Ortnttrd :n111 Prorretringd in Parlinntritt.
1. RF:FORM OF THE IRISH CORPORATIONS.
The House of Peers, on Monday, went into Committee on the Irish Municipal Bill ; the Earl of Shaftesbury in the chair.
The preamble of the bill was postponed. Clause 1st was agreed to without opposition : it repeals all "acts, charters, and customs," incon- sistent with the bill.
Clause 2d provides for the "reservation of all rights of property and beneficial exemptions to freemen and their wives and children."
Lord LYNDHURST proposed an amendment, the wording of which is not given in the reports; Lot from the debate which followed, we pre- slime that it was equivalent to striking out the clause.
Lord MELBOURNE said, that if the Committee agreed to the amend- ment, the whole question would be decided. The tld clause had refer- ence to the 5th and 224 clauses proposed by Lord Lyndhurst—the one extinguishing corporations, the other transferring their property to Commissioners named by the Crown. It was therefore evident that the whole question was raised upon this, the second clause of the ori- ginal bill, which reserved the rights of freemen in the existing corpo- rations unimpaired. Lord Melbourne went on to contend, that as "the instruction," to which the House had agreed, was not binding on the Committee, it was still open to their Lordships to legislate for Ireland ou the same principles as for England and Scotland ; and that it would be sound policy to legislate with the view of removing invi- dious distinctions between the different parts of the empire. It had been an argument of Lord Lyndhurst, that frequent elections would produce formidable dangers to the peace of the country ; but he had been guilty of gross exaggeration in describing those dangers- " The noble and learned lord told your Lordship'., that the effect of appoint- ing such bodies would be perpetual discontent, political excitement, and violent agitation, which must terminate in civil war. I know not how it is, but the argument deduced for the dangers of civil war is found on many occasions extremely convenient ; and whenever a change is to be effected in a man's poli• teal conduct, and when he is to depart front the course of policy which he has adherent to through the whole tenour of his life, then it is that the dangers of a civil war come most opportunely to his aid and relieve hint from his em- barrassing difficulties. ("Hear, hear !" and a laugh.) But, my Lords, I repeat that it is a monstrous exaggeration to say that these evils (which, on- eloubtedly, in some degree exist) would be carried to the extent represented by the noble and learned lord in his anticipations of the effect of the changes which have been proposed."
The act of the 9th of George the Fourth had been relied on as a substitute for local governments- " This is an act which enables the rate -payers of a small amount to assemble
and perform certain municipal functions. Now, this act happens at present to be totally inoperative, and insufficient for its purpose; and I do not see how the measure now before your Lordships, or any other, can give that act more effectual operation. It has been adopted in only eight or nine towns ; and what reason is there to suppose that it will henceforward have effect were it never yet had? How differently would the local concerns of paving, lighting, snatching, and cleansing, be managed by an established body, which would have the power of carrying their objects into immediate effect? But this act of 9th George the Fourth, which was mean to provide for such local concerns, has never come into general operation ; and xe know very well, horn the example of England, how totally insufficient for its object any such enactment is."
He concluded by earnestly calling upon the Committee to reject Lord Lyndhurst's amendment, as they valued the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland.
Lord LYNDHURST admitted, that by the clause under discussion the whole question of the principle of the bill was raised. The reasons which had induced him to support the instruction, still influenced him: it was impossible to exaggerate the violence, outrages, disorder and pro- fligacy of Irish elections. As for the remark of Lord Melbourne, that the 9th of George the Fourth was not adopted to any extent in Ireland, he would refer hint to the Report of the Commissioners, which proved the reverse.
The Marquis of CnaNnteannE supported the original clause, and protested against the plan of Lord Lyndhurst ; which he designated as a flagrant outrage upon the Irish nation.
The Duke of II tertonxn did not altogether approve of the bill as it came from the other House; but he was opposed to the sweeping measure of Lord Lyndhurst, and could not see any danger in establish- ing new corporate bodies in the larger towns of Ireland—such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny, and Galway —where the franchise was fixed at 10/.
Lord COTTENHAM (the Lord Chancellor) supported the original clause ; and the Earl of ikon's:Gros; the amendment.
The Marquis of Cosysoli AM warned the Committee against insult- ing the People of Ireland by the course Lord Lyndhurst recommended. It could not be expected that Ireland would submit to the indignity of being treated as an inferior portion of the empire— If one thing mom than another could tend to increase the influence of Mr. O'Connell—if they could do one thing more than another to give strength and energy to agitation and to agitators—it would be doing this. When he talked of Mr. O'Connell, lie did so because that gentleman had been so freqnently alluded to by noble lords opposite ; lie did so, because there appeared to be a determination on their pant to reftmt any nwatture which that gentleman sup. ported. ("Hear, hear !" and cheers .1i.out the MiniNterial ..ilembers.) Now, if on the present occasion their Lordships did this—if they refused that mea- sure which was now proposed—then they gave to the People of Ireland a cause, a legitimate cause, for complaint. Irishmen had obtained civil and religious liberty : would, then, their Lordships now turn round upon them and say they were unworthy of municipal ref-brio ? Was that the way to conciliate theirs? Why, their Lordships were holding out a premium for agitation. They were compelling the People to change their holguage from that of entreaty to com- plaint, and flout complaint to menace. NVIlat carried emancipation as it had been carried ? Ireland was not satisfied : the country was agitated from one end to the other : necessity at length compelled them to yield to the demlnd made upon them. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY preferred Lord Lyndhurst's bill, as the better one of the two ; for the Government measure would trans- fer power from the Protestants to the Catholics, and was a hill of ex- clusion against the funnier.
Lord 1-1.1'rHtE:RTON said, that exclusiveness and agitation had only become disagreeable to the Tories since they found that they might operate against their own party.
A division took place; and Lord Lyndhurst's amendment was car- ried by 107 to 53.
The third clause was agreed to. Clauses •lth to 9th inclusive were struck out. The 10th clause was agreed to. Clauses 11th to 21st were struck out.
Lord LYNDHURST then proposed to expunge the 22d clause, which enacts that Aldermen and Councillors shall be appointed in the larger towns.
The Duke of RICHMOND supported this clause.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, he felt too strongly upon the question involved in the clause to give a silent vote upon it. Ile wished it to be remembered, that the objections which were raised against establishing corporations in small towns, did not apply to this clause. By rejecting it, the Committee would indeed decide that the Irish were incompetent to the management of their local affairs; _ although at the same time they were urged to extend the operation of the 9th George the Fourth all over Ireland. It was stated by Lord Lyndhurst that this act was already in extensive operation in Ireland— Why, what did that fact prove? what was the deduction from the nob(; and learned lord's admission? Did they not see that there was a system of popular election which might be applied to the existing state of society in Ireland? They thus had evidence on the one side in favour of popular elections, while there was no evidertee on the other opposed to them, because to make out such a case it must be shown that the corporate elections would be of a different character ; and before that could be their Lordship's decision, they must be called on to assume that the people of Ireland were incapable of choosing proper persons to conduct their own affairs—to administer their own property. No title had been given to the new bill; the former title must be altered— That di ,crilied the bill as being one to regulate the municipal corporations of Ireland. To .• regulate" them the noble and learned lord did not mean. To
call his bill a bill to " amend " the Corporations, would be absurd ; and the noble and learned lord had not yet found the courage to call it a bill to abolish them. But what was the real title of this bill, which ought to he perfectly
and distinctly described? It was a bill for the purpose of vesting in one man— for the purpose of vesting in the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland—all the privileges and all the property of the Corporations of Ireland. No one could suppose
that the Lotd.Lientenant of Ireland could administer that property himself:
every one would admit that he must have agents : but all that it was necessary to do to vest the power entirely in him, was to provide, as the noble and learned lord had provided, that the persons appointed to administer the property should
not be responsible to the People, but responsible to him, and to him only, and that they should he removable at his pleasure. Why, could any machinery be
contrived of a more exclusive character for the purpose of making him sole master of the whole amount of that corporate property ? That power was vested exclusively in him ; and yet the noble earl told them that the princiee had for its object to prevent exclusion. ( Cheers.) The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that a more tyrannical bill was never introduced into Parliament than that which came up to them from the other House. Its effect would be to establish an exclusive system in the place of the exclusive system which it abolished. III proportion as the old Corporations had misconducted themselves, ought the House to be wary of throwing power into the hands of a powerful party, who would use it for the purpose of avenging the past.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE would ask the Duke what he meant by tyrannical power ?— The Town-Councils were to be elected by the inhabitants; and having been so elected, they were to have the tight of levying certain rates upon the inhabi- tants. The system, then, was one in which the people were to have a control over the management of the funds raised amongst themselves for their own benefit : and that was described by the noble duke as a " tyrannical " power! If there was the least force in the argument of the noble duke, the House of Connoting was a tyrannical institution, and all elective governments were tyran- nical powers. ( Cheers.) When the People were misgoverned by a small mi- nority, the noble lords opposite did not charge that with being a tyrannical system ; but when it was proposed to improve the condition of the People, it was said no, they were not fit to be intrusted with more power.
