122 
check to forgery, which would scl- 
dom be detected, if there were no 
other notes circulating than. those 
of the bank of England, _ In Irve- 
land, during the year 1797, the 
number of notes issued, amounted 
to only 600,000/.; and now, there 
are no less than 2,600,000J, in cir- 
culation! this was a circumstance, 
which sufliciently accounted for the 
balance of trade being so unfavour- 
able. He thought the directors 
of the bank of Ireland, had grossly 
abused that discretionary power 
which had been vested in them; he 
should therefore beg leave to move 
aclausein this bill, ‘* that the bank 
of Ireland should be obliged to pay 
their own notes in those of the bank 
of England,” which would prove a 
check on the enormous issue they 
had lately made. He thought 
there ought not to be two standards 
of currency in the two countries, 
which are now. united; he:should 
not, however, propose that such a 
clause should operate saoner, than 
six months from the present time. 
The earl of Limerick replied to 
his lordship; he defended the con- 
duct of the directors of the bank of 
Treland, who had been circumspect © 
and prudent, as well as vigilant in 
the discharge of their duty. The 
first great increase in the issues of: 
the bank of Ireland, was in conse- 
quence of an effort of the conspi+ 
racy that was then forming, to dis- 
tress the government by a run upon 
all the country banks, which must 
necessarily also produce a run on 
the bank of Ireland; it was. to: 
counteract this scheme, that. they 
were first obliged to increase their 
issues. The’ bank of Ireland had, in 
spite of surrounding difficulties, of 
foreign invasion and rebellion, still 
ANNUAL! REGISTER, 
1805. 
kept up its credit, and given great 
accommodation tothe public. He 
attributed the unfavourable state of 
exchange in a great measure, to the 
increase of the public debt, which 
was now 40 millions, although in 
1797, it was but.7 millions.. His 
lordship concluded by urging a va- 
riety of topics, in support of the 
bill. 
Lord Auckland, entirely coincid- 
ed with what had fallen from. the 
earl. of Limerick; he therefore 
supported the bill, which was then 
read a second time, and ordered to 
be committed, 
On the same day in the honse of 
commons, there was a warm debate 
on the Nottingham election bill. 
Mr. Fox contended, that if the 
magistrates of that town had been 
suilty, they ought to be brought to 
trial; and if they were not guilty, 
there was no occasion for legislative 
interference. If even the magis- 
trates elected by the townsmen of 
Nottingham had been culpable, ~ 
that, (their reason for punishing 
them,) would be no reason for de- 
priving them who elected them, of 
the ancient, right of chusing their 
own magistrates. As to riots hay- 
ing formerly taken place in Not- 
tingham, where was it that they had 
not sometimes taken place?. It 
would be as unfair to disfranchise 
Nottingham on that account, as ta 
disfranchise the city of London on 
account of the riots of 1780. Be- 
sides those former riots in Notting- 
ham were:principally oceasioned by 
that party calling themselves loyal 
ists, who upon the arrival ofahy good 
news fron the continent, seized and » 
ducked those whom they consider 
ed as jacobins or dissenters. 
Mr, Bond, the attorney.general, 
' and 
