longer to exist, the court of Chancery must be abolished; because there was no other mode of enforcing its decrees. The hon. member had stated that the ignorance of parties exposed them to offend unintentionally against the law. He had been totally misinformed upon this point. No party was called upon to put in an answer until he had been warned by subpoena, and notices of the time at which he was to do so. It was only because he disregarded these notices, and refused to obey the order of the court, that he was imprisoned. If a party chose to remain in prison rather than do that which the interests of justice demanded of him, was the House to assume that his imprisonment was oppressive, and that there had been no inquiry into the merits of his case? The basis of any investigation which the House would direct into this practice, ought to be, that the order had been properly made, and that it should have been obeyed. He by no means meant to say, that if a person was unable to pay a sum which the court had ordered him to pay, he ought to be kept in prison for life. He agreed that to such a law, if it existed, a remedy ought to be applied; but after the statements which he had heard the hon. gentleman advance in that House he was not disposed to rely implicitly on any fact which he might assert. He would read the clause of the Insolvent Debtors' act alluded to by the hon. gentleman, and the House would see with what safety they could trust to the accuracy of the hon. gentleman. [The Attorney-general then read the clause, which, after providing for the release of prisoners confined for contempt in not paying money ordered by the court of Chancery, goes on to provide the same relief for persons detained in prison for non-payment of costs]. This might be taken as a fair specimen of the hon. gentleman's accuracy. The act of which he had spoken was passed in 1812, and contained the very remedy which the hon. gentleman had so strenuously proposed. It was obvious that the only means the court of Chancery had of enforcing obedience to its decrees, was by the imprisonment of the refractory parties; but if they obtained their liberation on complying with the order of the court, no evil could be said to exist. He stated this as a general proposition, and he would add to it this qualification-that if the cause of detention was merely the nonpayment of money, and the prisoner was unable to pay, then he was entitled to the benefit of the laws which had been made for the relief of other debtors who had no means of discharging their debts. Upon this broad distinction the House ought to act. When the subject came before the House in a different shape, he should feel it his duty to attempt to obviate all that might seem to be difficult, or that might occasion any hardship or unfairness. The system of that court, in general, was one which deserved universal veneration; for its constant tendency was, to protect and secure the property of the people. He was convinced that if the court of Chancery was not supported, it would be impossible to keep up the courts of common law; because, unless they were modified by the court of Chancery, they would become such a means of producing evil and inconvenience, that they could not be allowed to exist. The principles upon which the court of Chancery was established were so sound and so admirable, that he would defy the ingenuity of man, or the collective wisdom of any body of men, to devise a system more beneficial to the community. Mr. Lockhart thought, that if the process of contempt should be done away, or even weakened, all the usefulness of the court of Chancery would be destroyed. It was the only means the court had of protecting the interests of the suitors, and nobody could complain of it but those whose evil deeds exposed them to the punishment which the laws had a right to inflict upon them. He did not agree at all in the propriety of the act, which enabled persons when they had spent the money of the orphan, or the minor, to clear themselves from the effects of their obstinacy or iniquity. He thought that such a clause took a very great liberty with the property of the suitors of that court, and tended rather to promote injustice than justice in its proceedings. He trusted that a process, which was absolutely necessary to enable the court to perform its functions, would still be maintained. The motion was agreed to. PROMISSORY NOTES BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, Lord A. Hamilton said, that he would give his support to the measure, not because he thought it the best that might have been proposed for the adoption of would accrue to this country from the quantity of gold to be drawn from the continent by the operation of this bill. Throughout the whole continent, he supposed there was about 200 millions of specie. Of this, not less than 50 millions would be required to establish a gold circulation in this country. Now, the effect of withdrawing that amount from the continent would be to raise the value of gold onehalf; and to suppose that its value would be raised one-third in this country, was a moderate calculation. Now, could the chancellor of the Exchequer get the taxes paid to their present amount in a currency increased in value one-third? Then, again, we were to be called upon to lower our corn to a level with that of the conti parliament, but because it would, imper-I fect as it was, tend in some degree to amend the defects of the present system of country banking. He considered the introduction of the clause for authorizing the Bank to issue small notes for three years