Bank of England, and private bankers issuing notes*;—and that the amount of all their issues should be accurately ascertained from time to time, and laid before the public: so that nothing uncertain or concealed may give ground for exaggerated statements, or unfounded calculations, on so delicate and important a subject+. It would then (as it ought) be open to fair discussion upon ascertained grounds, within what, if any, limits an extensive and rapidly increasing paper currency is desirable, even although it be the representative and the circulator of a corresponding increase of capital and commodities, of actual industry and labour. That the increase of these effects is in itself desirable, there can be no doubt; but it is possible that doubts may be entertained whether certain limits do not exist, beyond which even these advantages, when supported by paper currency, may be more than counterbalanced by the attendant risk. The farther those limits extend, while paper is of the nature of a legal tender, the greater will the difficulty be when the time arrives, to restore the great desideratum, viz. specie as the foundation of our currency; and the more frequently will it be necessary to bolster up public credit upon sudden emergencies exciting a run upon the issuers of paper. Moreover when we see the proportion which the increase of luxuries, and conveniencies affording no solid or permanent benefit, already bears to that of the agricultural or other permanent improvements, which will continue and be available to our real comfort and happiness even should paper currency cease to circulate, we may be disposed still more to doubt the expediency of a further rapidly increasing ratio in the facilities afforded to an indefinite progress in the same career.

We have now given our opinion upon the whole of this most important question, formed, as we solemnly declare, upon an unbiassed consideration of the several arguments advanced upon

We would also submit, whether justice and a fair analogy with the rest of our laws do not make it expedient to pass an Act, rendering such bankers, as shall convert to their own use securities deposited with them for safe custody or convenience, guilty of felony.

+ We do not presume to give a positive opinion on the expediency of claiming for the public a participation in the profits arising from the substitution of paper currency for specie. On the one hand it is clear, that when events arising out of the state of public affairs have thrown immense profits, (made as it were on the public account,) into the hands of private individuals, without any increased industry or capital on their part, the public may fairly demand a direct share in the profits. On the other hand it may be well doubted how far a large participation by the public would give it so great an interest in the continuance of paper currency, as to produce a danger that it would in the end become paper money issued on the authority of the state.

both sides. If we have been hasty, or misinformed on any point, we shall be unfeignedly thankful to those who will point out our error, and future publications on the subject will, no doubt, give us an opportunity of revising and correcting them. We are sorry, for our readers' sake, that we have not been able to compress this article into a compass that would have created a smaller demand upon their patience. But we will venture to predict, that the more the subject is discussed with a view to practice, the more generally will some such opinions as we have advanced be received and acted upon.

Since this article has been prepared for the press, a pamphlet by Mr. Ricardo, which he entitles a "Reply" to Mr. Bosanquet's Practical Observations, has been put into our hands. If it had been published sooner, we should of course have given our opinion upon the degree of force which we think due to those parts which bear upon the particular points we have treated as essential to our argument. All we can do now, however, is to express our firm conviction that the results which we have ventured to draw from the whole discussion are in no degree weakened by Mr. Ricardo's work. It is possible that on some intricate points relating to the foreign exchange Mr. Ricardo may be right. We believe those points are very imperfectly understood even by experienced merchants; and Mr. Bosanquet will no doubt make his observations upon them. But upon the main questions relating to the depreciation of our currency, the issues of bank paper, the balance of payments, excessive circulation, and the export of bullion, we think Mr. Ricardo's "Reply" extremely unsatisfactory: and should the question not be set at rest before our next number, we shall perhaps state the grounds of that opinion.

ART. III. The Speech of John Leach, Esq. M. P. in the Committee of the whole House, upon the State of the Nation, on Monday Dec. 31, 1810, upon the Question of Limitations to the Royal Authority in the Hands of the Regent.—Ridgeway, 1811.

The Speech of the Right Hon. Lord Grenville, in the House of Commons, Jan. 16, 1789, on the proposed Regency Bill. -Stockdale, 1811.

HIGHLY interesting and important as is the subject of the abovementioned publications, it may be thought extraordinary that it should have occasioned so little employment for the press. The fact however is, that there are few persons within the compass of whose talents and knowledge the materials for a suitable discussion of it are to be found. Statute law is silent upon it: there is, as Mr. Leach observes, no text writer by whom it has been treated, and the authority of the precedents which have been applied to it is too indecisive to be satisfactory; inasmuch as those of different periods are by no means consistent with each other, and those upon which the chief stress appears to be laid occurred at times, and under circumstances, which materially reduce the weight and influence to which they would otherwise be entitled. But with reference to one side of the question there is no cause for regret. An exposition of the principles upon which the proceedings of parliament were founded in 1788-9, and a defence of the measure then in agitation, were submitted, in the speech before us, to the House of Commons, and afterwards to the public, by Mr. Grenville, (now Lord Grenville,) with a perspicuity and a force of reasoning which we believe were never surpassed. This masterly composition embraces the whole of the subject; and we venture to affirm, that a more useful record of sentiments delivered in parliament was never presented to the public. We should have thought, that the doctrines it lays down and the arguments by which they are established would have carried conviction to every mind; but we cannot suppress our astonishment on finding that they appear, from recent circumstances, to have lost a part of their influence on that of the noble lord himself.