Lord ELLENBOROUCH spoke a few words, which arc omitted entirely in the Chronicle and Times report. According to the Post, he strongly objected to forcing the act 9th George the Fourth on the towns of Ireland, as the majority of the householders bud refused in most towns to adopt it.
Lord HoLLaisn expressed his surprise at the political doctrines of the Duke of Wellington and Opposition lords— Wert they to be told in England, with its representative Government, where the People had the power to tax themselves, that to grant such a power was to establish a tyranny ( Cheers.) And to tax themselves for what ? For their own advantage and their own concerns. He repeated, he was astonished at the speech I eh .d heard. He thought he had been living under a free representa- tive popular Government,—one in which the people hail a large share in the transaction of their own business,—a Government including three great king- doms, England, Scotland, and Ireland. Every one of the speeches which he had heard to-night from the noble lords opposite, had for their object to show that one great third of this empire was unfit, was incapable, of being governed by a popular, free, and elective constitution. It had been said also, that the bill would have the efLet of substituting one exclusive system for another. An ex- traordinary signification might be given to the word "exclusive." He thought it meant that which kept out a great body, and admitted only a part ; but, ac- cording to the interpretation of certain noble lords, it appeared that the prin- ciple which admitted the whole was exclusive. (A laugh and cheers.) if one-eighth was kept out, and seven-eighths were admitted, that was termed ex- clusion. (" Hear, hear !" from the Duke of Wellington.) " Hear !" said the noble duke : what was his meaning? Did he think that the whole notion of free government was founded on false principles? The manner in which the noble duke cheered, and his whole course of argument, proved to him be- yond a doubt, that such were the opinions entertained by the noble duke. He thought that for the majority to have power, particularly if they conscientiously differed in religious sentiments from the minority, that was exclusion. What was that but being opposed to the principle of free government ? If there hap- pened to be a majority one way, was public opinion to prevail, or was it not ? Yet if it did, the noble duke said it was exclusion. Public opinion might be wrong, it might be tyrannical—he did not deny that a majority might be tyran- nical : but for the majority to have the power, was the principle of a free con- stitution—a free constitution could not exist without it.
He contended that Ireland had a right to the institutions which the Duke of Wellington denied her— They were bound to legislate for her as a part of the empire : and as a part she was entitled to free representative municipal institutions, which he would con- tend were singularly adapted to the state of Ireland. The influence of the priests was dreaded ; but could it be supposed that to raise men in a humble station to offices of some little distinction would have the effect of materially adding to the iiiiiuence of the priests? So, again, with regard to the agitators : he thought lie could prove that nothing was so short-sighted as to fancy that by shutting out the "agitators" they destroyed their influence. The real method of rendering powerless those who were carrying on that species of le- gitimate warfare against them would be by adopting the principles of this bill: to reject it, would be to show a disproportionate degree of suspicion and dis- trust of the Ii ish People, and not to extinguish that evil of which they pre- tended to be in such a state of serious apprehension. (Cheers. )
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, he called the bill tyrannical, be- cause it gave power to one description of persons. He apologized fo interrupting Lord Holland : he merited the rebuke Lord Holland had applied to him : but he hoped that noble lord would adopt his own ad- vice, and not forget the precepts he had himself laid down.
Lord HOLLAND said, lie had no intention of rebuking the Duke of Wellington. Cheers from those who thought with him were certainly the most agreeable stimulus to a speaker ; next to cheers, opposition; any thing was better than inattention or neglect.
Lord LYNDHURST observed, in reference to the attack made upon him by the Marquis of Lansdowne, that he should be prepared with a fitting title for his bill at the proper time : it was usual to postpone the preamble, arid it was equally proper to postpone the title of a bill until its character was determined upon. He thought it wits peculiarly just in those who had put a complete extinguisher on Irish Corporations to charge hint with being a Destructive !—all that he wished was to sub. stitute for the old system, one which would really establish a safe and practicable local government in the Irish towns. The result of the Minis- terial measure would be, the substitution of Radical for Tory Corpo- rations all over Ireland. Ile would leave it to their Lordships to de- termine whether such a change was desirable or the reverse— When the Act of Emancipation was sought, the Legislature was told that nothing further would be required to insure the happiness and the tranquillity of Ireland. Yet what was the case? Since that time, the Church there had been cut down! and a further attempt had been made to rob the Establishment, and to apply its property to the "moral and religious instruction" of the Roman Catholics. In addition to this, the present Government had put down bodies of men who were associated defensively for the protection of Protestant life and property— he alluded, of course, to the Orange Society. (Loud Opposition cheers.) Now they were putting down Protestant Corporations ; and in place of them they wanted to erect a host of Roman Catholic bodies. The next step, he presumed, would be to establish the Catholic religion as the religion of Ireland, and the Protestant religion would be considered that of a mere sect. ( Opposition cheers.) • • • The House well knew that elections in Ireland were all under the control and guidance of the priests ; that their mandates were irri- sistible, and that no man dare disobey their orders as to the disposal of his vote except at the peril of his property—nay, of his life. By acceding to the bill which came from the other House, their Lordships would he establishing a host of clubs of agitation, tumult, and sedition throughout Ireland ; and the result would be appalling. By adopting a contrary course—by the repression of agi- tation—tranquillity would be restored to that now distracted country ; and it would becomegreat, glorious, and happy. in spite of the base designs of those whose sordid ambition led them to keep her in a state of perpetual tumult and disturbance. (Loud deers from the Opposition).
After a few words from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Com- mittee divided ; and Lord Lyndhurst's motion for expunging the 222nd clause of the bill, was carried by a majority of 98 to 45.
The clauses up to 37th were disposed of, and the House resumed.
Last night, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE proposed that the further consideration of the bill should be postponed to Monday. He made this motion, he said, because Lord Lyndhurst, whose amendments were so considerable that he had made the measure his own, was not in his place.
Lord Rossi.YN, on the part of Lord Lyndhurst, disclaimed any right to appoint times for proceeding with the measures of Goverment.
Lord HOLLAND asked if they were to go on with the bill on Mon- day ? As to the bill itself, undoubtedly neither the bill nor the pre- amble, nor the title, were those of Government ; therefore the bill was properly Lord Lyndhurst's.
Lord ROSSLYN promised that Lord Lyndhurst would be ready to perform his duty on Monday.
2. PLURALITIES IN THE CHURCH.
On Tuesday, the Peers went intoCommittee on the Archbishop of Canterbury's bill for regulating Pluralities in theChurch.
Upon the 1st clause being proposed, Lord WYNFORD objected to the restrictions imposed by the bill, which prohibited a clergyman from holding two livings unless they were within ten miles of each other. He disapproved of this attempt to get rid of pluralities by a side-wind. He did not see why the dis- tance between two livings held by the same person should not continue, as heretofore, to be forty-five miles.
The Duke of Iticitsiono said, that Lord Wynford must have been thinking of travelling by railroads, when he talked of the same clergy- man performing the duties of livings forty-five miles distant from each other.
The Earl of RIPON said, there could not be that intercourse between a clergyman and his flock, which was so much to be desired, if the former was liable to be jolted out of a railway carriage two or three times a week, when on a journey of charity.
Lord WYNFORD thought the distance of ten miles was quite sufficient to prevent constant intercourse between a clergyman and his parish- ioners.
The Bishop of LONDON supported the bill ; and added, that this great advantage would arise from extinguishing pluralities—it would induce patrons to augment the value of livings.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, his object was to make the existing law conform to the canonical law, as far as it was possible. His measure could not be charged with extinguishing pluralities ; as, in the South of England, there were many livings within a circuit of ten miles.
Lord WYNFORD withdrew his opposition; and the clause was agreed to.
Clause '2d was passed. On the 3d clause being read,
The Bishop of EXETER rose to protest against the extinction of pluralities— However popular it might be in this House, or elsewhere, to do away with all pluralities, he protested against the limitation prescribed in the bill, of ten miles. Pluralities must be endured ; and he was sorry to see an attempt to put an end to theta, even in deference to the feelings of the country, which were very strong on the subject. If the bill were carried to the extent proposed, there would be no possibility of giving probationary occupation to the clergy.
Lord HARROWBY was afraid that the bill went too far.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that if his former bill for regulating pluralities had been adopted, all the difficulties of the Church would have been at an end. But various parties must be conciliated; and it was necessary to go a certain length in order to obtain support elsewhere.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER moved, that twenty miles should be sub- stituted for ten.
The amendment was rejected, and the clause was passed.
Clause 4th having been read,
Lord WYNFORD moved an amendment, that no spiritual person should hold two livings yielding together more than 10001. per annum.
This amendment was rejected, and the clause ordered to stand part of the bill.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the Committee rose.
3. ENGLISH TITHE COMMUTATION.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House of Commons on Tuesday resumed the consideration of the English Tithe Bill in Com- mittee. The 33d clause, as amended by Lord John, was read from the Chair, as follows.
