The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd has just published a pain phle under the title of " Reflections suggested by a perusal of Mr. J. Horsley Palmer's Pamphlet on the Causes and Consequences of the Pressure on the Mo ney Market ;" and we can safely say, that it has never fallen to our lot to peruse any production with more unqualified satisfaction. The , enlightened author is so well known, that it is scarcely necessary for us to in orm our readers that he is a partner in the eminent king firm of Jones Loyd and Co. We need hardly rye, that even the best writers on the intricate sub ; a currency have experienced great difficulty in ex essing their views in so clear, and, at the same, me, practical a manner as to make themselves gene a.-y understood. Mr. Jones Loyd his been emi nently successful in overcoming the difficulties of the übject ; and as it is of the utmost consequence to the v elfare of society that this question should not be rnis • nderstood, the public are greatly indebted to him for n exposition which, while it will bear the most rigid xamination of political economists and critics, and even casts a light over the mystifications of Mr. H. Palmer's statement itself, is at the same time level to the capacity of any man of business of ordinary understanding. Mr. Jones Loyd, too, whilst lie delivers his opinions in the most open amd manly mauner, displays at the same time so much temperance and moderation, that even those of whose system he disapproves, and on whose conduct he animadverts, can entertain no feel ing of rancour.towards him. The pamphlet is emi nently adapted to rouse the public to a sense of the great importance of the subject of it ; and if the in quiry into our monetery system, on which Parliament is imperatively bound to enter, be pursued in the same spirit as that which Mr. Loyd has displayed in his " Reflections," we may indulge the hope that political and party strife will not be mixed up with it, but that public men, impressed with a due sense of its magni tude, will be actuated only by an enlightened anxiety for the welfare of the nation. Impressed with the import ince of diffusing as extensively as possible the " Reflections" of Mr. Jones Lloyd, we have taken the liberty, which we trust he will pardon, of not confin ing ourselves to extracts, but laying the entire pamph let before our readers in another part of our Journal. This, while it does justice to Mr. Loyd's views, frees us from the detailed analysis of them which it would otherwise have been incumbent on .us to give. Mr. Lloyd, it will be observed, commences with no ticing the circumstance that Mr. Palmer can only meet his opponents by decrying the accounts laid by the Bank before Parliament, as giving " a false represen tation of the action of the Bank, and calculated only to mislead," and by referring to accounts accessible only to the Bank Directors themselves ; and he shows that the explanatory circumstances on which that gen tleman relies for the justification of the Bank do not in reality affect the question. The principle set forth by the Bank Directors, in their evidence before the Par liamentary Committee, and by which the Bank pro fesses to be guided in the regulation of the currency, is " to keep the amount of its securities fixed, and to leave any variation in the amount of circulation and deposits to be balanced by a corresponding variation in the amount of specie." The principle (observes Mr. Loyd) met with a degree of acquiescence which a more close examination of the subject will hardly warrant, under a mistaken view of its pro bable action. As a manager of the currency it is undoubtedly a sound rule that against the amount of notes out it shall hold at its disposal securities and specie ; that the amount of securities shall be invariable ; and, consequently, that all fluctua tions in the amount of notes out shall be met by a corresponding fluctuation in the amount of specie in deposit. But then the Bank acts in the twofold ca pacity of manager of the currency and conductor of a banking concern ; and Mr. Loyd shows that it is quite absurd to talk of the Bank, in this last character, keeping the amount of its securities invariable. It is in the nature of banking that the amount of de posits should vary with a variety of circumstances ; and as the deposits vary, the amount of that in which they are invested must vary also. Mr. Loyd scouts the idea broached by Mr. Palmer, that the differ ences in the degree of permanency and variation of amount in a certain class of deposits constitute any essential difference upon principle in their nature or character. He shows that a large diminution of specie may take place, and be met, not by a cor responding decrease of circulation, but by a decrease of deposits ; whereas, all who have reflected upon the principles of paper currency must admit that the amount of paper issued should be represented by an amount of securities which. never varies, and an amount of specie which is left to fluc- tuate with the fluctuations of the amount of notes out. The rule, in short, ought to be that the variations in the amount of circulation shall correspond to the variations in the amount of bullion, by which means only we can obtain " a paper circulation, vary ing in amount exactly as the circulation would have varied had it been metallic." Mr. Loyd is of opinion that it would be better to separate altogether the busi ness of banking from that of regulating the currency, than to depart from so essential a rule ; but he agrees with Colonel Torrens in thinking that there is no in superable difficulty in rendering the currency depart ment of the Bank totally distinct from that of its other business. But then the Direction must be very diffe rent from what it is at present ; for (and we request the particular attention of our readers to the remark) " to perform very delicate duties, in every step of which the personal interests of the mercantile, trading, and money classes must be immediately affected, we select not a body of individuals qualified (by their total se paration from all such interests) to exercise a dis passionate and disinterested judgment ; but, on the contra-v, men the most largely engaged in mer cantile and monied operations, and therefore more than any other class exposed in their private i..