ambition was directed, not to Westminster Hall, but to St. Stephen's. His own views on the subject will be read with some interest.

"Almost from my first entrance upon the study of law, I considered politics as an ultimate object and a concurring occupation. Political adventure is a game which I am disqualified from playing by many circumstances of my character, and which I am resolved to decline. But some share in public business, acquired by reputation, and supported on an independent footing, is a fair object, and almost the only reward that stimulates me to the law. Without belonging to a party, there can be no efficient participation in public affairs. If an honourable man sees no formed party among the factions of the state by whom his general ideas of policy are maintained, he will shrink from them all, and attempt only individual efforts to explain and enforce his views. But in the general maxims and principles of Mr. Fox's party, both in regard to the doctrine of the constitution, to foreign policy, and to the modes of internal legislation, I recognize those to which I have been led by the results of my own reflection, and by the tenor of my philosophic education. And I am ambitious to co-operate with that party in labouring to realize those enlightened principles in the government of our own country; however I lament some violences and mistakes in the conduct of Opposition on particular occasions, and however much I suspect the characters of some who have at times been very near Mr. Fox's person. All my feelings carry me towards that party, and all my principles confirm the predilection. Into that party, therefore, I resolutely enlist myself, with very feeble hopes of its ever being for any long period triumphant in power. There is a low prudence in rearing the fabric of one's fortunes, which fixes the ambition (if it may be called by so proud a name) in the actual possession of places and emolument. And there are some living instances which prove this to be quite a sure game, provided there are never any compunctious visitings of principle or personal regard. There is a more virtuous discretion which limits a man's schemes of exertion to his professional sphere, and to the honest accumulation of large profits and small praises, such as the English bar seems almost infallibly to bestow on diligent abilities. But there is a more elevated prudence which does not stop at affluence in its prospect, but ventures to include the chances of lasting service to mankind, and a good name impressed upon the history of the times."—Vol. i. p. 253.

Mr. Horner's political opinions, throughout his life, were those of the "Old Whigs "for the "name of dignity" must be granted to Mr. Fox and his followers, in spite of Burke. He died before the question of Parliamentary Reform came to be much agitated, or at least before it was considered as of paramount importance. His opinion, as far as it was made up, seems to have been in opposition to that measure. And one

really cannot deny that there was some merit even in the rottenness of those times, as compared with the purity now in fashion, when we consider that a man like Horner, with no other qualifications than mere ability and public virtue, without mob-eloquence, or the means of bearing the expence of a contested election, and who therefore, had he lived now, would be hopelessly excluded from Parliament, had in the beginning of the present century hardly shown himself in society, or made his talents and integrity known, before the rottenest of boroughs were open for him, without any sort of pledge being required from him as to his future conduct. The first offer of a seat was made to Mr. Horner by Lord Kinnaird in 1806, and after a short hesitation was accepted. He became member for St. Ives in October, but was unseated by the Dissolution of Parliament in the following April. In July he was again elected for Wendover, by the friendship of Lord Carrington. About the same time he was called to the English Bar, and chose the Western Circuit. For the first two or three years of Mr. Horner's Parliamentary life, he took no very active part in the Debates. Timidity and the fear of failure seem to have restrained him from coming prominently forward on any business of importance. His talents were appreciated however even then, and when a change of ministry was in contemplation in 1811, Lord Grenville offered him the place of financial Secretary to the Treasury; accompanying the offer with an assurance, that he himself should feel, and was confident such would be the universal impression, that in the event of Mr. Horner's taking the office, it would be filled by the person in all England the most capable of rendering efficient service to the public in that situation. The offer was declined however by Mr. Horner, tempting as it must have been in the prospects it opened to his ambition, and in the increased facility his position would have afforded him of carrying into execution the views he had already formed, and partially brought before the notice of the House, on the subject of the Currency. He tells his friend Murray, in allusion to Lord Grenville's offer, that he had decided without any difficulty to adhere to the rule which he laid down for himself when he went into Parliament, not to take any political office until he was rich enough to live at ease out of office.

The Currency question was what first brought Mr. Horner into public notice. It is no doubt unnecessary to remind the reader of the anomalous state of the Currency thirty years ago; of the steps by which Bank of England notes, originally as at present convertible at will into gold, came at last to be constituted by Act of Parliament a legal tender; of the excessive issue

which naturally followed the Bank-restriction Act, and the consequent depreciation of paper as compared with gold; or of the unjust operation of this upon all contracts previously made, by raising the price of everything unnaturally, and thus forcibly lowering the value of rents and salaries and the interest due to the public creditors. The injurious operation of the laws then in force is still remembered: and it is strange to think how long they were suffered to continue, and how much ignorance and prejudice prevailed at that time in the House of Commons and in the country. These qualities no doubt were encouraged by some of those whose interests were directly involved in the continuance of such a state of things. Yet one should hardly have thought it possible, even granting that their injustice might have been undetected, for men to have been blind to the absurdity of laws, which rendered a guinea of full weight only worth twenty-one shillings in paper, while a light guinea could readily and legally be sold for twenty-five or twenty-six.

it

The state of the Currency had attracted Mr. Horner's attention at a very early period. In the year 1800, while he was studying for the Scotch Bar, we find him selecting the subject of the "Circulation of Money" for a paper he had to read at the Speculative Society, a sort of Literary Club at Edinburgh, of which he was a member. He found it however too difficult a theme, and thought what Smith and others had written upon was too controvertible, to allow him to draw up a paper within so short a time, and therefore chose something else. Two years after, in his 25th year, his attention was again drawn to the subject by Mr. Thornton's work on paper-credit; and his Reviews on that work and on Lord King's pamphlet in the Edinburgh Review will be found to contain the same principles which he afterwards ably enforced in the House of Commons.