longer, a departure from the principle of the bill. He was surprised that ministers had consented to that measure. It had been stated as an axiom of political economy, that small notes and coin could not circulate together; how, then, could they justify themselves, for permitting the issue of small notes for three years longer? Mr. Calcraft said, he had intended to move an amendment at the present stage of this bill, but upon reflection he had abandoned that intention, and would content himself with declaring his op-nent; and, putting these two circumposition to the measure, with respect to which he would take the sense of the House, if he saw any members inclined to support him. He could look upon the measure in no other light than as a bill of pains and penalties against country bankers a class of persons who had been most hardly dealt with. He thought that government, by the extensive issues of their own accommodation paper, had been greater encouragers of speculation than the country bankers; and was of opinion, that it would be impossible to obtain a sufficient quantity of metallic currency to supply the wants of the manufacturing districts. During the course of his parliamentary experience, he had never known a measure more calculated to produce mischief than the one under consideration. Sir R. Heron thought, that the country bankers had been shamefully treated by ministers and the parliament. The only measure which would give relief to the country was an immediate and extensive curtailment of the public expenditure. Mr. J. Martin said, that much unmerited odium had been thrown upon the country bankers. In a paper which purported to be a return of the number of bankrupt bankers, the names of several individuals were inserted who had never committed an act of bankruptcy, and of others who had superseded their commissions. In common fairness the hon. mem-ber for Aberdeen was bound to move for a return of the names of the country bankers who had superseded their commissions of bankruptcy. Mr. Robertson feared the House had -overlooked the great difficulties which VOL. XIV. stances together, he would leave the House to judge of the consequences. The price of corn now was 60s. a quarter; and when the change of value in the currency came into operation, it would be down at least to 30s. He was of opinion, that the banking system of the country, as at present established, was necessary to its pros perity, as creating a degree of artificial capital, which would not otherwise exist. Mr. Carus Wilson spoke of the necessity of country bankers making their notes payable in the place where they were issued. In consequence of this salutary practice, the bankers of Westmoreland and Cumberland had been able to stand against the storm. In Lancaster, a degree of swindling was going on, in the absence of bank-notes, by the circulation of improvident bills of exchange. For the small notes of the Bank of England he entertained a great dislike, from the facility they afforded to forgery. He hoped, if they were to be circulated throughout the country, that means would be resorted to to make them less liable to imitation. Sir F. Blake said, that if he were asked whether he would prefer metallic or paper currency, he should certainly vote for the former. But, having once begun with the paper, we could not stop short. The principal object of this bill was, to circumscribe the issues in paper, and thereby accelerate the return to cash payments. It was on that principle that he had supported it. But he did not understand why all the advantages of the bill should be topsy-turvy in favour of the Bank of England; nor why that Bank should be shown greater favour than the country banks, as to the privilege of issuing notes 4 G up to the 10th of October. No notes were so easily forged as those of the Bank of England. He understood, the chancellor of the Exchequer meant to extend this measure to Scotland; but he begged to ask that right hon. gentleman, whether he had well studied the Scotch character before he had made up his mind on the subject? He was quite sure that the people of that country would not receive that measure, unless it was forced upon them by act of parliament. The House then divided: For the third reading 108; against it 9: majority 99. List of the Minority. Mr. Abercromby objected strongly to the power given to the Bank of England of issuing notes to the 10th of October next. He thought it was to be regretted that those words had found their way into the bill; for it gave to the Bank the power of manufacturing as many notes as they pleased. It plainly appeared that ministers had been misinformed as to the danger of contracting the circulation of the country bankers. The effect of the amendment was, to destroy all the small country notes. What was the value of the responsibility of the Bank? As to the responsibility of government, he was at a loss to know what it amounted to. The doctrine main tained in that House (and in which he concurred) was, that the Bank should consult their own interest, and not be subject to the control of government. He supported the bill; but he did it with regret since the introduction of this amendment. In order to put his opinion upon record, he meant to move that instead of the 10th of October, the 5th of February be inserted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a clause, by way of rider to the bill, the effect of which was, to exempt checks or draughts on bankers from the operation of the bill; which was agreed to. Mr. Hume observed, that great stress had been laid on the quantity of paper