-lerests to the immediate effects of any action upon the currency." Though it be possible, therefore, to separate the two departments, a complete revolution in the constitution of the Direction must take place before the Directors can be safely entrusted with the trying functions of managers of the currency. We have often stated, that to make profits the Bank are under an irresistible temptation to tamper with the currency. Mr. Load, too, while he admits that the Legislature have delegated powers both to the Bank and the joint stock banks which ought not to have been communi cated to them, shows that the conduct of the joint stock banks is really beside the question. " Is it pos sible," he asks, " fcr the joint-stock banks to maintain an e‘<paw ion of their issues for any permanency, in the face of a regular, steady, and undeviating course of contraction on the part of the Bank ; or will such a course on the part of the Bank bring the subordinate issuers into such a situation, that a corresponding change in their issues becomes inevitable ?" These ques tions we answered some time ago distinctly in the ne igative. Mr. Loyd shows that while the Bank of Eng land complains of the over issues of the joint-stock banks, its own branch banks were running a race of competition with them. The Bank has not shown, and cannot show, that the action of the joint-stock banks is beyond its control. " The Bank must first prove that it has really tried the effect of a steady and uninterrupted course of contraction, and that in face of this the issues of the joint-stock banks have as stea dily increased." The information given by Mr. Palmer, as he observes, tends directly to the opposite conclusion. We request the particular attention of our readers to the charges brought by Mr. Loyd against the Bank, founded on an examination of its circulation and bullion from January, 1536, to February, 1537. The circulation is considerably higher at this moment than it was in January 1836, though the bullion has undergone a very large diminution. He impugns its conduct with respect to Exchequer Bills, subsequent to the rise of interest upon them. " The measure," he observes, " has only served to enable the Bank to sell its Exchequer Bills and increase its discounts, thus forcing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a rise in the rate of interest upon his unfunded debt, instead of charging an increased rate of discount upon com mercial bills." In short, there is the strongest evi dence of the misconduct of the Bank, which, so far from contracting its circulation, increased it, while its bullion was constantly diminishing. In vain the Bank of England rep.!..oaches the joint-stock banks, when it appears she has not exercised the controlling action which she might have exerted. We have all of us heard tales of generous robbers, who took the money of the rich, to give it to the poor. In a character not much more advantageous is the Bank exhi bited, when it is seen to aid embarrased con cerns, not from its own resources, but " by an abu sive use of its power over the circulation, by increas ing its amount, wizen all regard to principle would require it to be diminished." The Bank , by fail ing to exercise its controlling action on the joint stock banks in due time, may have deemed itself bound to indemnify them in some sort by interference in their behalf ; but the indemnification ought to have been at its own expense, and not that of the public. All the difficulty of the crisis has arisen, as is well shown by Mr. Loyd, in the failure of the Bank to contract the circulation in due time. He happily il lustrates the effect of well-timed contraction by an old eastern proverb, " which says, you may stop with a bodkin a fountain which, if suffered to flow, will sweep away whole cities in its course. An early and timely contraction upon the very first introduction of excess in the circulation is the application of the bodkin to the fountain ; comknercial convulsion and ruin in con sequence of delay is the stream sweeping away whole cities in its course." Mr. Loyd analyses with much acuteness the American branch of Mr. Palmer's pamphlet, and exposes the contradic tions between the causes assigned for the efflux of gold to the United States, and the course of conduct pursued by the Bank. He scouts the idea of any considerable portion of gold returning from America. As the demand has been produced by an alteration in the relative value of gold in that country, if remittances in specie are to come from America, they will more probably be made in the depreciated metal, silver. The silver so obtained can of course be sent to a market where gold is cheaper than in Ame rica. Mr. Loyd very justly contends that we have very imperfect data for forming a judgment on this all-important question. Our readers may remember that we again and again urged that the Bank accounts were insufficient, and that, to render the publication really useful to the country, it should be constant and not at wide intervals, as at present. " Imperfect, vague, and ambiguous accounts (he observes) must under any circumstances be mischievous ;" and among the ad vantages which would arise from such a publication as that for which we contended he states, " the public will be enabled to regulate their course under the full light of truth, instead of pro ceeding with a doubtful and hesitating step through the delusive twilight which now sur rounds them ; the unreasonable expectations of assis tance and support from the Bank, which it is impos sible for her, without violating more important duties, to satisfy, would rapidly vanish under a more correct conception on the part of the public of her true posi tion ; and every tendency of the Bank itself to yield to importunate demands, and under the present pres sure of circumstances to deviate from the straight path of duty, would at once be checked by the con sciousness that all her acts were under the public eye, and that a firm adherence to the true principles of currency would be rigidly exacted from her." Mr. Loyd, for the sake of readers not familiar with the distinction of between banking and issuing money, shows in some detail the manner in which the banker must be moved onward by the stream of events. He cannot contract his accommodation at a period when the whole trading world are under one common impetus of expansion ; and if, besides his legiti mate resources, he be also entrusted with the power of isuing paper money ad libitum, he inevi tably abuses that power. Mr. Horsley Palmer's pamphlet is full of passages in which the duty of the Bank to the commerce of the country is dwelt on ; whereas a bank of issue should have only the ex changes in its eye. The Bank at present cannot per form its duty as it ought. The Legislature has dele gated to it incompatible functions. Mr. Loyd well observes, that " the tendency, whenever this union of issue and banking takes place, to produce mutual in terference and confusion, is abundantly evident through out Mr. Palmer's pamphlet." That pamphlet, from the absence of all guiding principle, produces much the saris effect on a well-constituted mind as would be produced by listening to a number of words uttered without any connection. Mr. Loyd concludes with some important suggestions. First, to strengthen the monopoly, as regards currency, of the central issuer ; second, to make a gradual approach towards the sepa ration of banking functions from the management of currency ; and, third, to have a distinct separation in the accounts of the Bank of the management of currency from every other branch of her business, to have a separate com mittee of currency, and to associate with the committee a representative of the Government, whose presence should always be requisite to constitute the Com mittee effective for business. There must, in this case, we should suppose, be something like what the French call a suppleant, in case of absence from sick ness or other inevitable causes. Mr. Loyd " thinks the presence of a Member of the Government in all the deliberations of the Committee would prevent the Bank from abusing her power over the currency for the promotion of her banking purposes ; and the Bank would exercise a similar power over the Go vernment." This, with a full and intelligible pub lication of the proceedings of the Committee, would give the public, he apprehends, a sufficient controul over the body. The inquiry on which the House of Commons has entered will embrace the