sing corporation of the Bank. Al though he did not mean to propose at present any direct interference with that branch of the Bank's profits, there was one other item of its gains too important to be overlooked by the Bank itself in making its demands against the House in recovering them, this was the profits gained by the Bank in consequence of the immense increase in the circulation of their paper, occasioned by the Bank Restric. tion Act, an increase giving rise, as he calculated it, to no less than an addition of 80,000l. to the gross annual profits of the Bank.

The conclusion of his speech was, that instead of borrowing six millions from the Bank at four per cent., we ought, in consideration of the extravagant profits lately made by them, to "borrow that sum," (if the word borrow could be properly applied on the occasion,) at no interest at all. The motion was, "That a select committee be appointed to enquire into the engagements now subsisting between the public and the Bank of England, and to consider the advantages derived by the Bank from its transactions with the public, with a view to the adoption of such future arrangements as may be consistent with those principles of good faith and equity which ought to prevail in all transactions between the public and the Bank of England."

On the representation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a more proper opportunity for considering these subjects would occur when in due course the Bank restriction bill of the season should be brought before the House, Mr Grenfell's motion was lost. When that bill was read for the third time, accordingly, Mr Grenfell, whose indefatigable and disinterested exertions entitle him to the thanks of the public, again renewed his attack on the style of the transactions between the Bank and the public. The Chan

cellor of the Exchequer defended the equity of these transactions, and represented Mr Grenfell as having been carried into many, no doubt unintentional, over estimates of the profits gained by the corporation. A clause was, however, introduced into the preamble of the bill, as the Chancellor supposed, not against the consent of the Bank directors, which ran thus :-" Whereas the Bank of England are possessed of certain sums of the public money, arising from balances of several public accounts, and are willing to advance," &c. But on its being discovered that through some accident the opinion of the directors respecting this clause had been mistaken, and after a debate in which Mr Baring and some other of the first bankers maintained the equity of the dealings of the Bank, the clause was withdrawn, and the bill passed in its original state by a majority of 116 to 56.

The subject of the Bank Restriction Act, above alluded to, was afterwards more directly brought before parliament by Mr Horner. The arguments and statements which that gentleman used, were in no ways different from those which he had already employed, and of which we have in a former volume given an account. The motion which he made on the present occasion was lost; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated, that he had no intention of rendering the act perpetual; that steps had already been taken for preparing gradually the restoration of cash payments, and that at the end of two years he had no doubt they would be entirely resumed. An act for extending the Restriction Act till July the 5th, 1818, was accordingly passed.

The only other important matters of a financial nature which this year occupied the attention of parliament, were the consolidation of the English and Irish Exchequere, a measure, the

wisdom of which had been rendered abundantly perceptible by the experience of the years which had elapsed since the political union of the two countries; and the passing of an act

for a new silver coinage, a measure which had in like manner been loudly called for by all classes of the community.

We have already seen, from the statement of the military force demanded for the service of Ireland, that, in the opinion of ministers, the unhappy dissentions among the inhabitants of that country had not yet been entirely allayed. At a subsequent period of the session, a great body of information re specting the affairs of the sister island was brought before the House, on occasion of a motion of Sir John Newport. This gentleman professed to have no object in view but that of requesting documents to be laid before the House which might enable himself and others thoroughly to understand the grounds of keeping up an army of 25,000 in time of profound peace, in Ireland, and, more generally, of attracting a due share of public attention to the affairs of that kingdom. These simple requests he prefaced with an elaborate speech, of which we shall insert the most material parts, first, because in itself it contains much interesting information concerning the history of Ireland, compressed into a very short compass; and, secondly, because it called out, in the reply of Mr Peel, a mass of information respecting the actual state of that kingdom.

After rapidly sketching the earlier history of Ireland from the time of its first annexation to the crown of England, down to the period of those bloody measures which deformed the annals of Charles I., Cromwell, and James II., he went on to the epoch of the revolution, 1688. "With the revolution," said he, " came honour, glory, and independence to Britain; but to Ireland no such bright prospects! The victors treated those whom they subdued, and those who aided them in the conquest, with the same revolting indifference. The era which succeeded to the revolution was in Ireland marked by the sordid characters of illiberal exclusion and monopoly within and without-its interior concerns abandoned to the exercise of a vindictive provincial tyranny by its English masters, who covenanted for the surrender of its external and commercial concerns to British monopoly

a barter disgraceful to both countries, and involving the complete sacrifice of national and commercial rights. The protestant interest, as it was then called, became the object to which every other consideration gave way, and every measure which was alleged to contribute to it, secured by

that allegation, the unqualified support of the Irish parliament, whilst they passively acquiesced in the destruction of their woollen manufactures. Then arose that code of penal law which has been designated by the Chancellor, Lord Camden, as a monstrous monument of folly and oppression, which was sufficient to demoralize the coun

