The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-05 00:00:00

of that system in Ireland. He must also be aware that an office of high importance had been offered to Lord Roden, which he did not think fit to accept. The very appointment of such persons in Ireland was quite calculated to inspire the people of that country with the notion that they were again to be handed over to Orangemen, and to be again oppressed by them, as they had been for the last quarter of a century.--(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) The Hon. Member for the county of Longford (Mr. A. Lefroy) seemed to think that the Orangemen had been hardly dealt with, and declared that they could not be deemed a faction. He would ask him this question, as he seemed to be perfectly initiated in their secrets—Was it allowable to make any man an Orange man who happened to be a Roman Catholic ?—( Cheers)—or to make the son of a Roman Catholic an Orangeman?— (" Yes !" from several Hon. Members.) Or could a man who married a Roman Catholic become an Orangeman ? (" Yes I" was again repeated by several Hon. Members, and the exclamation was followed by much laughter.) Well, be that as it might, notwithstanding the indignation of the Hon. Gentleman, he would tell him what the people of Ireland thought the Orange faction to be. They believed that they were a class that professed a monopoly of loyalty, and that so long as they were permitted to trample on the Catholics with impunity, they would be the obsequious servants of the Crown, but that when the King should send a person to govern that country with impartiality and justice to all, they would be quite ready to assail him with bludgeons, brickbats, and bottles ; that they were " A class of reptiles, raised in troubled times, Nursed in blood, and cherished in their crimes ;" and that so long as the Government of Ireland held out pro tection exclusively to Orangemen, it was impossible to expect peace and tranquillity in that country. Sir ROBERT PEEL really thought himself justified in suggesting, that considering the nature of the subject under discussion, and the mode in which it had been brought before the House, the conversation had been sufficiently prolonged. —( Hear.) Could he have given a better pledge of his enter taining an earnest wish and desire that the Government of Ire land should be conducted with the strictest impartiality, than selecting for the offices of Lord-Lieutenant and Chief- Secre tary two such individuals as his Noble Friend (the Earl of Hadtl:eigton) and the Right Hon. Gentleman near him (Sir Hardinge)?—two individuals not more distinguished for :,heir ability and judgment, than for the consistency which they bad eminently displayed throughout the whole of their political lives, in their constant and persevering advocacy of every claim of the Roman Catholics.—(" Hear," from the Minis terial benches.) Mr. HUME considered it to be a notorious fact that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had laid before his Majesty addresses from bodies which, even if they were not, strictly speaking, illegal, were so considered by the public at large, and whose objects could not be misunderstood. It used to be a general custom to publish in The Gazette a list of all the Addresses presented to his Majesty. That practice had been discontinued—he supposed because the addresses for the removal of the present Mi nistry were in the proportion of about four to one, com pared with those in their support. He had had: the honour to be in company with the Duke of Wellington on business during the period of his holding the seals of several offices, and he then inquired why the practice had been dis continued. The Duke said that it had been considered pro per to desist from publishing the addresses generally, and that the fairest course appeared to be to print none, either on the one side or the other. He was decidedly of opinion that the view taken by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was correct ; that these were illegal societies, and that the Home Secretary in presenting addresses from them, and returning answers thereto, was the abettor of what was illegal and im- proper. Lord HO WICK said, that his purpose in rising simply was to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the Right Hon. Baronet disavow, in the manner he had done, all desire to countenance or encourage the maintenance of those unhappy party divisions which had so long prevailed in Ireland. Ile confessed that many of the appointments made by the present Government, taken in conjunction with some of the circum stances which bad been adverted to on that side of the House --particularly that mentioned by the Learned Sergeant ( O'Loughlen)—did create in his mind an exceedingly unplea sant impression.--( Hear, hear.) Anxious as he had been-- anxious as he always should be—that agitation, from whatever quarter it might proceed, should be resisted, and as far as pos sible put down, he confessed he was extremely sorry to wit ness proceedings on the part of Government which, by throw ing some degree of suspicion on their impartiality and fair ness, might tend to impede the effect of their efforts to re strain the agitation pursued by some gentlemen in that House, whose course they were much in the habit of reprobating....-. ( Hear, hear, hear.) He hoped that the discussion which had taken place that evening, would not be without important ad vantages in marking, as distinctly as he thought it had done, the sense of that House, that these Orange associations which were the means of perpetuating party divisions in Ireland, ought not to be encouraged. Sir. ROBERT BATE SON entirely concurred with the Noble Lord who had just sat down, in wishing that all party differences in Ireland were at an end. He wished to appeal particularly to English Members, when he requested the House not to be led away by the exaggerated statements they had heard. He was not, and never had been, an Orangeman. He was not a party man.—( Oh. ) The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin ( Mr. O'Connell) had said that the Orangemen of Ireland were not Christians ; and yet, on some occasions, that Hon. and Learned Gentleman had praised and commended them most highly, when he thought be could gain them over to his own purposes, and induce them to join in the outcry for the Repeal of the Union.