" And be it enacted, that in every case in which the Commissioners shall intend
making such award (that is, to fix the amount of the rent charge in lieu of tithe) 4 notice thereof shall be given in such manner as to them shall seem tit : and alter the expiration of twenty-one days after such notice shall have been given. the Cot"mis- sioners, or some Assistant Commissioner. shall pioceell to ascertain the clear aserage value ( after making all just deductions on account of the expenses of collecting, pre. paring for sale, anti marketing) of the tithes of all the titheable produce of all lands subject to tithe iu the said parish, according to the average of sewn years preceding Christmas in the year 1835; provided that if during the said period of seven y ears, or any part thereof, the said tithes or any part thereof shall hate been conmetinded for or demised to the occupier of any of the said binds, ill consideration of any rent or payment instead of tithes, the amount of such compnsition or rent, or sum agreed to be paid instead of tithes (including all tan-emitted ar- • rears thereof), shall be taken as the clear value of the tithes included in such composition, demise. or agreement, during the time for which the same shall have been made: and the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioner shall award the average value of the said seven years. so ascertained, as the sum to he taken fur cal- culating the rent-charge to be paid as a permanent commutation of the -aid tit hes: provided also, that in estimating the value of the said tithes, the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioner shall estimate the same as chargeable to all Parliamentary, parochial, county. and other rates, charges, and assessments to which tithes are liable: and whenever the said tithes shall have been compounded for, on the principle 01 such composition being paid free from all such rates, charges, and assessmeuts, or any part thereof, the said Commissioners or Assistant Commissioner shalt have regard to twit circumstance, and shall make a (air addition on account then-of."
Mr. HUNIE said, the operation of the rule laid down in this clause would be grossly unjust in districts where, as in Essex, large tracts of
i
land were going out of cultivation, in consequence of the produce not being sufficient to pay the cost of raising it. Lord JOHN Russet& said, it was impossible to lay down any prin- ciple of commutation to which similar objections could not be urged from one side or the other— He admitted that, in the carrying out of so extensive a plan, individual cases of hardship might occur ; but against these must he balanced the great and general advantage that would be gained. If, where the produce of land deterio- rated in value, the operation of the clause should be hard, on the other hand, where the produce of land increased in value, (and seeing that the whole character and tendency of the bill was favourable to the expenditure of capital in the improvement of the soil, cases of this kind might be expected to be much inure general than that pointed out by Mr. Hume,) the benefits derived from the proposed mode of assessment would be very great.
Mr. Hume asked whither the assessment was to be perpetual? Lord Joust Ressem.—" Perpetual."
Mr. Ilume—" Then I must say, that in a great many instances where large sums of money have been. laid out—where extraordinary efforts have been made to force the land into a state of productiveness —where, within the last seven years, crops have been obtained at a cost which has convinced the cultivators that it would never be worth while to cultivate such lands again—the operation of the clause will be most injurious and most unjust."
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBUI.L moved an amendment, to the effect that the "productive nature and quality of the land" should be the guide in fixing the amount of the assessment, instead of the seven years' average value.
BLAMIRE and Mr. MILES approved of, and Mr. PLUMPTRE opposed the original clause.
Sir JOIIN WROTTESLY thought, that as the country had been gene- rally under the four-course system of husbandry, the average of eight years was preferable to seven. He did not see wby the term of seven years had been selected.
Mr. LEtoraito concurred in Mr. Hume's observation respecting the unfair operation of the principle of the bill in Essex. lie wished a certain proportion of the rent to be taken as tithe.
Mr. BULLER pointed out the folly of discussing the details of the bill, before its principle was determined upon ; and complained of the vague terms employed by the different speakers in making their sug- gestions. He approved of the principle of the 33d clause; but con- tended, that it was nullified and stultified by the 34th clause; which he should oppose.
Mr. IVARBURTON disagreed with Mr. Buller respecting the opera- tion of the 34th clause ; which merely authorized an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended that Sir Edward Knatchbull's amendment was introduced at the wrong place— When the discussion as to the mode in which the whole tithe should be ap- portioned among the different tenants in the parish came on, he thought it Would be quite right that some words should be introduced declaratory that that apportionment should be made with reference to the productive value and quality of the land : but the present was a very different question—the object of the present clause was to ascertain the actual average value of the tithe fur the last seven years on each estate: he did not, therefore, think that the amend- ment. had any application whatever to that object.
Mr. WansuaToN was in favour of the amendment. It was quite as necessary to have regard to the productive value of the land as be- tween parish and parish, as between individuals in a parish— For suppose a parish should have been under corn cultivation for the last seven years, and the average of those years should be taken as a criterion of the amount of the future payment to be made by that parish in commutation of tithes, was it aot quite obvious that that parish would have a permanent charge imposed upon it, much greater than the adjoining parish, if such adjoining parish should hitherto have been grass land? Then if the land in this latter parish should at any future time be broken up and converted into corn-land, was it not clear, that inasmuch as the occupiers of this parish would have a much less sum to pay as a rent-charge in lieu of tithe than the occupiers of land in the former parish, they would be able to undersell the cultivators of the land in the parish which had always hitherto produced corn ?
The Committee divided; and rejected the amendment, by 111 to 51.
Mr. PARROTT moved, but afterwards withdrew, a clause which would have the effect of reducing the permanent rent-charge, or assess- ment imposed by the Commissioners on the landlord, to the extent of 10 per cent.
Mr. RICHARDS moved another amendment, to prevent land broken up for mines being still subject to the original tithe.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not allow the principle of the bill to be infringed by the amendment; which had reference to cases of rare oc- currence, and which would benefit no part of the country to any extent except Staffordshire.
The Committee rejected Mr. Richards's amendment by 171 to 54; and
Clause 33d was passed.
Clause 34 was proposed; but Mr. BROTHERTON moved the ad- journment; and the Chairman reported progress at half-past twelve.
On Thursday, the House again went into Committee; and a long discussion ensued on the 34th clause, which fixes the minimum of the rent-charge at 60 and the maximum at 75 per cent. Several amend. ments were proposed, and withdrawn or rejected ; and the discussion was adjourned. Last night it was resumed in Committee.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished the 34th and 35th clauses to be postponed. There were objections to them which had not yet been answered. In the first place, their operation would be to inflict a penalty on the lenient tithe-owner, and confer a premium on the incumbent who had rigidly enforced his rights. Secondly, it might happen, that during the last seven years a certain tract of land had been made much more pro- ductive by the outlay of capital, while in the immediate vicinity land of much better quality was, in consequence of the poverty of the tenant, sot nearly so productive. By the bill, the tithe fixed on the former would be touch greater than on the latter ; which %%tonna lie all injustice. Lord JOHN RUSSELL maintained that the scheme was the best on the whole, though it might lead to difficulty in some instances. Mr. BLAMIRE wished the maximum and the n.inimurn to be abandoned.
Mr. PARROTT moved a proviso, to the effect that a deduction of 10 per cent. should be made from the valuation of the Commissioners. This motion was rejected, by 73 to 38. The question was then put, that the clause should stand part of the bill. Mr. WitieurrsoN moved that it be omitted. Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, Mr. CAYLEY, and Mr. Miles, supported the amendment. It was opposed by Sir R. M. ROLFE (the Solicitor-General). The Com- mittee divided : for the clause, 78; against it, 70; majority, 8.
Clause 35th was postponed ; and clauses 36th to 49th inclusive were agreed to. The Committee then rose.