operations of the Bank, though no such object may have been contemplated. The joint-stock banks cannot be fairly judged without considering also the conduct of the Bank. We have, therefore, great hopes from the inquiry ; and certainly Mr. Jones Loyd has, by his seasonable pamphlet, greatly aided the Committee in their investigation. We trust that at last the public will have something more solid to rest on than it has hitherto possessed. The property and happiness of individuals have been woefully trifled with from the ignorance of the Legislature when the last Charter was given to the Bank. This state of things should be terminated with as little delay as pos sible. The most painful part of the crisis is, we fear, to come ; but when it is once over, the Bank must not be suffered any more to fall into temptation. Even now, with the halter about her neck, as it were, she has been at her worst tricks ; for as Mr. Lloyd slily observes, " with the view of discharging her first duty, she compels the Government to raise the interest on Exchequer Bills, and thus realises her securities ; but here commerce interposes and carries away, under the form of discount, what was intended to go to the re duction of circulation ; and thus the last condition of the Old Lady becomes worse than the first."—.llorn ing Chronicle. In the House of Commons last night there was ano ther of those scenes which tend so admirably to raise the character of that assembly in the estimation of all respectable men at home and abroad. We allude to what occurred on Mr. Walter's postponement of his motion for addin ,, other names to the Committee on the Poor-law Bill, and for which we refer the reader to our Parliamentary report. Mr. Rice appears to have been particularly irate—indeed, so much " flab bergasted," to use one of his own favourite expressions, was the Right Hon. Gentleman, that he actually said " HE could not CONSENT" to the motion being with drawn. •Now, Mr. Rice has just as much to do with consenting to any Hon. Member withdrawing a motion as he has to do with what is going on in the moon, and indeed much less, if we may judge by an hal lucination that carried the mistaken leader pro tent. of the House of Commons (!) into the corn • mission of the still greater mistake .of declaring that the postponement of the motion was " a violation of the established rules and orders of the House." The Speaker told the leader pro tern. that Mr. Wal ter had a perfect and undoubted right to postpone his :notion, and the motion was postponed accordingly. Nevertheless, some Hon. Members were supposed to have saluted Mr. Walter with a groan as he left the House, but we are induced t_r consider this a mistake. The groan was probably given " more in sorrow than in anger "—in sorrow that the " packing had failed in its object, and that the Speaker should have pro nounced that to be " a perfect and undoubted right " which M r . Ri ce, i n h i s . great learn i ng and experience of Parliame n t ary pract i ce, had denounced as a viola tion of the rules of the House. By the way, we be lieve Mr. Rice was once destined (by himself at least) for the Chair of the House of Commons! What an escape for the House ! We have only further to ob serve, in calling the attention of our readers to this scene, that we trust that neither Mr. Walter nor any other Member, will be deterred from the performance of his duty by the " noises and " hootings "of the adherents of Ministers in the House, or by the bully ing of persons in their pay or patronage out of doors. Let the gentlemen hoot on—they can discredit none but themselves : let the person's who slandered Ser geant Jackson slander others too—no one can believe a word they say : let Cupid draw his arrows to the head—a fool's bolt is soon shot.—Times. Sir Robert Peel evinced great alarm last night in the House of Commons, lest the measure respecting Church-rates, about to be proposed by the Government, shsuld be prematurely urged on the consideration of the House. Whenever a step to the right is about to be taken by the Legislature, we are sure to find the Tories endeavouring to throw every impediment in the way, and feigning apprehension that some dire and terrific result is impending ; but whenever an abuse is to be defended, we find them flinging all discretion and caution aside, and ready, coute qu'il coute, to protect their cherished corruptions from the process of puri fication. The Right Hon. Baronet's affected alarm was, to his great mortification, proved to be unfounded, as, in reply to a question put by him to the Chancel lor of the Exchequer, he was informAl by that Right Honourable Gentleman, that the course which he ad vocated—namely, that the Ministerial resolutions, with respect to the Church-rates, should be moved in Com mittee, after which the House would be afforded time to deliberate on the principle—was that which the Ministers intended to adopt. Thus the Right Hon. Baronet was deprived of the opportunity, for which he seemed most solicitous, of charging the Go vernment with taking au undue advantage of their op ponents, and attempting to commit the House to a principle without allowing time for deliberation on its merits. To all acquainted—and who is not acquainted? —with Sir Robert's capacity to make much ado about nothing, and exaggerate trifles with inflated verbiage, it will be apparent that the unobjectionable manner in which the Church-rate measure is to be introduced, has deprived him of an opportunity of opposing the matter of the Bill, on pretence of denouncing the man ner of its introduction. With respect to the Ministe rial measure on the subject of Church-rates, we have already announced, on competent authority, that it will be satisfactory to the public. And as our opinions on the damning injustice of taxing men for the sup , port of a Church with which they are not in com munion are already well known, when we say that the measure will be satisfactory, we, of course, im ply the exoneration of those who dissent from the Church from the payment of its rates. We shall reserve a further discussion of the question till we have the Ministerial plan before us ; not that, like Sir Robert Peel, we want time to consider the principle, but because public opinion being decided on the principle, it now only remains to consider the most desirable mode of giving it operation. If Sir Robert Peel and the Tories were about to be taxed for the building and repairing of the Roman Catholic chapels in Ireland, and the houses of the Dissenters' worship in England, we wonder what time would they require to deliberate before they would venture to de clare the injustice of the principle ? But the injus tice of levying Church-rates on Dissenters is even greater than this, because there are other funds of the Church specifically set apart for the objects to which the rates are applied, and the Ministers of the Church first misapply these funds, and then impose on their Dissenting fellow• citizens a tax to compensate their malversation. Is this justice ? Is it Christianity ? What would Philpotts call it if the aggression were on the other side ? He would invent a new epithet for its designation, for it is something worse than rob bery and spoliation.