The ground taken by Mr. Leach in December last, on the other side of the question, was far more circumscribed: his speech was, however, strictly applied to the question immediately before the House of Commons. It consists of a clear and logical argument; the purpose of which is, to disprove the right and the expediency of imposing limitations on the royal autho

rity in the hands of the Regent. To some of the leading passages in this speech we shall hereafter have occasion to refer.

The most striking instances of the resources possessed by the free constitution of this country for meeting extraordinary exigencies are to be found at the periods of the Restoration, the Revolution, and of his Majesty's indisposition in the year 1788-9, and on the present melancholy occasion. In each instance the agency of an efficient and legitimate authority has been called forth.

To this authority a monstrous claim of right, justly described by Mr. Pitt as treason to the constitution, was indeed opposed in the year 1788; but it was instantly crushed by the weight of that incontestable principle so justly stated by Mr. Grenville, "that no right can be claimed or exercised as against the people, except those only which have been given by positive laws appearing on the face of our statute book, or proved by immemorial and uninterrupted usage; and that whatever power or authority has not been so conferred still resides with the people, to be exercised by them through the channel of their lawful, full, and free representatives."

The rights of the people and the authority of parliament were accordingly recognized and acted upon at that memorable period; and we then saw, as we have recently seen, the constitution of this country deriving additional strength and security from the opportunity of asserting and applying principles, on which its freedom and stability must essentially depend.

With respect to the mode of exercising the right and of discharging the duty which thus devolved upon the two houses of parliament, we confess that the first bias of our minds was towards a summary proceeding by address to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; but a very little reflection convinced us of our error. Such a proceeding, if directed to the object of appointing a Regent for the purpose of opening parliament, would not have obviated the objections made to that which was actually adopted: an additional step would indeed have been interposed, and, as we humbly conceive, most unnecessarily and improperly but the indispensable act of affixing the great seal in the King's name to the commission would still have been performed by the same authority, viz. that of the two Houses of Parliament.

Some persons were, however, of opinion, that in the address to the Prince, his royal highness should be solicited to assume the office of Regent, not merely to open parliament, but for the purpose of exercising at once other functions of royalty. We venture to ask what other functions of royalty? Could it be in

tended thus to transfer all the prerogatives of the crown? If not, which were to be granted, and which withheld? If all were to be granted, where would have been that security for the care of his majesty's sacred person during his indisposition, and for the resumption of his royal authority upon his recovery, which the two houses were bound to provide? If, on the other hand, some of the prerogatives were to be withheld, how could the reservations have been so described and detailed in an address, as to afford a certainty of their being constantly and strictly ob served? The parliament which had agreed to the address might be dissolved: new circumstances might furnish occasional pretences for deviation to the advisers of the regent: we say the advisers of the regent, because the personal character of his royal highness ought not to be brought into this view of the subject: though we desire to be understood as entertaining towards that illustrious personage all the reverence that is so peculiarly due, not only to his high station, but to his princely qualities and virtues. But we have dwelt too long on the consequences to be apprehended from such a proceeding; as we presume to deny the right or the power, (whilst there is a monarch upon the throne,) of constituting by an address of the two houses such an authority as that in question.

The step to be taken in 1788-9, and on the more recent occasion, was not to restore nor to elect a King, but to supply a defect in the moral capacity of the sovereign, whose claims upon our allegiance were in no degree impaired by the calamity with which he was afflicted. It has, therefore, been contended, and, as we conceive, unanswerably, that such a defect could be supplied in no other mode than by bill, to which the royal assent must be given before it could possess the authority of law; and, as Mr. Grenville has observed, "the signification of the royal assent by the great seal, being that organ through which the authority of the crown speaks in the most solemn and authentic manner, is not a point of form only, but follows as a necessary consequence from some of the most important principles of the constitution, which could not be neglected without great and manifest danger."

On the question of the right of suspending the exercise of some of the royal functions, Mr. Leach displays considerable knowledge and ingenuity; but we confess that the weight of argument appears to us to be decidedly with Mr. Grenville. The latter confidently affirms the right: the former no less confidently denies it. Mr. Grenville takes his stand upon the principle maintained and declared by the two houses in their joint resolutions" That their right to act in this instance in a legislative