4. FACTORY BILL.
On Monday, several petitions were presented to the Commons against Mr. Poulett Thomson's bill fur altering the Factory Bill. The Order of the Day for the second reading of that bill was then read ; and
Mr. POULETT THOMSON rose and addressed the House. lie said that he should have merely moved that the bill be read a second time had not the misrepresentations circulated respecting it rendered it ne- cessary that he should distinctly state its object— It consisted of but a single clause ; and anybody who knew the provisions of the act at present in force, or who had attended to the discussions in Parlia- ment upon it, would find it perfectly clear that the only object lie had in view was the repeal of one section in that act, and to place the law regarding factories in the same situation as that in which it stood on the 1st March last. A bill had formerly been introduced, in which an attempt was made to restrict the hours of labour of those who might fairly be considered capable of deciding for themselves. It was rejected by the House ; and a measure was brought for- ward by Government, having for ohject the protection of children under a cer- tain age. After the 1st March 18:36, children between the ages of twelve and thirteen years, as well as under, were restricted from working more than eight hours per day. This was the obstruction he wished to remove by the bill upon the table ; and he wished to leave the law as it stood prior to the 1st of March, by providing that children between twelve and thirteen years old, like their seniors, might decide fur themselves; and, if they thought proper, might work for twelve hours per day. The grounds on which the introduction of the present bill was jus- tified, might be explained in a few words— The Inspectors of Factories had made an unanimous declaration that they had found it almost impossible to enforce the law as it stood since the 1st of March last ; and the Inspectors, manufacturers, and all the opponents of the b 11, had stated that if the clause referred to were allowed to continue law, the inevitable consequence would be, that all children between the ages of twelve and thirteen years would be thrown out of employment. The act of 1813:3 went upon the principle of relays of children, each relay working for eight hours ; but expe- rience had shown, that the system had entirely failed in Glasgow, Manchester, and in all large manufacturing towns, although it had been found to work well in certain districts. In large manufacturing towns, it had been found an utter impossibility to procure children enough fur the execution of the relay system. Hence, therefore, the bill be was now advocating. Then came the question, whether it was advisable for the ends of humanity—if humanity alone were to be considered—with a view to the state of employment in the country, at once to put an end to the occupation of 35,000 children, according to the opponents of the law as it stood, or of 25,000 or 27,000 children, according to the best es- timate Ministers had been able to make. Upon this point he was ready to meet Lord Ashley even on the ground of humanity : for he was persuaded, that hav- ing duly protected children under twelve years of age, and restricted them to eight hours' work, well-understood humanity required that those between twelve and thirteen years of age should not be thrown out of employment and cast back upon their parents. He did not apprehend that six ty. ni ne hours' work in thecourse of the week would be found injurious to them in any way ; and rest ...cting the effects of it upon the health of the children, he had taken the opinion • of forty- eight competent medical men, forty-three of tv'iom agreed, that, pit aided the children were properly clothed and fed, it would not be injurious to the-a, while only five had stated that they were of a contrary sentiment.
He trusted that his bill would be carried ; but if it were n jected and disorganization of trade and other evils consequent upon tl e dis-
missal of 35,000 children from employment should ensue, it ought to be remembered that the Government was not in fault; for they had pro- posed a remediary measure.
Lord ASHLEY opposed the bill. He contended, that there was no danger whatever of the dismissal of 35,000 children from the factories.
The difficulty at present was to procure a sufficiency of hands. There was a greater demand than ever for the services of young children, in consequence of the prodigious increase of machinery. He very much
feared, that this bill was only a feeler, and was intended to be an intro- duction to the repeal of other parts of the measure for protecting the children. He would for these reasons move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. POL'LTER, in seconding the amendment, complained of the eva- ,ions of the existing law by false representations of the ages of the
children. He was strongly opposed to the excessive labour imposed upon the children ; which, in the case of females, destined to be mo- thers, was productive of the worst effects—disease, debility, and distor- tion of form.
Mr. GISBORNE advocated the bill ; and warned the country gentle- men how they lessened the inducement of labourers in over-burdened parishes to migrate to manufacturing towns, where the wages earned by the children formed so essential a part of the means of subsistence. Mr. BENETT was in favour of the amendment : nothing could be more weak or fallacious than to put even the wealth of this great country in comparison with the physical force, the physical health, and the morals of the people.
Dr. BOWRING said, that the manufacturing prosperity of the country depended upon the question of profit and loss ; and if that considera- tion was not attended to, the poor population of the manufacturing dis- tricts would be thrown out of employ. Interference at the expense of the :abouring population had better be let alone— With respect to the evasions and violations of the Factories Bill which had been spoken of, each would always be the necessary consequence of absurd in- terference. It was in this way that the smuggler became a national benefactor. (.• Vh, oh ! ') No one could say that the factory children were not euperior to those who lived in the iiglicultural districts : the mental capacity of town- bred childreu was much greater, and he would venture to say that they were far more virtuous. (" Oh, oh i " and laughter.) Honourable gentlemen seemed to distrust the statement he had made, but had they looked into the bastardy returns? He could tell the House, that in the manufacturing dis- tricts of Switzerland there was only one illegitimate child Out of forty-four births. Could any such instance be fuuud in England in the agricultural dies tricte?
Mr. BROTITERTON knew from experience, that the labour in facto- ries was excessive—too much for human nature to bear. lie would not vote for the present bill, though Lord Altborp's bill was very de- fective— He had tat Lord Althorp, that the relay system would never answer ; and he had opposed the schooling clauses; fur in consequence of there being diffe- rent hours, some working eight, sonic nine, and sonic ten hours, among the chihiren, no good could follow fiom such a system ; while those who were above eighteen might woik twenty. four hours, if they could, or their masters required it ; and the consequence was, that the act tips continually evaded, and RD protection was given to the children. If they wished for evidence that the act was not observed as it ought to lie, they had only to refer to the number of persons who had beim convicted of a violation of the law : and it would be found that 250 masters had been convicted, and paid penalties to the amount of 10001. NVas it not most discreditable and disgraceful that these men should act in this manner? Ile believed, too, that in the majority of instances, they had been convicted for working more than twelve hours a day. How could we expect poor persons to keep the law, when men of education and respectability 'violated it iu this manner ? Now, then, we had to ascertain the remedy. He never liked to oLject to a measure unless he was provided with a substitute; and his substitute was this, to nix an uniform time for all ages under twenty-one rare. The system should be such, that old arid young, weak and strong, might work together at one and the same time ; and therefore we must fix a period during which all should be enabled to work without too great a degree of fatigue ; end if we fixed the period that the strougest could bear, the weakest must give way under the severity of the labour.
Mr. G. F. Yotaso spoke in favour of the amendment ; and in proof of the excessive and unhealthy labour of factory people, quoted some passages from a letter by David Macwilliam, in the Standard of that evening,—to the effect that Mr. Mark Phillips and Mr. Potter had visited theChorlton Mills, and that, by a thermometer which Mr. Potter took from his pocket, the temperature was 82 in a room in which the children bad to walk backwards and forwards altogether about fifteen miles per day.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS denied the correctness of these 'statements ; and said it was impossible to have calculated the distance walked by the children in the Chorlton Mills. Be quoted a letter of Mr. Charles Hindley, to show that about 30,000 children would be dis- missed from the factories if the musters were prevented from employ- ing children under thii teen years of age. Children in factories were
not morally or physically inferior to agricultural children ; he warned the House against endangering a manufacture so important as that of cotton, under it mistaken idea that they should ameliorate the condition of factory children.
Sir R. INGLIS. Dr. LUSIIINGTON, Sir J. Et.t.ev, Mr. Hisnsev, Mr. AVAKLEY, and Mr. Freer .N, opposed the bill : the last-named gentleman said that when political economy attacked vital economy, the former should give way. Mr. AINSWORTH, Mr. POTTER, and Mr. VILLIERS, supported the bill.
Colonel Toomesox said, if the manufacturing interest had for twenty years together put a tax upon home-grown corn, and the result
had been that the agrieultural labourers had been reduced by competi- tion among themselves to great distress, he wondered whether the agriculturists would have invented no better remedy, than asking for an act to regulate the hours of agricultural labour, to prevent plough- men, plough-women, and plough-children from being overworked ? (Cheers.) Ile suspected they would have hit upon something much more substantial— He hoped the manufacturing interest, both operatives and capitalists, would in time see the advantage of turning the tables on their opponents, and that they would not fail to make some use of the parallel he hail now supplied to them. Having been applied to by the working classes as one they deemed their friend, he felt some difficulty in decining how to vote, because, whichever way he did it, there were sonic that would say they had expected better things from Lim. On the one hand, it would be painful to vote against the expressed opi- nious of the working classes as to what they thought best for themselves ; and on the other, he could not think of doing any thing that should be construed into giving in to the miserable delusion, which had induced the operatives to accept the Factory Act at the hands of those lie must call their adversaries, in lieu of demanding the removal of the prohibition on foreign trade which was at the bottom of their sufferings. lie should certainly have voted against the original Factory Act ; but since that folly had been committed, Ile did not know why the operatives should not have it in the way they liked, as well as in the way they did not. If therefore the operatives would give him full credit for opposition to the in policy of accepting the Factory Act as a composition for their wrongs,—as he weld,' have toted fur letting the law alone before, so he would vote for letting it :dome now, unless he heard something to change his mind. In fact, the whole matter now in dispute was so small in proportion to the mighty interests that were ruthlessly thrown away—it was such a mere difference between " tw etalledum and tviettlledee" in the comparison—that he did not think it worth while to go against the wishes of the working classes by voting for alteration in the law. Much had been said of foreign competition. If the manufacturing capitalists were afraid of the effects which might arise from the difference between working children nailer thirteen years of age ac- cording to the present law and the proposed alteration, why did not they set about looking after the of arising from the prohibition of foreign trade enacted by the Corn-laws ? They allowed themselves to be told they could compete with foreigners, because they could compete with some foreigners ; because they were not at a stand -still altogether. Just so, a man with one leg tied up in a race, might hop at a certain speed ; he might find some- so maimed or lazy, that he could go beyond them : with these it might be proved he could com- pete; but was that the sort of competition the manufacturers should be content with ? It was plain to every man with his eyes open, that, setting aside this fallacy, foreigners had outrun us, were outrunning us, and would outrun us hereafter. There might be no recovering what had been already thrown away; but that was no reason why something should not be tried for preservation in the future.