try, and which had completely fulfilled that purpose.' In Primate Boulter's Letters, we find in every page from one of her governors, evidence of the corrupt and petty artifices by which the system was supported. In the case of Wood's halfpence, he says, the measure was much to be lamented, as it generally interested the people, had extinguished their divisions, and tended to unite the whole country.' In a letter to Lord Carteret, he says, that although to prevent a recurrence of scarcity approaching to famine, he had forwarded a bill obliging the occupant of lands to plough five acres in every hundred occupied, yet it does not encourage tillage by allowing any bounty to exporters which might clash with British interests.' The act was passed in the year 1729, but was inefficacious; for during forty years, from 1782, with the exception of one year, the import of corn was constant; it was probably counteracted by that monstrous vote of the House of Commons of 1735, which stripped the clergy of Ireland of a large proportion of their provision, and declared the tithe of agistment to be grievous, burthensome, and injurious to the protestant interest.' In this manner did these champions of protestantism assert the rights of a protestant church. From this vote, and the consequently insufficient provision of the clergy, arose the practice of uniting parishes, so as to deprive them of spiritual assist ance from their pastors, the protest aut population during that period, and since the conversion of pasturage into

tillage through so great an extent of the country, increasing in an enormous and disproportionate degree, the incomes of the parochial clergy, resident and non-resident.

"The temper with which the Irish parliament legislated, was manifested even in the least important of their proceedings. When a petition was presented complaining that a Roman Catholic coal-merchant employed porters of his own persuasion, it was referred by the House of Commons to the committee of grievances. Was it then surprising that a parliament thus completely severing its interests from those of the body of the people, should possess no solid strength, or that the English minister should be encouraged by that disunion to, attempt a measure which, if successful, would have sealed the death-warrant of parliaments in Ireland?-I allude to the proposition of voting the supplies for twenty-one years, which failed only by a single vote. The parliament of George II. sat thirty-three years, outliving all connexion with the constituent body, and possessing but one solitary virtue, that of economy. It paid off the debt of the country, and accumulated a surplus in the Exchequer of 200,000l. in the year 1753, both rescued from the factions who contended for its possession, and transferred to England by a king's letter. It is a most extraor dinary effect on the human mind of this provincial misrule, grounded on what was termed protestant ascendancy, that Dean Swift, calling himself, and looked up to as an Irish patriot, expressed himself delighted with the prospect of beggary being the certain lot of the Irish Roman Catholics, and more than insinuates a wish that the Protestant dissenters were in the same state. Henry Boyle, the first Earl of Shannon, too, who, as one of the lords justices, was in the government of Ire. land more than twenty-five years, in a

Sketch of Ireland, written in 1747, states a principal cause why so great and fruitful a country produced so little, and advanced so slowly towards improvement, to be the penal code, discouraging the labour and industry of the papists, though three-fourths of the arts, industry, and labour of the country must be necessarily carried on by their hands' and adds, until some happy temper can be fallen upon as to make our apprehensions from the papists consist with our interest to employ them, Ireland can advance but slowly in improvement.' And yet to measures of this nature Mr Boyle could not reconcile himself! So difficult is it for men of even superior minds to disengage themselves from the fetters of prejudice and bigotry! I may, by the way, add, it appears from this paper, that nearly every fourth year from the revolution had been a year of scarcity, and in that interval nearly five millions were paid for imported corn and flour to feed the inhabitants of that fertile island.

"The septennial bill, passed in 1767, secured to a certain extent the connexion between the electors and elect ed. With this exception, Ireland felt little change in her situation till the year 1778. In that year the reverses of the American war left Ireland without a military force, and here com> menced the era of her glory. She was told to protect her-elf, and she did so. She protected herself from her enemies abroad, and from her enemies at home. The gallantry, the concord, and the heroism of her sons, placed her in a sis tuation to command respect, and she was respected. Till she respected herself, Britain did not respect her; Ire land then first took her station amongst the nations of the earth, when it ceased to be a divided nation. I discharge a debt of justice due to him who sits beside me (Mr. Grattan)-to him Ire. land owes much; and to whom she

has in return testified her ardent gra. titude. His exertions awakened us to a sense of our rights, and hence the brightest page in our annals of glory. Having asserted her independence, little was wanting to its continuance; but here she failed! Those who had gained a victory over others did not possess sufficient virtue to extend that conquest to themselves. The Protestant population, the leaders in this struggle, had not public spirit enough to share the fruits of victory with the great body of the people, and therefore they fell. I trust their fate will afford a salutary lesson to every country, and impress on them the convic tion, that by complete consolidation of interests alone, can they avoid a si milar calamity. I ought to add (what indeed is most deserving the attention of the House,) during this triumph of Ireland in the absence of military force, and whilst she thus nobly exerted her self to take her rank amongst the na tions, the laws were better obeyed than during any period of her history. Every one lent his willing aid to enforce their execution. What a great lesson is to be drawn from this! Place a country in astate of concord with regard to itself, and the laws will be obeyed ; no longer seek to govern by disunion, or by sacrificing one class of the com. munity, and the laws will be obeyed. Why has not this memorable lesson of the weakness of that policy which would exclude from the full benefits of a free constitution, the great body of the people, produced its fuli effect? Why has not Ireland resumed that happy situation? Why is not the spi rit of her government assimilated to that of England? Here every man, however humble his condition, what ever his political tenets, feels an inte rest in the laws, and contributes to their execution, for they efficaciously protect him, and neither rank nor power can violate them with impunity.