was no money paid, except a trifle which I gave as a present to the Arabs. I know the little book now produced; I saw Mr. Bankes writing in it. One day, at Nazareth, I saw the plaintiff, who was in the room, take a paper out of it, and copy a plan at the window.

Mr. Charles Barry.-I visited Djerask in 1818. I was accompanied by Messrs. Godfrey, Wise, and Bayley. I made a plan of the place by measurement. I was there two days. The plan now produced is my plan, and it is correct. I have seen the published plan of that place; it appears to be a copy of the original plan taken by the defendant. The defendant's plan is not correct, but is more correct than the plaintiff's, because it has not so many errors in it as the plaintiff's. In the plaintiff's and the defendant's plans the walls are waving in some places, but I say, that, as far as my observations went, the walls are angular. In the printed plan there is a military curtain in a part of the walls, but the place so marked is merely an angle of the wall. In the printed plan there are two towers marked on the right hand, but there are no such things in that angle. At the opposite corner of the city there are many towers, which are not in the printed plan.

There are also two rows of pillars in the printed plan, but there are no such things in the city. The bearing of the theatre, and the drawing of it, which are in the printed plan, are not correct. The remains of a bath, stated in the printed plan, do not exist. That which is stated in the printed plan to be an aqueduct, is the remains of a bridge. Many of those errors are common to both plans-

Mr. Bankes's plan and Mr. Buckingham's. I am an architect by profession.

The Hon. Capt. Irby.I am an officer of the royal navy. In the year 1818, I accompanied capt. Mangles, R. N., and Mr. Bankes, to Djerask twice, and remained seven days there in all, and took a plan of the town by measurement. My plan agrees with Mr. Barry's plan. I mean that I only assisted Mr. Bankes in making the plan now produced. I did not make any plan. The plan which I have called my plan is the second plan taken by Mr. Bankes. travelling in Egypt, in the year 1817; and in Syria, in 1818. I travelled in Asia Minor afterwards. I heard of Mr. Buckingham, at Aleppo and Cairo ; and that, instead of proceeding on his mission to India, he was travelling about the country.

I was

Capt. Mangles.I was twice at the ruins of Djerask in the year 1818, and assisted Mr. Bankes and the last witness in taking a plan of the place. It is a correct plan. I knew Mr. Burkhardt, who went by the name of Sheik Ibrahim. I heard Sheik Ibrahim and Mr. Barker, the consul at Aleppo, speak of Mr. Buckingham.

Mr. Brougham objected to any question being put as to what either of those persons said of the defendant.

Then

The Lord Chief Justice. I can't allow any to be put. In your plea, Mr. Gurney, you state that the plaintiff was notorious in those countries; but what one man says of another in one country, and what another person says of the same person in another country, are not sufficient evidence to sustain such a plea.

Colonel Leake,-I am secretary

favourable opinion of the plaintiff, were read.

as

The Lord Chief Justice having directed the attention of the jury to such parts of the justification had been proved, observed, that the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict. The first letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff appeared to be in consequence of considerable irritation, but for the republication of it to Mr. Hobhouse, no such excuse could be offered. The jury would therefore find for the plaintiff such reasonable damages as would shew they had been guided by sober judgment, and not by angry feelings.

The Jury, having retired for. twenty-five minutes, found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 400l.

expiration of two or three years from the present period.

It appears to us to be quite clear, that such a measure would be productive of much good; that it would operate as some check upon the spirit of speculation, and upon the issues of country banks; and whilst, on the one hand, it would diminish the pressure upon the Bank and the metropolis, incident to an unfavourable state of the exchanges, by spreading it over a wider surface; on the other hand, it would cause such pressure to be earlier felt, and thereby ensure an earlier and more general adoption of precautionary measures necessary for counteracting the inconveniences incident to an export of the precious metals. But though a recurrence to a gold circulation in the country, for the reasons already stated, might be productive of some good, it would by no means go to the root of the evil. We have abundant proof of the truth of this position, in the events which took place in the spring of 1793, when a convulsion occurred in the money transactions and circulation of the country more extensive than that which we have recently experienced. At that period nearly a hundred country banks were obliged to stop payment, and parliament was induced to grant an issue of Exchequer bills to relieve the distress. Yet, in the year 1793, there were no one or two pound notes in circulation in England, either by country banks or by the Bank of England.