Sir ROBERT PEET. considered that the law on this subject required amendment; and should therefore vote for Mr. Poulett Thomson's bill, He did not think the system of relays practicable And there
ought to be additional security against the infraction of the existing law Mr. GOULBURN said, that the proposed alteration would facilitate fraud; and he would vote against the bill.
Mr. POULETT TnoalsoN expressed his readiness to cooperate with his opponents in improving the bill in Committee.
The House divided : for the second reading, 178; for the amend- merit, 176; majority for the bill, 2.
The bill was then read a second time.
5. JOINT STOCK RANKS.
Mr. CLAY, on Thursday, called the attention of the house to the sys_ tern of Joint Stock Banking; which, he said, had grown up already
into great magnitude, was daily extending its ramifications, and pro- mised shortly to comprehend every portion of the kingdom and every class of the population within its sphere of action. His object was to inquire whether this system had received the best legal development of which it was susceptible. Had all the means in the power of the Legislature been used to secure the benefits and obviate the calamities that might arise from it ? He thought nor : but before entering on the question of how fur the imperfections of the present system might be remedied, he would call the attention of the House to the cir- cumstances under which it originated-
" The history of the year 1825 must be familiar to every honourable gentle- man who hears me ; the mad excitement, the idle dreams of unbounded pros- perity, the wild projects at the commencement of that memorable year, the wide-spread distress, the still more widely- spread alarm which attended its close, are not, I am sure, forgotten by this House, and will not be, I trust, for- gotten by the public. On the assembling of Parliament in 1826, his Majesty having called its attention to the calamities which had signalized the period then recently elapsed, and to the consideration of the best means of obviating the risk of their recurrence, two measures for their accomplishment were sub- mitted by the Government of that day to both Houses. - The first was for a suppression, at an early period, of all notes under 51. issued by private banking establishments, the Bank of England having already discontinued the issue of such notes. On this measure—In may opinion a most salutary one—it is not necessary that I should at present comment. The second was intended to create a sounder system of banking. In the panic, a very great number of country bankers stopped payment : fifty-nine commissions of bankruptcy were issued agaiust Country Banks from October 1825 to February 1826, and many suspended their payments whose affairs did not proceed to bankruptcy. An opinion in consequence became prevalent, that oue of the causes most operative in producing the crisis just then past, was to be found in the law, which, by restricting partnerships consisting of more than six persons from issuing notes, and, indeed, as was supposed (although, as it subsequently appeared, erro- neously,) from carrying on the trade of banking altogether, greatly enhanced the difficulty of forming solid establishments for that purpose. To the relaxa- tion of that law, originally enacted in 1708, to confer on the Bank of England a monopoly of the power of issuing notes, it was necessary to obtain the con- sent of the Bank, as its reenactment was part of the last as of previous bargains with that Corporation. Accordingly, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Liverpool and Lord Goderieh, had on the 3d of February written a letter to the Directors, urging such consent. It is not necessary that I should trouble the House with reading either that letter, or any portion of the correspoudence between the Government and the Batik Directors, consequent on the application it contained. The result of the negotiation was, that the Bank consented to waive its exclusive privileges in that particular, provided that the banking copartnerships under the new law were not to be established at a less distance than sixty-five miles from London, and that every member should be individually liable for the whole debts of the firm. In the course of the session, an Act was passed, the 7th George Fourth, c. 46, embodying these conditions." This law, Mr. Clay said, was confessedly imperfect ; and the oppor- tunity of amending it, and of putting the banking system of the coun- try on a sure foundation, which occurred at the period of the renewal of the Bank Charter, was, unhappily, not improved-
" Lord Althorp did, indeed, propose conferring charters of limited liability on such Joint Stock Banks as would issue only Bank of England notes; but subsequently abandoned that intention; and the only change then made in the law relating to those establishments, was permitting them to make their notes payable in London. The laws regulating the trade of banking by partnerships of more than six persons in England and Wales are briefly as follow,—they must not be established at a less distance than sixty-five miles from the Metro-
polis; they may issue notes payable on demand where issued, or in London, and a heie ; they may discount in London bills of exchange; they must before issuing mutes enter at the Stamp-office iu London the name of the co- partnership, the names and residences of the partners, and the names of two or more officers of the copartnership through whom they may sue or be sued ; a -
like return must be made every year, and also whenever a change takes place in the officers, the members, or the places where notes are to be issued ; execution on judgmeuts and decrees obtained against the officers may be sued out against any member of the copartnenthip ; this responsibility attaches to persons retiring fitnn the company for three years, as far as relates to transactions occur- ring whilst they were members. Under these laws, a system of joint stock banking has grown up already, as I have said, of vast extent, and day by day enlarging the sphere of its action. By a return to an order of this House of the 21st of March last, it appears that there were at that time 61 Joint S:ock Banks established with their branches at 472 places, and consisting in all of 15,673 partners or shateholders : of these, 3 were established in 1826, 4 in 1827, 6 in 1829, 1 in 1820, 8 in 1831, 7 in 1832, 10 in 1833, 10 in 1834, 8 in 1835, and 4 in this year to the 21st; and since the date of the return 5 have been entered at the Stamp-office, one of them having 24 branches, and 2052 part- ners. More companies I know to be in a course of formation, and there are probably others of which I have not heard." An element of tremendous power bad been introduced into the monetary system, and no efficient precaution had been taken to control its operation; for the unlimited responsibility provided for by the 7th George Fourth was attended with grave inconveniences, but afforded no protection to the community- " The dangers to which our present system is exposed arise mainly from these causes: by permitting an unlimited number of persons to combine for the purpose of carrying on the trade of banking, you confer on them an enormous power of creating an extensive business; by rendering all the shareholders responsible, you afford the most dangerous facility in obtaining credit, whilst you take not the smallest precaution that such banks shall possess capital com- mensurate with the engagements into which the powers and facilities you bestow will tempt them to enter. I can conceive no state more dangerous for any commercial community, than one in which a system composed of such elements should be in lull activity, in which the country should be covered with joint stock banking companies, enabled to extend their operations through the thousand channels open to them by means of their
shareholders, and feeling no necessity to limit the accommodation they afford from want of funds, the place of which, for a certain length of tune at least, their credit will supply. I can conceive no state more directly tending to pro. duce that excitement, that overtradiog, that apparent prosperity, so pleasant in its advent, so bitter in its consequences. If there be one ease in which legis- lative interference with the intercourse of individuals could be justified equally by reasoning and experience, beyond all doubt it would be an interference to obviate the dangers which an abuse of the powers and facilities of joint stock banking inevitably tends to produce." Mr. Clay then referred to the past history of banking in this country, and to the vast number of failures of banking establishments, as proof of the insufficient protection afforded by the system of unlimited re- sponsibility, which had been the banking system of England. It might be said, that if the banks were ultimately solvent through their part- ners, that was all the legislature had to lock to, as the losses of the banks were no concern of the public. But the failures of banks pro. dueed distrust and alarm, shocked public credit, and lessened the de- mand for labour. Did the system of unlimited responsibility afford security against the stopping payment of such establishments ? On the contrary, it tends to increase the risk of such occurrences. The credit they obtained was in proportion to the presumed extent of their ultimate solvency, not to their paid-up capital. It was visionary to suppose that the shareholders would be able to pay up their subscribed capital in times of commercial difficulty, when they would need all their funds for their individual engagements. The ultimate solvency of all the Joint Stock Banks was probably certain ; but by how fright. ful a process would that solvency be tested?— In the case of a suspension of payment by one of these establishments, the most opulent shareholders would of course be selected for attack ; and respect- able and wealthy persons might, if the engagements of the bank were large, be reduced at once to beggary, and left to recover their lost fortunes by suits in Chancery against their partners for their proportion of the debts of the concern. It is also by no means clear that every partner in a joint stock bank is not subject to the operation of the bankrupt laws, with all their train of formidable consequences. But the mere misery thus created is but a small portion of the evil to be dreaded. If a period should ever arrive in which several of these establishments should become embarrassed, and legal proceedings be had against individual shareholders, it is certain that suspicion would arise generally with regard to shareholders in all such concerns. The creditors of persons thus cir- cumstanced would feel the inclination to secure what was due to them bet re the property of their debtors became liable for the engagements of the bank; and a state of distrust, discredit, and alarm would occur, far niece widely spread and more disastrous, I firmly believe, than any we have yet witnessed. If a private bank fail, its immediate connexions are alone liable to suspicion: the distrust created by the stoppage of a joint stock bank will extend more widely in proportion as a greater number of persons are implicated in responsibility. The House will not think that I have overrated the importance of this conside- ration, when it bears in mind that nearly sixteen thousand persons, many of them commercial men of considerable eminence in the great towns of England, are partners in these companies."