—Morning Advertiser. The Attorney-General, we are glad to perceive, at length appears to be really in earnest in proceeding with his Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, and substituting for that mischievous, cruel, and impolitic practise, the more reasonable protection to the creditor, of rendering the property not the person of the debtor (except where absconding from the juris diction is meditated) available in discharge or satis faction of the debt. If we mistake not, it is now four years ago since the Attorney-General pro mised to bring in a Bill to effect what it is the object of the present Bill to accomplish. He contrived to evade the fulfilment of his promise for a long time— last session he brought his Bill into the House of Commons so late, and proceeded with it so slowly, that the session had nearly concluded before it went up to the House of Lords. Desirous as we were to see the measure become law, we think the Lords acted perfectly right in not taking a Bill of so much importance into consideration under such circum stances. As a deliberative body, they are bound to ex amine the Bills sent up to , them from the House of Commons, before they pronounce a decision upon them ; and if they did not, they might at last be thought to have no higher office in the work of legis lation than to register the decrees of the Commons. The Bill for Abolishing Imprisonment for Debt was not proceeded with in the Lords, because there was no time allowed for mature and satisfactory examination of its details, even though the Lords had been agreed that in point of principle it was unobjectionable. Yet the not passing this Bill was one of the charges made against the Upper House, by its democratic assailants, and even by the Attorney-General himself, though it is evident that, under all circus cances, it was the Learned Author of the Bill and the House of Com mons that were to blame. Now, indeed, we find that the Attorn. y-General is, as he ought t ts, proceeding with the Bill in the early part of the Session, and thereupon he is accused by the opponents of the measure of undue haste and precipitancy. How far that charge is deserved, what we have already stated sufficiently shows. The principle of this Bill has been greatly discussed of late years, and we hare written so often upon it in former Sessions, that .we can offer nothing new ; but, inasmuch as the opponents of the measure have raked up all the old arguments against the measure which, we thought, had been long since disposed of, we may also venture to revive the • reasoning by which those arguments had on former oc casions been answered. The most zealous opponent of the principle of the Bill, on Wednesday night— indeed, we may say, the . only avowed opponent of its principle, for the opposition of others was to parts and not to the whole—was Mr. Richards. Nor can we say that he was a persevering opponent, for his determination to throw it out, by moving that the Speaker leave the chair that day six months, only lasted during the debate, and evaporated when the question came to the vote, for he actually voted against his own motion. Thus his arguments against the mea sure, so far from converting anybody else, did not con vett himself. He did not stand even in a " glorious minority of one," to support the principle contended for in his elaborate and well-studied speech. He preferred " turning his back upon himself," and siding with the majority, by which that principle was.left in a state of complete destitution—zero being the highest number by which it was supported. Let us, however, glance at the sort of arguments by which Mr. Richards endea voured to advocate the cause to which he gave his elo quence, but denied his vote. The main argument was, that the law of arrest for debt discourages extravagant habits and improvidence, and the rem: a t t , a i l t of it encourages therefore make people very careless about plunging into debt. We always thought that one of the s t rongest i objections to the law as it stands s, that habits of thoughtless expense and ruinous extravagance, by the facility of false credit, which it creates. The cre ditor relies upon the law, which pledges the body of the debtor for his debt, and does not take the proper steps to ascertain, in the first instance, whether the person applying for credit has the means of paying him or not. When the debtor is ruined, or fast gliding on to ruin, by his extravagance, the creditor resorts to the bailiff for his " co-operation" to squeeze the debt out of the body of the defaulter. Better, we should think, it would be to have a security on his property, if he h a d any , an d if he has none, all the bailiffs in England could not squeeze the debt out of him, unless they could sell him, according to the law of the 12 tables, (or a s l ave, or " coin his bl oo d t o drachmas," which was never known to be done, except in the poet's mint. Where then, is the benefit to the creditor—where the protec tion of imprisonment for debt ? That law, indeed, THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1837. enables a great many traders, shopkeepers, and others to get rid of their goods, but does it enable them to get the payment ?—that is the question. We do not know what advantage it is to the linen-draper, the hatter, the hosier, the baker, the butcher, to have their shelves cleared of their respective commodities, by ready-handed customers, unless in return they get their tills filled. The law of imprisonment for debt enables them to have the former operation very effectu ally performed, but not the latter. Thus the clearing out part of the commercial transaction is admirably accom plished by the law of imprisonment for debt, but not t)ee, paying in. So much for the protection to the crdi or . Now let us look at the case of the debtrieeitherho nest or dishonest. if honest, he may be still weak enough to avail himself of the dangerous facility of credit which the law produces, and plunge into expenses without present means of paying, which he hopes hereafter he will be able to satisfy. If dishonest, he will not scruple to take all he can get for nothing, making pro mises of payments which he never intends to fulfil. Misfortune lays his hand upon the former, and the bailiff follows misfortune. He is thrown into prison because he has not the means of honestly paying his debts, and a prison is the worst place in the world to acquire those means. He is prevented from earning the daily bread of his family, who are reduced to ruin along with him ; and so, though the creditor's demand is not paid, his.vindictive feelings, if he possess any, are amply gratified. But the law, while it enforces justice as far as it is practicable, should not minister to revenge. In the mean time, he who went into prison an honest though unfortunate debtor, too often comes out depraved by the moral contami nation of a gaol. Having received the treatment of a criminal, he is resolved to justify its se verity, and to plunder society before he is again consigned to the punishment of the thief. Our prisons are not remarkable for converting rogues into honest men ; but many an honest man they have made a rogue. In this way the legislation works for the benefit of creditor and debtor, which Mr. Richards so much admires. Even our criminal law, which the Attorney-General once told his consti tuents at Edinburgh is still the most barbarous and bloody of any in Europe, is provided with a large pro portion of those victims that perish on its scaffold by the law of imprisonment for debt. Mr. Richards de scribes the