—( No, and cheers.) When he and his party found, however, that they could not attain their end, then he turned round, and flung upon them every species of calumny and foul abuse his fertile imagination could dole out. He believed that if the Hon. and Learned Gentle man and his party, were to cease that baneful agitation which the Noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, had de fended, Orangemen would drop away of themselves. Ho be lieved their only object was self-defence, and self-preservation. A laugh.) It was not true that these Orange bodies were treasonable societies ; it was not true that any oaths were taken by their members ; he placed explicit reliance on the declaration made by his Hon. Friend in this respect. Colonel CONOLLY was much obliged to the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberlarle.for the very dispassionate manner in which he had treated the subject. He had thrown oil upon the troubled waters, and calmed the irritation which it was sought to produce in that House. He could not patiently hear these calumnies uttered against a set of men combined only in their own defence. Unless they had combined, the events of the last four years would have left them neither pro perty nor protection, nor life.—( Oh, oh.) He said so distinctly ; he said so of his own knowledge ; he said so as a magistrate and a landlord.—( Oh, and hear, hear.) These charges ought not to be allowed to remain here ; it was a much more manly and open way of proceeding to carry the war into the enemy's camp instead of recognising, and al lowing, he would say, the gross, indecent, almost treasonable course pursued by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin and his party.--( Cheers, and a cry of "Oh !") Oh ! Had the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ever proposed the King's health at a public dinner, as the first servant of the Crown— ( A laugh)--he meant of the people ? Call ye that loyalty ? endeavouring to disparage both the Crown and the Monarch in the eyes of his people ?—( Cheers, and " No, no !") Had anything that could be done to lower and disparage the Go vernment, or assail all the authorities of the land in every pos sible way been left undone by the Hon. and Learned Gentle man in the two last parliaments ? There was not one of the constituted authorities who had escaped his strong and marked vituperation.—( Cheers.) "We are accused," continued Col. Conolly, " I say we, for I will proudly identify myself with the honourable and loyal body of Orangemen, with a monopoly of loyalty. Why, what gives us that monopoly? To whom are we indebted for it ? To those who take up the trade of agita tion—to those who disparage all the constituted authorities— to those who speak disrespectfully of the Monarch, and out. rage the laws by every possible method in their power—who delude the ignorant and drive them to actual violence—who misconstrue the law, and hold out prospects of impunity to those who are ignorant enough to be misled by them—who wean the people of Ireland from their legitimate allegiance, and induce them to form notions that the Government of Eng land is hostile to them, that they can get no justice from this Parliament, and that they must effect the separation of the two countries before they can obtain it." He was delighted to hear the manly declaration of the Lord-Lieutenant that certain persons should meet with no tenderness at his hands. --("Oh !" and cheers.) But that those who consulted their own personal interest and advantage in promoting agitation, and driving the pauper and deluded population to acts of vio lence and outrage should be treated as they deserved. No wonder that language like this, tending to promote the peace and welfare of society, should meet with the vituperation of some persons in that House.—( Hear, hear.) Colonel VERN ER was not unacquainted with the great Orange Association in Ireland, and he would venture to assert, from a knowledge of the pure and honourable principles on which it was founded, that its object had always been to main tain the laws, to preserve the connection between the two countries, and to afford protection to property and life. They had been told that some of the toasts given at the Mansion house dinner were objectionable. No doubt they were to Hon. Gentlemen opposite ; the King's health had been drank, and the Established Church, and the health of the Right Hon. Ba ronet and his colleagues.—( Question.) The question was again put and carried. The Speaker left the Chair accordingly, and the House resolved itself into a COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. The first vote was the sum of 28,384,7001. to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills. In reply to a question from Mr. HUME, Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE explained that the vote was for the purpose of discharging Exchequer Bills issued for the supplies of 1834 and 1835. The different periods for which they were issued would shortly expire, and the usual course was, before they expired, to enable the Government to issue fresh ones. It was in strict accordance with the regular practice pursued every year. The vote was then agreed to, as was another vote of 621,500/. for the discharge of Exchequer Bills issued for car rying on public works. The House resumed, the resolutions were reported, and the report was ordered to be received on Friday. CHESTER CRIMINALS EXECUTION BILL. Mr. JERVIS moved that the House do now resolve itself ihto *Committee of the whole House on this Bill. The Hon. and Leaped Member entered into a brief explanation of its / '.. principtilprovisions,which was wholly inaudible in the gallery. (,-, The House - then ent into Committee, Mr. RICHARDS (who / tooklthe chair amidst the laughter of the Opposition) in the , chair. , . ~... On the-first elaniii being read, ..,. The iTTORNEY-GENERAL considered it his duty to move an Amendment to the first clause of this Bill. It was quite true, as had been stated by the Hon. and Learned Mem 'ber for the City of Chester, that he (the Attorney-General) had given it as his opinion that under the Act of Parliament for the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Courts of the County Palatine of