The existing state of the law afforded extreme facility for the get- ting up of these banks. A company might be formed on a nominal capital of a million-10,000 shares of 1001. each ; 40s. or 20s. only paid on each share, for the Act required no payment ; and if the projectors could raise the funds for the purchase of a brass plate and maho- gany counters, they might establish branch banks in every town in England—declare a fictitious dividend, for there was no provision for publicity; and all the original shareholders might withdraw from the concern, without the knowledge of their creditors, as few would exa- mine the Stamp-office records to ascertain the real partners : and they who did might be deceived, as the transfers of shares were not regu- larly entered—indeed, if they were, new and extensive arrangements must be made at the Stamp-office for that purpose. He then proceeded to notice the actual working of the joint stock system ; admitting that many of the banks were prudently managed, and that much of the imprudence was owing to faulty legislation. By a table furnished to him by the directors of several banks, he found that there were now 55 Joint Stock Banks in operation, from 46 of which there were returns. These 46 banks had 821,050 shares ; 529,397 of which had been issued, being 63 per cent. of the whole : their nominal capital was 30,930,0001. their paid up capital 5,9-22,5051., or 19 per cent. Four of the above 46 banks, having a nominal capital of 9,500,0001. and a paid-up capital of 1,474,6001., did not issue their own notes. The total of notes issued by all the Joint Stock Banks, which in December 1831 was 1,315,3011., was now 3,094,0254 —no great increase, when the increase in the number of banks was considered, as well as the fact that the private bank circulation was less by 500,0001. But the operations of these banks were by no means to be measured by the extent of their note circulation. Their means of affording accommodation consist of their paid-up capital, their deposits, (the latter, in new establishments, could not be large,) and where notes were issued, their circulation. He believed that the accommodation afforded by some banks exceeded their paid-up capital, deposits, and circulation- " They are enabled to give this accommodation by rediscounting in the London market. Large amounts of bills are discounted by these establishments in the country at one rate of interest, and negotiated in the London market at another; the profit of the bank, of course, consisting in the difference between the discount they charge and that which they pay on the transaction. In the case of banks not issuing paper, this is done through the Bank of England, which, up to a certain extent, will discount for such banks at 3 per cent. ; in the case of banks issuing their own paper, through bill-brokers in London. Now, I believe 1 am justified in saying, that this practice of rediscounting is not considered by the most skilful and prudent among private bankers as a very creditable or business-like proceeding, nor one which could be carried to any considerable extent by a private banking establishment, without exposing it to suspicion and discredit, as showing conclusively that it was in want of dis- posable funds, and getting into engagements beyond its strength to manage. But this practice, thus repudiated by private bankers, is freely restored to by some at least of the joint stock banks. The House will at once see how strong an illustration this fact affords of the principle which I have ventured to lay down—vie. that the very facility of credit which unlimited liability affords tends directly to abuse, and consequently to danger. The endorsement of a bank known to contain, among 500 and 600 members, many individuals of great wealth, will give currency to any bill. ' Do you not observe,' said a broker to a person who expressed a doubt of the character of a bill offered to Lim for discount, 'that it has a thousand endorsers ? ' I by no means intend to assert, that under the sanction of these establishments, many accommodation bills have been negotiated, although perhaps they may have been the means of introducing seine paper of a questionable character into circulation ; but can no ioiary be dune to the community, no danger be incurred even by an unlimited discounting of good bills, bills that are in payment of real mercantile transactions? I am far from thinking so ; and I -believe that if at this moment the system of joint stock banking be working ill for the community, it is more through the facility it affords of a dangerous extension of bill accommodation, than by any indiecre- thin in the issue of their own promissory notes on the part of those establish- ments. It is well known, that in periods of rising prices, and consequent excitement in the commercial world, persons will always be found ready to speculate in matters nut within their usual trade, nr to extend the operations of this legitimate business to the full extent to which they can obtain capital for the purpose. It is quite clear, therefin c, that any joint stock bank possessing from the estimated of its many partners, an almost unbounded credit, may give a tearful stimulus to overtrading, without discounting or procuring to be rediscounted one single bill not drawn in discharge of a bond fide mercantile transaction."
Now, suppose a change in the London market should occur, and the rediscounts be refused, of course the accommodation afforded by the joint stock banks would be withdrawn, and the greatest embarrassment would be felt by those banks and the persons connected with them. It was a matter of conjecture only bow far the operations of these banks bad contributed to the commercial excitement now so remarkable ; but it was a fact, that this excitement was greatest where the operations of the banks had been most extensive. lie held in his hand a list of 75 companies which had been started in Liverpool and Manchester for every species of undertaking during the last three months. He sus- pected - that the increase of 210, 50, and even 100 per cent. in many articles of produce, consumption, raw materials, and manufactures, had been caused in a great degree by the facility of obtaining bank accom- modation. He was aware that the consumption bad got beyond the supply, and that goods were manufactured to order, rot on speculation; but he recollected that the excitement of 1825 commenced legitimately; and when he observed so very large an amount of paper currency resting on the rather narrow basis of the bullion in the vaults of the Bank of England, he could not avoid feeling apprehensive of approaching diffi- culty. The circulation and deposits of the Bank of England and the private and joint stock banks, together with the probable amount of the Scotch and Irish currency, was 54,261,919/. ; but the specie and bullion at the Bank only 7,801,0001. Here he would remark, that he disap- proved of the facilities given by the Bank to such joint stock establish- ments as issued Bank of England notes. Such was not the-best mode of keeping the operations of joint stock banks under control. He mentioned with disapprobation the practice resorted to even by respect- able joint stock companies of promising advances on the paid-up capital, and reserving shares to be afterwards reissued at a premium. This jobbing and speculating in shares came not within the legiti- mate province of banking.
He then came to the statement of remedies. They were limited liability, paid.up capital, and perfect publicity. He relied principally upon the first, without which the two latter were of little value. Limited liability would crush the spurious credit of banks, and confine it to the exact extent of the paid-up resources- " To encourage the intervention in the monetary system of the country of a circulating credit grounded upon the supposed aggregate fortunes of the share- holders, is to attempt to coin into money the lands, the houses, the factories, the fixed capital of the country. It is to fill again into the famous error of Law's Mississippi scheme; and whatever firm the reedit thus created mays assume—whether of bill circulation, cash credits, or issue of notes—most cer- tain is it, if there be truth in reasoning or experience, that the credit so created is altogether hollow and illusory, and must sooner or later issue in deep distress to the individuals concerned, and great calamities to the community."
He would grant charters only upon the conditions of paid-up capita
and perfect publicity, and by these means put an end to the traffic in shares and the establishment of bubble banks. Limited liability and
paid-up capital were the sources of the stability of the Bank of Eng- land ; but great calamities would have been avoided if perfect publicity had always been required from that establishment. In Scotland, at should be remembered that limited liability and paid-up capital were
the principles on which the leading banks, which gave the tone to the whole system, were conducted. The same rules were adopted in the United States, with others more stringent. To these authorities might be added those of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Alexander Baring, and Mr. Huskisson, all in favour of limited liability. Mr. Clay concluded by moving for a Select Committee, " to inquire into the operation of the Act of the 7th George IV. c. 46, permitting the establishment of Joint Stock Banks ; and whether it be expe- dient to make any, and what, alteration in the provisions of that Act."
Mr. SPRING RICE consented to the appointment of the Committee. The line taken by Mr. Clay was not calculated to excite alarm for the commercial credit of the country : had such been the scope of his speech, he should have called upon him to make out a stronger case before he assented to his motion. He admitted that there were grounds foi a Parliamentary inquiry whether the joint stock system answered its purpose or required amendment. Joint stock banks were a valuable discovery, and might be so regulated as to produce extensive public good ; but the House had a right to see that bubble schemes were not extended under cover of the joint stock system. He declined discussing the remedies proposed by Mr. Clay ; from many of whose doctrines, however, he dissented. He thought that Government ought to assume the responsibility of managing this question ; and would be prepared in a few days to nominate a perfectly impartial Committee, whose proceedings ought to be secret. He hoped that the Joint gtock Banks would not look upon the inquiry as a hostile one : it was not intended to call in question their prudence or their solvency. A period of commercial prosperity was the fittest time for an investigation of the kind proposed; and if the appointment of the Committee should have the effect of inducing persons to act with more caution, much benefit would result from it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that if the motion had merely rested on Mr. Clay's speech he should have divided the licuse against it : he had never heard so many principles laid down diametrically opposed to the end in view, as in Mr. Clay's speech. But he approved of the course taken by Mr. Spring Rice —except that he was opposed to secrecy. Mr. Clay had not produced a shadow of an argument to prove that inquiry was necessary. The banks which stopped payment in 179k
and IMO were private banks; and the cause of their failure was suf- ficiently obvious. Mr. Clay had been cautious about speaking of the Scotch Banks, only one of which stopped in 1826, and that only for a short time, during which it paid 20s. in the pound. How did this happen ? The systems in the two countries were different. As to limited responsibility, it was as much as saying that a man who risked 101. in a speculation was better security teen he who risked his whole
property. The question of paid-up capital was a fit subject of discus- sion, though he would not then enter into it. As to publicity, he was in favour of it. The public had a right to know every thing. No man should embark in a business of that kind who was not prepared to disclose his assets and liabilities— He was glad to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Com- mittee was not to be composed exclusively of gentlemen who took any one
particular view upon the subject of banking or of the currency. He trusted
that they would ponder well before they suggested any alterations that might involve an extensive change in the medium of circulation ; for he had seen more families ruined, more persons reduced from happiness and comfort to a state of
misery and starvation, more social mischief produced in Ireland, than almost ever occurred in France at any period of the Revolution, and all from a sudden
change in the medium of circulation. The very reports which showed that the English labourers were better of after the change of the currency than they were before, at the same time proved that the Irish peasantry were reduced by it to an infinitely worse condition. Whatever the effect of the change in England might 1w, in Ireland it worked nothing but mischief. But from the establishment of the Provincial Bank in that country up to the present mo ment time had been an improvement. The present year was the best that the Irish agriculturists had known for a long time past.