We have a further proof of the truth of what has been advanced, in the experience of Scotland, which has escaped all the convulsions which have occurred in the money-market of England for the

last thirty-five years, though Scotland during the whole of that time has had a circulation of onepound notes; and the small pecuniary transactions of that part of the United Kingdom have been carried on exclusively by the means of such notes.

The issue of small notes, though it be an aggravation, cannot therefore be the sole or even the main cause of the evil in England.

The failures which have occurred in England, unaccompanied as they have been by the same occurrences in Scotland, tend to prove that there must have been an unsolid and delusive system of banking in one part of Great Britain, and a solid and substantial one in the other.

It would be entirely at variance with our deliberate opinion, not to do full justice to the Bank of England, as the great centre of circulation and commercial credit.

We believe that much of the prosperity of the country for the last century is to be ascribed to the general wisdom, justice, and fairness of the dealings of the Bank; and we further think that, during a great part of that time, it may have been, in itself and by itself, fully equal to all the important duties and operations confided to it. But the progress of the country during the last thirty or forty years, in every branch of industry, in agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, has been so rapid and extensive, as to make it no reflection upon the Bank of England to say, that the instrument, which, by itself, was fully adequate to former transactions, is no longer sufficient without new aids to meet the demands of the present times.

We have, to a considerable de

gree, the proof of this position, in the very establishment of so many country banks.

Within the memory of many living, and even of some of those now engaged in public affairs, there were no country banks, except in a few of the great commercial towns.

The money transactions of the country were carried on by supplies of coin and Bank notes from London.

The extent of the business of the country, and the improvement made from time to time in the mode of conducting our increased commercial transactions, founded on pecuniary credit, rendered such a system no longer adequate, and country banks must have arisen, as in fact they did arise, from the increased wealth and new wants of the country.

The matter of regret is, not that country banks have been suffered to exist, but that they have been suffered so long to exist without control or limitation, or without the adoption of provisions calculated to counteract the evils resulting from their improvidence or excess.

It would be vain to suppose, that we could now, by any act of the legislature, extinguish the existing country banks, even if it were desirable; but it may be within our power, gradually at least, to establish a sound system of banking throughout the country; and if such a system can be formed, there can be little doubt that it would ultimately extinguish and absorb all that is objectionable and dangerous in the present banking establishments.

There appear to be two modes of attaining this object:

First, That the Bank of England should establish branches of

its own body in different parts of the country.

Secondly, That the Bank of England should give up its exclusive privilege as to the number of partners engaged in banking, except within a certain distance from the metropolis.

It has always appeared to us, that it would have been very desirable that the Bank should have tried the first of these plans-that of establishing branch banks upon a limited scale. But we are not insensible to the difficulties which would have attended such an experiment, and we are quite satisfied that it would be impossible for the Bank, under present circumstances, to carry into execution such a system, to the extent necessary for providing for the wants of the country.

There remains, therefore, only the other plan the surrender by the Bank of their exclusive privilege, as to the number of partners, beyond a certain distance from the metropolis.

The effect of such a measure would be, the gradual establishment of extensive and respectable banks in different parts of the country; some perhaps with charters from the Crown, under certain qualifications, and some without.

Here we have again the advantage of the experience of Scotland.

In England there are said to be between 800 and 900 country banks; and it is no exaggeration to suppose that a great proportion of them have not been conducted with a due attention to those precautions which are necessary for the safety of all banking establishments, even where their property is most ample. When such banks