proceedings in the Insolvent Court as something like a farce, producing on the whole to cre ditors about three farthings in the pound, and he says that debtors can get through that Court and become free men again, after suffering about two months' im prisonment. Is not this, we ask, a strong argument against the side of the question which he advocates— in his speech, we mean, not by his vote? If impri sonment for debt at present is only a state of probation to a speedy discharge through the Insolvent Court, is not that another reason why such a mockery of protec tion to the creditor should be abolished ? It is, in deed, a very strong argument for abolishing imprison ment for debt altogether, unless Mr. Richards be pre pared to revive the law of imprisonment for debt in all its unmitigated severity, before either the " Lords' Act" passed or the Insolvent Court was established. Would Mr. Richards dare to make such a proposition ? Would any man in Parliament dare to do it ? Again, as to the three farthings sterling squeezed out of debtors at present in passing through the Insolvent Court, what does that prove ? Does it not prove either the great poverty of the persons in general imprisoned by the law, or that the law, as it stands, is not effec tual to reach their property ? If the former, why should they be imprisoned at all ? If the latter, why should not the law be altered ? We offer Mr. Richards the choice of either horn of this dilemma. Perhaps he will speak for the one, and vote for the other. Mr. Richards speaks of the antiquity of the law of impri sonment fur debt, as if it were coeval with our Consti tution—but the ancient common law of this country knew nothing of imprisonment for any civil injury— the mode of compelling a debtor to pay, before the sta tute of 25th Edward 111., cap. 17, which first enabled a capias to issue against the person in actions of debt and detinue. It is true that, by the statutes of Marl bridge, the 52d Henry 111., cap. 23, and Westmin ster 2, 13th Edward 1., cap. 11, a capias was allowed to take the person in actions of account. Those statutes passed in derogation of the milder and wiser policy of the common law, and were made by the great men or feudal Lords in Parliament, to compel their bailiffs to account by throwing them into prison. The process previously of compelling a defendant in actions for civil injury to obey the king's writ, was by summons, pledges, and distress, and if necessary by distress infi nite. It was the wisdom of our ancient common law, and we wish our Legislators in Parliament knew a little more of it than they do—it was, we say, the wisdom of our ancient common law, to compel a man to make atonement for every species of civil injury by process against his property--viz., his goods or chat tels, and the profits of his lands ; but, " if he had no substance, the law held him incapable of mak ing satisfaction," as a great authority says, and " therefore looked upon all further process as nuga tory." Now we hold that this was wiser, more hu mane, and more politic than shutting a man up in prison because he is unable to pay his debts, and so making a bad case worse. This was the spirit of our ancient law —so, if Mr. Richards respects the wisdom of our an cestors, he will pay more reverence to the common law, which did not imprison the body of the debtor, than the statute law, which does. There is one point connected with this subject—an amendment to the Bill of the Attorney-General, rather than any part of the original Bill, of which we decidedly disapprove. We allude to the amendment which is to cover with the shield of privilege Members of Parliament who defraud their creditors—a disgraceful privilege to the Reformed Parliament, we do not hesitate to say, and for resisting which in the determined manner he did, Mr. Jervis deserves great credit; as also do Seageant Wylde, Lord Sandon, Mr. Tooke, Mr. M. Philips, and Mr. Aglionby, for opposing the amendment. While arrest for debt simply was allowed, we could hardly quarrel with the privilege ; but when arrest for debt is done away with, except in cases where fraud is committed, or where there is an intenticn to ab scond from the jurisdiction, why should Members of Parliament be privileged ? All fraud is criminal, there fore it is that the Insolvent Court has the power to remand fraudulent debtors. Why, again, we ask, should a Member of Parliament be exempt from im prisonment for a criminal Act ? And if we understand the Attorney-General's amendment, it has the effect of giving that exemption or none.—Morning Herald. The vote of the House of Commons on Wednes day, affiming the motion of the Attorney-General in the Committee on the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Bill, will excite some surprise we imagine, but .it will certainly give rise to lunch censure through out the country. That motion was, in substance, to enable Members of Parliament to elude the payment of their just debts—of debts proved to be just in the or dinary course of law —more easily and effectually than any other class of persons. This very discreditable motion was carried by a majority of only three, or, without the votes of the Attorney and Solicitor Ge neral themselves, by a majority of only one. We wish, for the honour of the House of Commons, that the majority had been on the other side ; but, as to the practical result, we cannot doubt that it will be the same as if the law officers of the Crown had been left in a minority, for we suppose it may be regarded as impossible that the intention of the Attorney- General should be carried into effect after such a division upon the subject as we have described. The privilege which it was intended to confer upon Mem bers of Parliament, is, it may be proper to observe, of somewhat a d i ff erent na t ure from that exemption from arrest which they now enjoy ; for the object of the measure which confers this new privilege is, to abolish the practice of arrest for debt altogether, providing for this process a substitute upon the principle of the cessio boizorum. The Bill provides, however, that imprisonment of the person of the debtor may be re sorted to, as a penal infliction, when an attempt is con tumaciously or fraudulently made by him to resist or elude the surrender of his property to his creditors ; and it was from this description of process that the Attor ney-General, and the Solicitor-Croneral, and as many as 52 of their supporters, thought that Members of Par liament ought to be exempt. We cannot be surprised that the tellers reported to the Chairman, in the first instance, the numbers on this side of the question as ten less than they actually were. Who could have sup posed it possible that there should be found fifty-four men in any assembly so intrepid as to express such au opinion ? The fact so far outstripped the antecedent, probability as to astound, embarrass, and incapacit ate the persons to whom the office of counting the tw,m hers had been entrusted. It is evideD.t, on the slightest consideration of the subject, f / :,at the amendment of the Attorney-General.. cre'ies a Parliam e nt ar y privilege‘ of a nature entirel.:: different from any that i s now c l a i me d by thF .tembers of the Legislature. The clause, from the operation of which it was intended to exempt Mem bers of Parliament, is strictly a penal clause, intended for the prevention of contumacy and fraud. Do IVlem bers of Parliamens now claim the privilege of exemption from the operation of the criminal law ? Are they not liable, indeed, to indefinite imprisonment, on the summary decision of any Judge, that they have fallen into contempt of his judicial authority ? What Judge would hesitate to pronounce sentence of imprison ment against a member of Parliament if convicted of libel ? What Chairman of Quarter Sessions but would send an M. P. to gaol, to endure the punish ment of an aggravated assault, just as he would send any other man ? Upon what principle is it, then, that the Attorney and Solicitor General, with their fifty two supporters, think that Members of the House of Commons should be privilegd against imprisonment, for contumacy or fraud, when creditors arc to be rob bed ? This, we confess, is an enigma which far sur passes our comprehension. NVe shall not seek its so lution ; but merely express our hope that the amend ment of the Attorney-General was not pressed upon the House from a wish to secure to that assembly the continued presence of any distinguished Reformers.