Mr. GISBORNE looked at the motion of Mr. Clay with some sus- picion; which, however, was alleviated by the speech of Mr. Spring Rice. He would put off is motion of which he had given notice, until the Committee was appointed.
Mr. RICHARDS would have been better pleased if Ministers had come down to the House with a well.digested plan for curing the evils inci- dent to joint stock banks, rather than merely sanctioning the appoint- ment of a Committee. He denied that proof had been adduced that any one single ev:1 had been produced by joint stock banks. He sus- pected that the Bank of England had something to do with this pro- ceeding; as he saw the Governor of England in conversation with Mr. Spring Rice.
Mr. PArrisoN said, his conversation with Mr. Rice related to a subject interesting to a portion of his constituents—namely, a draw. back on the paper-duty. (Laughter.)
Mr. HUME approved of the course taken by Government; but would hold himself free from the opinions expressed by Mr. Clay. lie did not believe that the joint stock banks had produced any surplus of paper money whatever— He was prepared to show that the increased production of this country in manufactures alone was upwards of 10,000,0001., while the increase of paper circa ation was only 1,000 0001. ; and this was effected by the present system of basking, which allowed discounts to such an extent as enabled the country, with the same quantity of circulation ,to transact a great deal more business than under the old system. What be wished to see changed, cr at all events in- quired into, as to the present system of the currency, was the working of the clause which was inserted by Lord Althorp in the Bank charter, which enabled Country Bunks to pay their notes in B ink of England paper instead of gold.
He wished bank-notes to be convertible into gold on demand ; and moved as an addition to Mr. Clay's motion, that the Committee be in- structed to inquire into the effect of that clause in the charter of' the Bank of England by which Country Banks were held to have satisfied their engagements by paying them in Bank of England paper.
Mr. SPRING RICE objected to this proposition ; as tending to over- lay the inquiry with a subject which did not necessarily to belong to it.
Mr. CAYLEY objected to Mr. Clay's doctrines, but would not oppose the motion.
Mr. FORSTER bore testimony to the extensive information, accurate statements, and spirit of candour by which Mr. Clay's speech was dis- tinguished. He thought the appointment of the Committee would do good. The best corrective of the evils arising from banking, public or private, was a strict adherence to the laws now regulating our cur- rency—the maintenance of the standard, the principle of convertibility with regard to all issues, and the prohibition of notes under 50/.
He could not refrain from observing, that should any money crisis arrive— and it was always possible in a great commercial nation like this to happen— be foresaw that the Minister of the Crown would be subject to a pressure, arising from the present state of the banking in this country, to which no Mi- nister had ever hitherto been subjected. It would not he confined to the ar- rangement between the Government and the Bank of England ; but the Minis- ter would be assailed by joint stock banks from all parts of the country, backed by the most powerful part of the constituency of the towns in which those banks were established. Such a pressure would require great firmness on the part of the Minister to resist what he anticipated would be their request. But he trusted the Finance Minister of this country would always have that firm- ness. It was reported of Mr. Huskisson, when the Bank of England asked him for advice at a moment when they were in a predicament for want of gold, that be advised them to put a notice on their doors to this effect—" Closed, waiting a supply of gold." That was just such an answer as a Minister of England ought to have given. Had Mr. Pitt given that answer in 1797— cheers)—moat of those evils which had arisen from the paper system, and the non-convertibility of paper into gold, would have been prevented. But Mr. rot was meter the influence of circumstances too powerful for him to control or to resist. The present Minister had no such circumstances to con- tend with ; and he trusted that whenever he should be assailed his answer would be—" You gentlemen paper-makers, if you have brought yourselves into a scrape by the undue issuing of paper money, you must trust to your own re- sources to extricate you from it ; for I cannot give you relief."
Mr. HANDLEY solemnly protested against the Committee, as unne- cessary.
Mr. PEASE was in favour of inquiry.
Mr. Hawes hoped Mr. flume's amendment would be acceded to.
Mr. PotiLerr Tuosisosr said, it was not proposed to inquire into the fluctuating amount of the circulating medium of the country ; and be opposed the introduction of the question involved in Mr. Huine's motion.
Mr. WARBURTON said, it would be taking a partial view of the sub- ject to exclude the inquiry suggested by Mr. Hume.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD expected no good either from the motion or the amendment.
Mr. CLAY, in reply, denied that he was hostile to joint stock banks t lie was a decided friend to them, believing that, under proper manages meet, they would conifer great benefit on the country.
Mr. flume's amendment was then rejected, by 98 to 12; and the motion for theCommittee was agreed to.
6. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.
On Wednesday. the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages Bill having been read, Dr. LEFROY moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months. His objection to the measure was, that it would tend to in.. crease clandestine marriages.
Mr. LYNCH contended, that the object of the bill was to remedy a severe, inhuman, and unjust law— As the law now stood, the seducer might possess himself of the object of his passion, and turn her adrift the next day to subsist by prostitution. Under this law, the unnatural parent might desert his child, and leave it to all the consequences which must result from such desertion. The law of Ireland was now what the law of England was before Lord Hardwicke's Act. A marriage was not legal if a Catholic priest intervened. Now, what was this but the grossest persecution? In Scotland, such marriages were good at this moment ; and why should they not be good in Ireland also? It had 'been objected that this hill would facilitate the means of entering into clandestine marriages: but how did the case stand at this moment ? In Leland the law uow was, that two persons might present themselves before a Protestant priest at any hour of the day or night, and declare themselves man and wife, and then such a declaration would have the effect of a valid marriage; but if such a declaration was made in the presence of a Catholic priest, the marriage was void. In supporting this bill, he was only asking the House to put all parties on the same footing.
Mr. SHAW objected to the bill, that it did not put all parties on the same footing, but was partial in its nature. It would not improve the marriage law of Ireland ; which, be admitted, was in an extremely bad state— As to the danger to be apprehended with respect to clandestine marriages, he did believe that this measure would increase the facilities for engaging in them, by taking away the only practical check to clandestine marriages by Roman Catholic priests in ['eland, and at the same time without bringing in any other any other measure to improve the marriage law and prevent such clandestine marriages. The law on this subject was had, and ought to be im- proved ; but this bill would not make it better, but much worse, since it opened the door for those clandestine marriages which were most likely to occur, because the prejudices and habits of the people would not allow of their form- ing any other. For these reasons he supported the amendment.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that Roman Catholic priests ought to be placed on the same footing as clergymen of other persuasions ; and his only objection to the bill was, that it did not go far enough. He hoped it would be the precursor of a general law on the subject. The House divided : for the third reading, 100; against it 91; ma- jority, 9. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
MISCELLANEOUS SUBJFCTS.
PENSIONS OF CHANCELLORS AND CHANCERY JUDGES. In the House of Peers, on Monday, in reply to a question from Lord LYND. HURST, Lord COTTENHAM mentioned, that it was not intended in his new Chancery bills to alter the retiring pension of the Lord Chan- cellor ; and that the pension of the Chief' Justice in Chancery would be the same as that of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench.
SCOTCH ENTAILS BILL. On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERRY, this bill was read a second time, on Tuesday.
IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL. On Tuesday, this bill was read a third time, and passed ; the oath to be taken by constables being altered so as to except Freemasons from its operation, according to the pro- viso which was proposed by the Duke of Leinster.
Last night, the bill was sent from the House of Peers to the Com- mons.
Lord MORPETH moved that the amendments of the Lords be printed.
Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR called attention to the very wholesome altera- tions in the bill effected by the Lords. He trusted that on this occa- sion justice would be done, and particularly by the Member for Mid- dlesex, to the assembly by whom so much public good had been accomplished. He wished the schedules might be appended to the amendments, to show the reductions in salaries and officers.
Lord MoaPeTH apprehended that it was not in the power of the House to adopt this suggestion. In the mean while, let the amend- ments be printed. Perhaps it might hereafter appear that the obliga- tions of the country to the Lords were not so great as Sir George Sinclair imagined.