It would carry us far beyond our limits were we to attempt here to point out how far Mr. Horner can be considered as having developed the true principles which bear upon the question, beyond the point to which they had been carried by previous writers. The subject, too, has ceased to be practically interesting, and by this time, it is to be hoped, may fairly be looked upon as set at rest.

We may therefore confine our notice to the part which Mr. Horner took in bringing the matter before the public notice. On the 1st of January 1810, he introduced the subject in the House of Commons, by moving for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the causes of the depreciation of bank notes. The Committee was granted, and Mr. Horner was elected Chairman. Their report, which was delivered in the

ensuing July, recommended the speedy resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England, and the adoption of the general line of conduct, with regard to the currency, which was subsequently acted upon. With the exception of a few points of minor importance, the Report was altogether in conformity with Mr. Horner's original views; indeed it was drawn up in great part by himself. The importance of this step in the right direction can hardly be appreciated as it deserves at the present day, now that the strength of the prejudices to which it was opposed is pretty well forgotten, and juster views upon the subject are prevalent. It seems incredible that the principles they laid down, principles based upon the most elementary truths of Political Economy, should have been questioned; much more that they should have been contradicted and ridiculed. At all events it would have seemed so, had we not witnessed, unhappily, a good deal of the same insensibility to reasoning in these days. The good, however, that was done by the Report is incalculable. It was many years before its suggestions were carried into practice, certainly, but it served to call the attention of the public to the subject, and to place it in a proper light. A host of pamphlets on both sides issued from the press, all commenting, favourably or unfavourably, on the "Bullion Report." The question seems to have attracted a degree of general interest, about that time, such as is seldom accorded to matters of that nature. Nor is this surprising, since it must be recollected that it was one which affected the pecuniary circumstances of almost every individual, as well as the most important interests of the community. And even among Members of Parliament, fortified as persons of that class appear to be against conviction, some converts of influence were made by the Evidence which was circulated with the Report, and the principles laid down in it, and proved by application to the circumstances of the time. Among these was Huskisson, who had supported the Suspension Act of 1797 and all the measures passed, up to 1810, for continuing it in force; and who declared, in the pamphlet he published in the Autumn of that year, that he had been convinced of his error by the evidence produced before the Bullion Committee, of which he had been a member.

In August 1811 Mr. Horner proposed a series of resolutions in accordance with the Report, in a speech which as far as we have the means of judging must have exhibited singular ability. He was complimented upon it by Malthus, who expressed his wonder how Mr. Horner could have contrived to treat a subject, necessarily involving so many dry details, in a manner which so

completely commanded the attention of his hearers. He was opposed however by ministers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Vansittart, having moved counter-resolutions, Mr. Horner was defeated by a large majority. The debate was followed by Lord King's celebrated notice to his tenants, and the legislative measures which it led to. Mr. Horner seems to have been prevented from ill health from taking part in these debates, and next year, before anything further had been done in the matter, Parliament was dissolved. Mr. Horner lost his seat for Wendover, Lord Carrington having to provide for a nephew who had come of age since the last election. In one of his letters about this time, Mr. Horner speaks of his mortification at being thrown out of the course, and his regret at no longer having the opportunity of endeavouring to be useful to the public, and expresses himself as being sorry and ashamed to have done so little during the time he had such opportunity. Subsequently, however, a seat was offered him by Lord Grenville: but the offer served only as an occasion to evince his magnanimity. Sir Samuel Romilly had just lost his election at Bristol; and Mr. Horner, having ascertained that he would not refuse coming into Parliament for a close borough if the offer were made him, wrote to Lord Holland, through whom the offer had been made, desiring him to express his gratitude to Lord Grenville; "but," said he, "I wish you to consider, in the first instance, claims that are far before mine. When the Bristol contest was over, I wrote to Romilly, under an idea that he might object to come in for a rotten borough, urging him as strongly as I could not to suffer a feeling of that nature to stand in the way of his duty to the public, if he should have such a seat offered him. I have heard from him this morning, and I am happy to find he is not disposed to decline it. He says, I certainly have not made up my mind to refuse coming into Parliament in the way you mention. My opinion upon that subject is greatly altered since it has become the only legal way in which to me Parliament can be accessible. There will be time enough, however, for me to consider what I should do, if any offer were made me.' It seems to me so very important on every public ground, and for the true interests of the Whig party, that Romilly should be brought in, that I thought it right to put you in possession of his sentiments." An opportunity of sitting in Parliament was eventually afforded to Romilly by the Burgesses of Arundel, who, to use an expression of Gibbon's, were generally of the same opinion with the Duke of Norfolk. But from some cause unexplained in these volumes, the offered seat was not bestowed on Mr. Horner. In the fol