— Morning Post. The Siecle says, in an article on the shipping at Toulon, that there is now in that port a vessel of the line, the Hercules, of which the decorations and internal splendour are little fitted for warlike purposes, and seem more adapted for some glorious pageantry. It is conjectured by many that the object of such an armament can be no other than to convey with adequate pomp the ashes of Napoleon from St. Helena. Its guns are already on board, and it only waits for a favour able wind to start on its mission of national and European in terest. The following is an amusing and singular instance of the prevalence of the influenza in Paris :—At the Duke de Mortcmart's the whole of the inmates of his extensive man sion were confined to their beds. So incapable were they of moving on one particular day that the Duchesse, being the only person preserving the use of her limbs, was obliged to take upon herself the office of portiere, and open the door. The old Duke de , who had called in vain several days, when lie recognised Madame de Mortemart, exclaimed, " At least to-day the portiere will not say the Duchess is not at home." "I am not sure of that," answered the belle portiere, " for I scarcely know where I am." " Nor I," rejoined the witty Duke, " unless it be at the gate of Paradise, for there is an angel at the door." On Saturday the King's Procureur brought Miss Griffiths, of Rock -cottage, Jersey, before the Royal Court, and prayed her committal to the island gaol, on the following charge of forgery and theft :—Some time since, the postman had two letters from the Navy Pay-office, one for Captain Griffiths, the prisoner's father, the other for Mrs. Lydiard, an officer's widow ; by mistake he left them both at Rock-cottage, with Miss Griffiths. Mrs. Lydiard not receiving her money as usual, wrote to the Navy Pay-office, and an investigation was set on foot, by which it appears that the prisoner opened the letter, abstracted the bank pest bill, signed Mrs. Lydiard's name to it, and got it cashed through the agency of a dress maker named Quint. The Procureur prayed the Court to hold the prisoner in gaol until the arrival of the bank bill from England. Advocate Godfray, for the prisoner, contended that the Court were not justified in imprisoning the body of any individual in the absence of the proofs, and demanded the prisoner's release on giving bail. The Court committed the prisoner to gaol until the arrival of the note from London.— Jersey Patriot. The report that a boy was murdered at Kintore, has been very prevalent all the week, and the circumstances, as re lated, possess all the requisite atrocity. Thus goeth the story : A farmer, at Kintore, having killed a cow, hung her up in an outhouse; and a boy, the victim, who had left his people in Aberdeen to travel through the country, after being refused admittance into the farm-house, took up his lodging in the afore said out-house. There he fell asleep. Several gipsics then arrived at the place ; when, finding the cow slain and the boy asleep, they carried off the former and cut the throat of the latter, hanging him up in the cow's stead, leaving their dog, who, after licking up the boy's blood, set up an unnatural bowl, which brought the people on the farm to the spot, Then the murder was discovered. The report adds that the murderers were soon afterwards apprehended, up the country. Such is this awful tale, which, it is needless to say, is a pure fabrication, and which has been, of course, hourly increasing with horrific incidents.—Aberdeen herald. In the month of October, 1835, a gentleman (then resident in Nottingham, but now in Manchester) had his pocket picked in a fair at Nottingham of a gold watch, with gold chain, seal, and key; and though proper inquiries were made by the police, nothing could be heard of the stolen pro perty. On Thursday evening, however, a small box, ap parently an old cigar box, arrived by coach from L e i ces ter, directed to the gentleman in question, who at first suspected some mischievous design, and accordingly opened the box with very great caution; but he was no less gratified than sur prised to find that, instead of a canister of gunpowder, or a battery of Waterloo crackers, it contained his long-lost watch, with all its appendages, just in the state in which he lost them. —Manchester Guardian. Between the hours of one and two o'clock yesterday morning, as police constable No. 143, of the V division, was proceeding on duty through Putney, he discovered a man lying on the footway in a state of complete insensibility, and welter ing in his blood, which was still profusely streaming from a desperate wound on the top of his head. He was taken to Guy's Hospital, where it was ascertained that the wound lie had received proceeded from a tremendous blow inflicted with some heavy blunt instrument. The man remains in a state of stupor, and is at present considered to be in imminent danger. His name has been ascertained to be James Bolton, and lie was known about that part of the country by travelling to collect old metal. No money was found about him. Scarcity of fuel is felt so much by the numerous poor in this city, that the grave-yards have been disturbed for decayed coffins to burn.