The motion was agreed to.
POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND. On Wednesday, the bills of Mr. S. O'Brien and Mr. Poulett Scrope for the relief of the Irish Poor, were each read a second time; on the understanding that neither the House nor the Government was thereby pledged to give them future support.
In the House of Lords last night, the Duke of LEINSTER presented is petition from Dublin, praying that a system of poor-laws on the prin. ciple of the 43d of Elizabeth might be extended to Ireland. The Duke said he did not go the length of the prayer of the petition ; but he hoped that some system of Poor-laws would be extended to Ireland.
Lord MALMESBURY wished to know what course Ministers intended to take on this question. The present state of the poor in Ireland was so wretched, that he could with difficulty make up his mind to postpone a measure for their relief till next session.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE said, that it was most difficult to dead with this subject effectually. He imagined, no difference of opinion existed as to the support of the aged and infirm; but with regard to the employment of the able-bodied, and the administration of the money to be paid by the public, there was great difficulty; and he felt inclined to wait and see more of the operation of the English Poor. law before extending a measure of the same description to Ireland. Lord FITZGERALD thought it si as impossible to read the Report of the Commissioners without feeling convinced of the necessity of a measure of relief for the Irish pour, and likewise of the necessity of using great caution in dealing with the subject. • He approved of a measure for affording employment, and raising the means for that pur- pose; but not of the extension of the 43d of Elizabeth to Ireland. The Duke of RICHMOND had always been an advocate for extending poor-laws to Ireland. and hoped that Government would soon intro- duce a measure for that purpose.
The Earl of Wical.ow bore testimony to the able and statesmanlike report of the Commissioners; but thought the Government was not to blame if they did not bring forward an Irish Poor-law this session. The influx of Irish labourers into England was complained of by those who only agreed to a measure for the relief of the aged and infirm ; tut the aged and infirm did not intrude theniselves into England.
The Marquis of WEsrstsarit said, that if the Irish labourers staid at home and attended to their natural calling, instead of politics, there would be no complaints of the sort alluded to on the part of English landlords !
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, the relief of the starving poor ought to be considered a distinct question from that of giving employ- ment to the able-bodied.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in the absence of Lord Melbourne, would abstain from discussing the question of Irish Poor-laws ; but he could state that Ministers were anxiously employed in considering the subject— This question, in its general bearings, not only engaged the attention of Go- vestment, but they looked at it with the view of detaching any part of the question limn the whole, upon which it might be considered advisable to legis- late instantaneously. He would say that it was impossible to propose any mea- sure on the subject in the course of the plesent session without considering its bearings on every past of the question, particularly when it was recollected that one false step with regard to a measure which involved the interest of the population of Ireland might be the means of increasing the difficulties which Parliament would have ultimately to contend with. It was also -t important, that belare any measure was adopted, the suggestions which had been made on the most valuable Report of the Commissioners should be circulated throughout the country fin the purpose of obtaining every species of practical information with respect to it.
Lord Wisaitt.sca did not wish to press Ministers ; but the starva- tion and misery of the Irish poor called for a speedy remedy.
Here the conversation ended.
DUBLIN STEAM- PACKET COMPANY. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. O'CONNELL moved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the Dublin Steam- Packet Company, notwithstanding a former bill for the same purpose had been thrown out, and the Standing Orders had riot been complied with— The for nwr bill contained a clause of a limited responsibility ; and in conse quence. it was opposed by those who considered that their interests would be affeeted by such a paivilegeti anal the bill was rejected by the House. This was attended with great iaconveltience to the Company ; who had previously entered into contract- for steam-vessels to the amount of 137,000/. ; and all they sought for , in the hill which they propose, was permission to apply their capital
of 150 000/., which had been already subscribed, to the fulfilment of the en-
gagements they bad entered into. In asking this favour of the House, they relinquished all pretensions to a limited responsibility ; and were now ready, as they were on the thriller occasion, though not expressed in the bill, to make their propel ties liable to the fullest extent of their engagements.
Mr. It. E. PLUNKET, Lord CLEMENTS, and Lord FRANCIS EGF.R - TON, supported the motion; on the ground of the great advantage it would be to Ireland, by facilitating the expenditure of money in that country. Sir M. S. STEWART, Sir HENRY PARNELL, Dr. BOWRING, Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, and Mr. G. F. YOUNG, opposed the introduction of the ball.
A division took place; and leave was given to introduce the bill, by 106 to 65. On Thursday, it was read a first time, on the motion of Mr.
O'CONNELL.
ADMISSION OF THE LADIES. On Tuesday, in reply to Mr.
GRANTLEY BERKELEY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that it was in- tended to provide accommodation for the ladies in the Gallery of the House of Commons by the 1st of June. Although Government had been throughout opposed to the proposition, yet after two decisions of the House, they felt bound to give way; and bad ordered an estimate of the cost to be laid before the House.
IRISH TITHE BILL. It was arranged on Tuesday, after some con- versation between Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir ROBERT PEEL, that in order to give time for ascertaining opinions in Ireland relative to this bill, the second reading should be fixed for the 1st of June.
OYSTER FISHERIES BILL. This bill went through the Committee on Wednesday, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.
PUBLIC WALKS BILL AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS BILL. Both these bills were read a second time on Wednesday, with the understanding that the discussion on them should take place at a future stage.
POOLE CORPORATION. The second reading of the bill for regula- ting the Corporation of Poole was agreed to on Wednesday; Sir R. ROLFE (the Solicitor-General) having declined opposition to it at that time, but declaring his intention of speaking and voting against it at a future stage.
SURVEY OF CHURCH LANDS. Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE moved, on Tuesday, that a copy of the Parliamentary Surveys of Church Lands, preserved in the Library of Manuscripts at Lambeth, should be laid before the House. He considered it important that this document should be within reach of Members during the discussion on the Tithe Bill.
Lord Joins RUSSELL opposed the motion. The documents in ques- tion were public property, but he saw no reason for the House taking hold of them, as they could be at any time inspected. s Mr. HOME, Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. JERVIS, Mr. C. BULLER, and s I Dr. Bowatuo, supported the motion. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that t they might as well print Doomsday Book as those documents. Mr. E. DENISON observed, that it was absurd to call for the printing of twenty quarto volumes, which were already accessible to all Members who needed the information they would supply.
Mr. Duscosiux replied, that his motion was merely to lay the papers on the table ; and he should divide the House upon it.
A division accordingly took place; and the motion was rejected, by 99 to 40.
NON-RESIDENCE OF TIIE CLERGY: CONDUCT OF Ma. PRESTON: Mr. GROTE, on Wednesday, presented a very long petition from the parishioners of the united parishes of Christchurch, Newgate Street,
and St. Leonard's, in the city of London, complaining of the conduct of theirVicar, the Reverend George Preston, one of the Masters of Westminster School. The petitioners stated, that Mr. Preston had constantly resided out of the parish since his appointment to the vicar-
age in 1829, although he derived an income of 7001. a year from it; that except four or five times, he had never performed either morning or evening service; that he had assumed the post of evening lecturer, but finding the emolument small, had given it up, and refused to sanction the appointment of another person to that office; and that he had ex- pressed his determination to continue the pet formance of the duties legally demanded from him by the agency of curates. The petitioners further stated, that the new Pluralities Bill authorized the non-resi- dence of Mr. Preston], as one of the Masters of Westminster School ; and they prayed for such an alteration of the bill as would compel their vicar to reside among his parishioners and attend to his duty.
DEVISES BILL. Mr. AGLIONBY asked the Attorney-General, on Wednesday, with reference particularly to the clause respecting cus- tomary tenants, what had become of his Devises Bill ? Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that he could not give a satisfactory answer to Mr. Aglionby- The bill to which he alluded had been introduced early this session in the other House of Parliament : it had since, however, been suffered to fall asleep; and when it might be aroused from its dormitory, he really could not pretend to say. The clan-e with respect to cutomary tenants was one of very great importance, especially to those in the Northern parts of the kingdom ; and if the ho ttttt irable Member would bring in a bill for the purpose of carrying into effect the object he had in view, he might rest assured Government would give him all the support in their power.
Mr. Hum: confessed, that he had been a long while in that House without knowing precisely where the dormitory for its bills was, were it pointed out to him, he should be inclined to storm it : but if the measure alluded to by Sir John Campbell were really asleep in the House of Lords. why did not his learned friends there wake it and bring it out ? (Laughter.)
AFFAIRS OF CALCUTTA. Mr. HUME gave notice last night, that on Tuesday he should present an important petition from the inhabi- tants of Calcutta. Sir JOHN ilomiousx promised that he and Mr. Poulett Thomson would be in their places on that day.
RURAL POLICE. Last night, Lord Joins RUSSELL stated, in reply tuaquestion from SirOswALD MOSLEY, that a measure for establishing a system of Rural Police was in preparation ; but he would not promise to introduce it this session.
Previous page
