tria the preponderant power in Italy. What policy, then, is it our interest to pursue? This is for you in England to decide; but can it be your interest to restore a family nearly connected by ties of blood, similarity of circumstance and feeling with France and Spain, recently irritated with you, who, if restored, will ascribe this restoration not to you, but to France? Can it be your interest to disturb a prince whose cause with Spain and France is desperate; who can have no connexions but with you and Austria, and who will feel for years not only that he owed his establishment to England, but that a friendly intercourse, and even alliance with that power, is absolutely necessary to his security? Can it be your interest to substitute for the only government in the south of Europe actuated by any military spirit, capable of any military exertion, and independent of France, a miserable, treacherous, bigoted and revengeful Court, whose system of government can only prepare its territories to be the prey to whatever military power the turn of a bat le may give a temporary preponderance in Italy? Such considerations, exclusive of the disqualifications rising from is legitimacy and his crimes, are in my judgment conclusive against Ferdinand; I give my vote for king Joachim of that name the first, whom England grant long to reign.

Yours ever,

VASSALL HO: LAND.

LETTER CCXXX. TO HIS FATHER.

My dear Sir,

Lincoln's Inn, 3d March, 1815.

I have had no time for writing lately; for we have had constant sittings in the House, and the Chancellor has been driving through his paper at a hard rate.

I am engaged in so many of the causes that stand for hearing till the holidays, that I have given up thoughts of going the first part of the circuit, and shall probably not join it till the end of Passion week, in Cornwall. They have lately taken me into some Irish Chancery appeals.

The Corn Bill has been well discussed, though carried clamorously and precipitately. It is in truth a most unwise measure, though I really believe that most of those who vote for it have brought themselves to believe that it may be serviceable to the agricultural interests of the country; at the same time, the most conscientious of them cannot but know, they will be no losers by it for if it proves effectual at all, its operation will be merely to save rents a little in their unavoidable fall, and to gain this advantage to landlords, by putting the people upon shorter allowance than they would otherwise have. Petitions are now coming from all quarters, and a good deal of heat is rising in the large towns; but the bill will probably be out of our House, before the petitions can be found in sufficient numbers to intimidate votes; and in the House of Lords, the voice of the people is not likely to be heard. I hear we are, in all probability, to have wheat at a very high price, before the middle of summer; which may be attended with some inconvenience, if the popular impression should be, that that is owing to the new-made law.

We have had three excellent debates, on the militia question in which Sir Arthur Piggott distinguished himself very much, and on the two cases of Genoa and the Spaniards given up by the governor of Gibraltar, on both of which occasions Sir J. Mackintosh made very able speeches. The conclusion of the one he made about the Spaniards was a finished and very eloquent

composition. I had a little success, in my little way, on the Genoa affair; it was an easy and most agreeable subject to speak on: and in the other debate, I had the satisfaction of expressing some very whiggish doctrines about Ferdinand the Beloved. Excuse this egotism. My kind love to my mother and sisters.

Ever affectionately yours,

FRA. HORNER.

LETTER CCXXXI. FROM WILLIAM MURRAY, ESQ.,* TO MR.

My dear Sir,

HORNER'S FATHER.

Temple, 8th March, 1815.

I cannot resist the opportunity which a frank offers, of writing you a few lines of congratulation upon the excellent appearances which your son has lately made in the House of Commons. His speeches upon Genoa and the Corn question I have heard mentioned with the most unqualified praise, by some of the best judges; among whom I may mention Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir James Mackintosh. The latter said, that "two such speeches had never been made in the House of Commons by the same person in one week; or, at least, not for a great many years." It seems now perfectly understood that his character, as a speaker, is firmly settled in the very first rank of the House of Commons. What a pity it is that the speeches to which I allude were so imperfectly given in the newspapers!

BANK RESTRICTION ACT.

Another important measure of the Government in this session, to which Mr. Horner naturally directed his attention in its progress through the House, was the renewal of this Act. On the first day the House met, after the long adjournment, that is, on the 9th of February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, that on the 13th the House should go into Committee to consider this Act. Mr. Horner asked him, whether he meant to propose the renewal of the Act, without first moving for a Committee on the affairs of the Bank; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer having replied that he had no intention of moving for such a Committee, Mr. Horner next day said," he should move for the production of such papers as would enable Members to form some judgment on the state of the currency of the nation, and the issues made by the Bank of England. He conceived that an inquiry should be made into the funds of the Bank, to ascertain whether the Company would soon be capable of renewing their payments in cash; and that this was an inquiry in which the feelings of the country were deeply interested. Without more information than had yet been produced, it was not possible for the House to form any accurate opinion relative to the matter."

On the 16th of February the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that, "whatever difference of opinion might prevail as to the period at which it might be practicable to resume cash payments at the Bank, he apprehended that all were agreed that such payments could not be resumed by the 25th March next, on which day the Act would expire; it was therefore necessary

that a Bill should be brought in, to continue the Act for a limited time." This was agreed to without opposition. In the Committee on the Bill on the 2d of March, it was agreed that the continuance should be to the 6th of July, 1816; and on the bringing up of the Report on the 7th, Mr. Horner said,

"He was decidedly of opinion that the Bank ought to resume cash payments as early as possible, and he could not allow this opportunity to pass without entering his protest against the Bill altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said that he expected the measure would not continue to be necessary beyond July, 1816, he regarded as being pledged, not that the Bank should resume its payments in cash at that time, but that he would not lose sight of the subject. It was a mere delusion to suppose that the Bank would resume cash payments if left to themselves. Government must interpose its authority; for it was not natural that the Bank should, spontaneously, give up the great profits which they derived from the system of restriction. Was it not a strange circumstance that, during the period of our greatest foreign expenditure, and our largest importation of grain, the price of gold was falling; and that it was rising this year, when our foreign expenditure was rapidly diminishing every week, and the importation of wheat had ceased? On the third reading of the bill he should propose that a declaration of the principle, that the Bank must resume its payments, should be introduced. No one wished cash payments should take place immediately, but that ministers should adopt the doctrine of the necessity of their taking place."

On the third reading of the bill on the 9th of March, Mr. Horner moved as an amendment, "That whereas it