—Limerich Chronicle. As an instance of the perversity of fashionable taste, we have heard that the leaders of the various quadrille bands in London are arrang►ing the unmeaning air of "Jim Crow " as a waltz and galope ; so that the fair of Almack's may alternately " wheel about " or " jump," according to the measure. About a month ago a poor man, named Joseph Ostler, a stone-mason's labourer, who lived with his wife and family at No. 1, Ferry-street, Lambeth, left his home, and has not since been heard of. It appeared that the poor fellow had previous to his disappearance been out of employ for seve ral weeks, and, with his wife and two children, had been re duced to great distress. His youngest child, only six months old, was also very ill, and the parish doctor, who was attend ing upon it, having given up all hopes of its recovery, so af fected the father, that he declared he could bear with his po verty and affliction no longer, and left his home, declaring to his wife that he would drown himself, and that she would never see him again. It is much feared that he has put his rash vow into execution; and his wife, who has recently fol lowed the remains of her child to the grave, is in a state of great anxiety about him. Ostler was an industrious sober man, thirty-two years of age; and in the event of his body being found, it may be identified by some marks and devices pricked in one of his arms. The wife and his surviving child are in a state of extreme destitution. Commercial advices from Liverpool, dated Tuesday night, state that the pressure for money was rather severe on that day. The accounts from Manchester, dated o❑ the same day, are not so favourable as we could wish. Mme. Pruzinska, a Polish lady, who fought in the heroic army of her nation, arrived a few days ago at Rouen. She is covered with honourable scars, and has been confined for three years in the prisons of Warsaw, whence she has only lately been released to find an asylum with her exiled fellow countrymen in a foreign land. Last night an inquest was held at Guy's Hospital on the body of Eleanor Barry, a fine girl, aged 12, who was burned to death. The deceased was the daughter of respec table persons, residing in Collins's-court, White -street, Bo rough. On Tuesday evening she was left in charge of several of her younger brothers and sisters, when, in prepring their tea, her apron caught fire. Her screams brought to her assist ance several of the lodgers, who succeeded in extinguishing the flames, but not until the deceased's clothes were completely consumed, and her person shockingly burned. The poor suf ferer was put in blankets and brought to this hospital, but she expired in less than an hour after her admission. Verdict— ' Accidental Death." On Sunday evening last a meeting was held in Bywater's large room, Peter-street, Manchester, to hear Mr. Owen and the Rev. Mr. Roebuck's religious discussion, and it is supposed there must have been 800 persons present. Be tween seven and eight o'clock they were much alarmed at hearing a violent crash in the centre of the room, and it was at first thought the whole floor was giving way. Their alarm was increased by some parties exclaiming " Fire !" and the rush to the door was tremendous, there being only one, and that was exceedingly narrow. The windows, which came down to the floor, were dashed out, and many persons leaped from them into the yard, a height of at least fifteen feet After the confusion was a little over it was found that the trap door in the middle of the room had given way, and that a few persons had fallen through the opening. Two ladies were very fortunately caught by. some hostlers, who ran to the place im mediately upon h ear i ng t h e no i se, or t h ey must h ave b een se riously hurt. The room had been used as a carriage repository, and the t ra p-d oor was f or the purpose of rak i ng and lowering the carriages, and which was unequal to such a heavy weight as was upon it at the time. It is most fortunate, and almost miraculous, that no ser i ous acc id ent occur red. In their alarm many left hats and umbrellas behind, and in the confusion some had the good fortun e to c h ange ne w h a t s for old, silk umbrellas for cotton ditto, and vice versa. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 2. Lord SHAFTESBURY presented petitions against 6( abolition of Church -rates, from Newton and Parkston, in Dor setshire, from Langton, in Dorsetshire, from Hersden, Lippe] Haven, Milton, and other places, in Wilts, from Fishertor Auger, and Aylesbury, and from Charlesbury, in Oxfordshire. The Marquis of DoWNSHIRE presented petitions from Somerton, and other places in Suffolk, against the abolition of Church-rates. The Bishop of ROCHE STFR presented petitions in favour of Church -rates, from Milford, Farnborough, Ash, Pembridge, and other places in Hants ; from the parish of St, Nicholas, Guildford; and from Walton-on-Thames. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions to the same effect from Bedhampton, Yeovil, and other places. Viscount DUNCANNON presented the Report of tfu Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Emoluments o Public Officers connected with the Civil List Establishment also returns of the qualifications of Deputy-Licotenants it Ireland. Lord ASHBURTON presented petitions from Bringfield in Essex, and from Waynhill, in Suffolk, in favour of Church. rates ; also a petition from Lvtchctminster, in Dorsetshire, t( the same effect. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the paper furnished by the Board of Education in Ireland be referrer to the Select Committee.—Ordered. The Earl of WICKLOW said that he begged to correct 01 error, which appeared in the report of his speech of Wednes day night. He was stated in the report to have accused tir Commissioners of Education of having filled their report witl falsehoods. Now, there was nothing farther from his inten tion than to have used any such observations. The expres sions he had used were, that the report of the Commissioner was filled with vituperative attacks on a Right Rev. Prelate and with accusations of falsehood against him. This, it woul' be seen, was widely different from a statement that the Repor of the Commissioners was filled with falsehoods.—( Hear, hear. Nothing could be further from his intention than to insult body of gentlemen for whom he entertained an unfeigne respect, and who were associated for the purpose of performing a troublesome duty which they endeavoured to discharge t the utmost of their ability, and with the best intentions i; respect to the object for which they were appointed. As t this one paragraph, therefore, it must at once appear unfounded as from the reasons he expressed at the time, it must be eviden that he never intended to accuse the Commissioners of false hood.—( Hear. ) CHURCH RATES. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from Trurc and St. Ives. in Cornwall, \Vashfield, and several parishes in th county of Devon, against the abolition of Church-rates. Lord RE D E SAL E presented petitions from Darlington Stonehouse, in Gloucestershire, and several parishes in th county of Warwick, to the same effect. The Bishop of BATII and WELLS presented petition from several parishes in the county of Somerset to th same effect. The petitioners all prayed that the Estab lished Church might be upheld in all particulars as i at present existed. They submitted that this rate, being a rat on property and not on individuals, the rights of conscienc could not be interfered with by it. That to abolish th Church-rates would be in a great majority of cases ruinous ti the Church.—( Hear.) That this was an unseasonabl time to effect any change in the Church; but if the Lordships did interfere at all, the petitioners prayed that th House would not sanction any change of the existing law i reference to the Church, except that which might be calci lated to facilitate any improvement of the principles on whic it was placed. Lord VERUL A M presented petitions from St. Alban Little Hornsey, and other places against the abolition 4 Church-rates. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions, very numerous ] and respectably signed, from the borough of Portsmoutl Sunderland, Aberdeen, Bradford in Yorkshire, Ashby-de- 11 'touch (Leicestershire), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Benbur: Llanelly, Ross, Hereford, Potterly, and various other place praying for the total abolition of Church-rates, without ar commutation or charge to be made in lieu thereof. Messengers from the Commons appeared at the Bar, pra3 ing that that House might be furnished with copies of the M nutes of Evidence taken before the Agricultural Committee. Mr. Campbell presented papers from the East India Housi The Charities Commission Bill went through a Committo and was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mine!, 2. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. GRAND CONNECTION RAILWAY. Captain WINNINGTON presented a petition from ti owners and occupiers of land on the line of this railway, pra; ing to be heard by counsel against certain clauses of the Bil The Hon. and Gallant Member also presented a petition fro George Naylor, against the Leeds and Manchester Railwi Bill. CHELTENHAM, OXFORD, LONDON, AND BIF MING - HAM UNION RAILWAY. Mr. C. BE R KEL Y presented a petition very numerous and respectably signed by the inhabitants of Cheltenham, favour of this Bill ; also a petition from Charlton-Kings to tl same effect, and another petition from Cheltenham agaio' certain clauses of the Bill, but not against the second readinf. Mr. BAILEY presented petitions from Worcester, Droll witch, and other places, in favour of the Bill. Lord G. LENNOX presented a petition from Georg Pechell, a Captain in the Royal Navy, against the Oxfot Branch of the railroad, and stating that he would be eon pletely ruined if the Bill as it stood were allowed to pass int a law. Mr. E STCOURT presented a petition against the Bt' from the University of Oxford. Lord NORRE YS presented a similar petition from th occupiers of land in the county of Oxford to the same effect. An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, prt sented a petition, signed by between 3 and 4,000 of the no nufacturers engaged in the woollen trade in Gloucester, again the Bill, and complaining that the Bill, if passed, would Cu them off from all communication with London. Mr. PRA ED rose to move the second reading of the nil He understood that the unusual course was to be adopted opposing the Bill on its second reading. On what groin that opposition was to be founded he was at a loss to conjec ture, as lie felt confident if any measure deserved the sanctie of the House this did. The object of the Bill was to male a Railway from Cheltenham to Oxford, and from thenc to Birmingham and London, by which the nearest comma nication would be effected ultimately to Ireland, and frol thence to the extreme Northern and Southern parts of th' country. He thought that the extreme importance such a communication would determine the House not t reject the Bill. He could not conceive any undertakin that had a better claim upon the attention of the Hon' than that which was to have the effect of making the dire( communication from London to Cheltenham, from which pl at the traffic of passengers was quite as extensive as that frot London t o Brighton. That was the immediate object of tb Bill. He would not now go into any particulars of the detail or circumstances connected with it, as this was of all times an, places the most inconvenient ; but he would content himself wit stating the general circumstances which in his opinion justifie the Bill. It rested with the parties who had promoted th Bill to show that they had done that which, by the monls tions of the House, it was necessary they sh o uld d o . '1 " promoters of the Bill wore prepared to show that they had th consent of three-fourths of the landholders through which th line passed. They were prepared, also, to show that nine tenths of the capital had been subscribed.; and they had als numerous petitions from the inhabitants of several larF towns in its favour. They were also prepared to show al° of Directors, sufficiently well known to guarantee to the Hun s that the undertaking was a bone fide one. The Director were men of character and capital, and that character and ea pital they were prepared to risk up o n th e un d er t a ki ng . 1 , 11 question, then, was, who were the opponents of the Bill ? the landholders or the inhabitants of the great towns throub which the line would pass, but it came from a rival Coln parry. He was prepared to show that the Great W es t e rn Rat road had no right to come before the House, and offer opP ° ' sition to the Bill. The Great Western Railway was to pas from Bristol to London, several miles South of the Railsca then under consideration.—( Hear.) The inhabitants Cheltenham at first assented to the Bill and subscribed for it but had subsequently altered their minds for a reason he we nt state to the House ; and just before the Committee had closet their proceedings, some of the inhabitants of Cheltenham a l l:; plied for leave to be heard by C ounse l aga i ns t th e Bill. Committee decided they were too late in their application a u, refused to hear them. An appli ca ti on was ma d e by an W r , Member for the recommitt a l o f th e Bill, an d h e cou ld assn the House that that motion was either withdrawn or rejee t . e- . upon the express unde rs t an di ng th at t h e Bill wou ld be !,, a i troduced as a private m easure o f it se lf, an d ree e t i ,, - , i the consideration of a C omm itt ee o f t h e H ouse . Th e pa r :b - i at Cheltenham r e f ra i ne d f rom an ear li er oppos i t i on to t t iir4 Swindon Railway Bill, i n consequence o f th e i r re l y i n g enm, representations of the engineer of the London line, tc Brunel, who stated that any direct line from Cheltenba i r to London was impracticable. H e (Mr. P rae d) was prepare , cO , show that the direct li ne f rom Ch e lt en h am t o L o ndon ', i d, practicable. The town o f Str o ud h a d so littl e traffic ' s London, that, in spite of its connection with the Secreta r y 9 , II State, one stage-coach MI sufficient for its communica tto oc while from London to Cheltenham 100 went daily e ke y would call to the recollection of the House to what had l a , n d place a few nights ago on the subject of the South Vill w aY Manchester Railway. The London and Birmingham Ra asu re Company, on that occasion, complained that the m e i i r ,e, then before the House was an interference with the c p. and they wished to have a monopoly, stating that theYceiv. pected no less a sum than 8,000,0001., without as yet roc the ing a single shilling of return ; but the answer given, b y the, Honourable Baronet, the Memb e r f o r T amw orth, and of House, was, that when that Company received 10 A cno- Incorporation, the Legislature h a d destroyed the id oa t nopoly of coach-proprietors, &c., and they vi % o ar. now establish a similar monopoly in their , were In the present case, the whole of the Standing 0rde.r.'.11,3 complied with—a larger share of capital was subscri_nourisent greater number of landed proprietors had to the undertaking, than to any other line of railway n et ever came before that House. He asked lion. Me m a Corti" to consent to the passing of the Bill, but to send it to g i ven their e _w e b mittee, where its merits could be best investigated. o slteo Captain PE CIIE LL said he had withdrawn his ,e.' o P .. r ti to the second reading of the Bill for the Branch 0% 1 ' d to g ° way, on the understanding that it would be allow! , i o to• uireu into a Committee, where its merits might be en ( l,,,,nont" After what had fallen from the lion. Member for c v ibe • on those he considered it would be a gross injustice w advocated the measure before the House, if '" ,