safely conducted. The
proposition for a renewal of the restrictions, for two
years. had this effect on his mind—it led him to .
doubt the professions of Ministers, altogether, as to
their feeling any desire for the resumption of cash
payments —(Hear.)—They had repeatedly said, that
the old system should be resorted to, OM the cenclu-
sion of peace; that, as soon as possible after the ces-
sation of war, the restriction shoulJ be removed. It
was now six months after the signe:ure of a defini-
tive Treaty of Peace—twelve menths had elapsed
since this- country virtually enjoyed the benefits of
solid peace, for since June last she had no enemy—
and yet, at this moment, without arty previous consie
dewiest, they were called on to renew the measure,
they were asked to keep things in the same situation
in which they were placed during the co:Aim:ince of
hostilities. 'Fliir they were requested to di', without
any one step being taken to facilitate the resumption
of cash payments. Looking, therefore, to the
is which his Right Hon. Friend had proposed the
measure, he entertained very great doubts of the pro.
fessions of Ministers. But, it he felt a doubt with
respect to Ministers, no doubt whatevet existed in his
mind witleeespect to the Bank set England.—(ll,er,
kear.)—Were they not told, year after year (until
they scarcely coatd hear the declaration with gravity),
by Gentlemen connected with the Bank, that their •
nut resuming their cash payments was all a matter
of compulsion—that it WAS against their aystem—
.th4 pothiag was so painful to their feelings, as thiur •