in circulation. Now, he thought, that although no correct deductions could be made from the amount of paper currency on particular days, yet it was desirable that returns should be made by the coun try bankers, as well as by the Bank of England, of the amount of their paper in circulation. He would therefore move a clause requiring country bankers to make monthly returns of the amount of their notes in circulation to be published at the discretion of the Treasury. Mr. Hobhouse seconded the motion. In the progress of this measure through the House, two propositions had, he said, been offered, neither of which had been agreed to; one was for securing the issues of country bankers by deposits; the other was for authorizing a summary process of compelling country bankers to pay in coin. His hon. friend had now offered a third, the object of which was, that the country bankers should condescend to give the country some account of the amount of their issues. It had been said, that the House had been legislating against the country bankers; whereas the House had been legislating for the country, and not for any particular interest. We had now no certain knowledge of the issues of the country bankers, and the House could not legislate properly without that knowledge. He thought his hon. friend might have gone further in his motion than he had done; for it was but just that those who dealt in the coin and circulation of the country should be similarly circumstanced with other traders. If the banking system was not put on a solid foundation, the country would soon be in a worse situation than at present. Fair as his hon. friend's proposition was, he supposed that, like the others, it would be rejected. He wished the chancellor of the Exchequer would imitate the conduct of his right hon. colleague. There was not an impartial man in the country who would not say that the president of the Board of Trade had acted on sound and just principles with regard to the silk trade. If the chancellor of the Exchequer had come down to the House and explained himself with the same frankness and firmness as the right hon. gentleman had done, in that admirable speech which he had listened to with the greatest pleasure, he would have done himself much credit. He should not have minded the obstacles cast in his way. He should not have minded the loss of votes in parliament, nor the clamour out of doors; but he should have pursued the straight-forward course, and the country would have supported him. Mr. John Smith said, that the appoint ment of a committee in the earlier stage of the present proceedings would have saved the country from a great deal of unnecessary perplexity and alarm. As for the proposition of security referred to by the hon. member who had last spoken, it appeared to him decidedly objectionable. The instant the stamp upon a Bank note was such as to make that note, in the view of the receiver, perfectly secure, that instant there would be an end to metallic currency altogether. As for the project of compelling country banks to furnish accounts of their circulation, he did not object to its principle; but he objected to introducing it at a moment like the present, when the country bankers had already been most unfairly treated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he resisted the present motion, not at all in consequence of any representation from the country bankers, but because he thought it was, upon its own merits, open to objection. If any banking companies were established under the bill which was to be read that night a second time, or any chartered companies-any companies to whom peculiar privilege was to be given-he should have no objection to demand some sort of account; but, particularly at the present moment, he was adverse to putting the Treasury in possession of the private concerns of individual bankers; and there were reasons why government would be better kept without such information. The hon. member said that he did not wish to make the publication in the Gazette imperative, but would leave it to the discretion of ministers. Now, he thought that ministers would be better without such discretion. It was also to be in the judgment of ministers, whether to lay the accounts received before the House; but it was possible that the House might call for the accounts against the judgment of ministers. At all events, the clause, as it was proposed, was inoperative; because it provided no penalty in case of neglect to return a true account; and this was the more material, as cases might be imagined in which the temptation to give an inaccurate statement would be almost irresistible. Mr. Hudson Gurney opposed the introduction of the clause into this bill, with the objects of which it had no connection; whether advisable, as a matter of future regulation or otherwise. Mr. Pearse said, it was a mistaken notion to suppose that there was no control over the Bank in its issues. The fact of the notes being payable in gold was itself a control. Besides, it need not be apprehended that many of these notes would be issued, as sovereigns were generally preferred, of which three millions had been issued since Christmas. The small notes, on the other hand, had been issued in very small quantities; as the Bank put out as few as possible. The Bank knew the difficulty of preventing forgery; for none of the schemes for accomplishing that object had been successful. Mr. Alderman Heygate thought that the amount of notes in circulation should be laid before the public, and gave it as his opinion, that one-pound notes issued on government security, would be preferable to those of the Bank of England, or of any other bank. Mr. Ellice wished to know from the secretary for the Home Department, whether government were at all responsible for any over-issue of notes. He certainly understood the right hon. gentleman to say, on a former occasion, that not only the Bank, but the government were responsible for any exercise of that power beyond due discretion. The fact just mentioned by the hon. director proved, that there would be no danger in agreeing to the clause. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that when the small notes were issued in December, it was considered a peculiar measure, and had the sanction of government; consequently, so far as regarded the issue of those notes since that period to this, government should bear the responsibility. But, as a general measure, they were not at all implicated. Mr. Monck observed, that although there was no penalty attached to the violation of the clause, yet such violation might be punished as a misdemeanor. The House divided: for Mr. Hume's clause 24; against it 143: majority 119. List of the Minority. Mr. Hume then proposed a clause to give remedy, by summary process, against country bankers refusing to pay their small notes in gold coin. He wished for security to the holders of the one-pound notes; but if the House did not agree to make cash payments compulsory, there would be no such security. The chancelJor of the Exchequer, on bringing in this Bill, had said, that security to the holders of small notes was his object. Could he therefore consent to pass this bill without that security? As the bill now stood, there must be an action, so that it might be one or six months before the value of the note could be recovered; and the action might cost 10l. or 50l. It was clear that such a state of the law gave no security to the poor man. Without this clause there would, in reality, be a suspension of cash payments. The clause which he should move was that which had been negatived by the committee on the bill; it was an exact copy of the summary process clause in the 37 Geo. 3rd, with the alteration of "ten days," instead of "three days." Mr. J. Smith said, that if the hon. member's clause passed, not a respectable country banker would ever issue another one-pound note; and those which were out already they would get in as fast as possible. The fact was, that a remedy for refusal to pay in gold already existed. A one-pound note might be protested for non-payment just as regularly as a bill of exchange; and the cost of that first step which the banker would be liable to pay-would be 22s. Mr. Hudson Gurney remarked, that the chief instances of grievance brought forward by the hon. member for Montrose, had been from Scotland, where, it appeared, this summary process existed, and whence, it should seem, by the hon. member's own showing, it was utterly uscless. Colonel Johnson observed, that the remedy was inefficient. The banker might be liable to pay the 22s. for protest, but the labourer must pay it on the spot. And where was he to get it?. The clause was negatived. Mr. Abercrombie then proposed to leave out the words " 10th of October, 1826," and to insert "5th of Feb. 1826," instead thereof, which was negatived. The bill was then passed. ARMY ESTIMATES.] The resolutions of the committee of supply to which the Army Estimates were referred, were reported to the House. On the question, that the report be now read, Mr. Hobhouse rose and said, that it was his intention, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, to propose a specific reduction of the number of troops which his majesty's ministers had thought fit to call on the House to vote as necessary for the military service of the country. The present, he knew, was rather an in auspicious moment for bringing forward a subject of so much importance; but he hoped that gentlemen would listen to him for a few moments, while he stated his reasons for considering the present as the most improper period that could be selected for proposing so large a military establishment as ministers now demanded from the House. The noble Secretary at War had told them that it was easy for gentlemen on the opposition side of the House, to declaim on such topics as the danger of keeping up a standing army, and the necessity which existed for the reduction of taxation. It might be easy or not; but that circumstance depended on the taste and temper of the audience to whom the declamation was addressed. Now, if (as he believed it would be admitted was the case) the noble lord had the audience in his favour, it was much easier for him to indulge in observation on the opposite topics-to argue that such and such reduction were not possible than for those to whom the noble lord had alluded, to work up, with any profit or effect, those trite and worn-out subjects, which had been so often expatiated on within the walls of parliament, and passed by with total disregard. Now, the noble lord, in the speech which he delivered when he proposed the army estimates, had given the Houseno reason whatever for continuing the present large military establishment in time of peace; and still less had he assigned any ground for the increase which he had proposed; for, though it was comparatively small, still it was an increase; and in this period of public pressure, it was the bounden duty of ministers, if they asked for a large standing army, in this the eleventh year of peace, to come down with something like cogent arguments in support of such a proposition. An observation Irad been |