Chester, the duty of executing prisoners devolved upon the Sheriff of the County ; but although he thought that he was legally bound to do so, he did not think that that was the meaning of those who framed the Act (Hear, hear.) Indeed, so little were the Sheriffs of the City themselves aware that they were relieved of that duty under the late Act, that they continued for two years after the passing of it, to do execution on criminals as formerly. The Bill brought in by the Hon. Member for Chester stated, " That whereas doubts had arisen whether the Sheriff of the county of the city of Chester, or the constable of the Castle of Chester should execute criminals, &c." Now, the fact was, that there had never been a question as to the constable of the Castle of Chester executing that duty, for the question was merely be tween the Sheriffs of the County and the City ; and the ques tion now was, whether it would not be better that what was the avowed intention of the Legislature, and what, in fact, had been practised for three years, namely, that the Sheriff of the county of the city of Chester should see execution on cri minals done, should not be confirmed. He objected to plac ing that duty in the hands of the constable of the Castle. The office of constable was an inferior office ; the person holding it had a small salary, and he had not the authority to give that solemnity to that awful ceremony which the occasion required. An execution was an occasion which ought to be so conducted as to make a solemn impression upon the people ; and unless the solemnity were such as to show that the criminal lost his life as a sacrifice to justice, the taking Lway life by public exe cution was scarcely to be justified. It might be as well to leave the power to the gaoler of Newgate to execute criminals, as to the constable or the Castle of Chester. He was not for extending the punishment of death, but, on the contrary, he was in favour of its abolition in every case where it could be abolished with safety to the community, but he could not agree to a proposi tion which would diminish the effect of executions in cases where executions were thought necessary. He doubted also the pro priety of the same person having the custody and the execu tion of a criminal.—( Hear, hear.) He proposed to move an amendment on the first clause of the lion. and Learned Mem ber's Bill to the following effect : " That whereas the sheriff of the county of the city of Chester was by law liable, and used to execute all criminals ordered for execution, as, well in the city as in the county ; and whereas, since the passing of the said Act, the sheriff of the county of the city of Chester has continued to do execution upon criminals ; be it enacted, that he shall continue to obey the rules and orders of the Court of Assize in the same manner as before the passing of the aforesaid Act, he obeyed the Court of Grand Sessions ; and in case the Judges of Assize should order that execution should be done on a criminal in any particular part of the county, that then the sheriff of the county should be bound to execute the criminal in any part of the county so ordered." Sir JOHN CAMPBELL thought it would be better to abstain from legislating on the subject, and let the matter be settled by the proper judicial tribunal. The former trial went off on a technical point. He was opposed to the Amendment as well as to the original Bill, and should, therefore, move that the Chairman leave the chair. Lord R. GR 0 SVE NOR supported the motion that the Chairman leave the chair. Mr. HARDY thought that the duty which devolved on the sheriffs of other counties should also fall on the sheriff of the county of Cheshire. He did not see any reason why the she riff of Cheshire was not to be called upon to execute criminals as well as the sheriff of Yorkshire. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Chester, that there should be a de claratory Act on the subject. The Judges would take care, when they again went to Chester, to order that the Sheriffs, both of the county and the city, should attend the execution of criminals, and that a repetition of what had recently hap. pened should not again occur. Mr. O'CONNELL supported the view of the subject taken by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bradford. After a few observations from Mr. WILBRAHAM and Mr. C. W. WYNN. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that it was the bounden duty of the Legislature by a short declaratory Act to take care that such a lamentable occurrence as had led to the present measure did not happen again. Sir J. CAMPBELL withdrew his amendment, and would support the amendment of the Attorney-General. Mr. ENVART thought it highly desirable that the law in this case should be assimilated with the common law ; there might still remain some anomalies, but the inconsistencies would be much greater were the other course which had been proposed followed. Mr. G OULBURN supported the views of the Attorney- General. The Committee then divided on the Attorney-General's amendment, when there appeared— Ayes Noes ... Majority for the amendment The several remaining clauses of the Bill were then dis cussed, and the report was brought up. The House then resumed. ABOLITION OF INIPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Sir J. CAMPBELL was deeply impressed with the import ance of the subject of his motion, which was for leave to bring in a bill " to abolish Imprisonment for Debt except in cases of fraud, and to amend the law of debtor and creditor." As the law was understood and administered in this country, power was given to any individual member of the community over the liberty of every other individual, who might, without the order of a judge or otherwise, be deprived of his liberty, thrown into a gaol, and subjected to the greatest, the most cruel extol , tion. This was a power not belonging to the ancient common law of the country, but which was introduced by statute long after the common law had existed, and which did not (as we understood the Learned Gentleman to say) exist in equal severity in France, or any other country on the continent. He would take the liberty of illustrating the severity and nature of the present law, by stating to the House a remarkable case which had recently come under his notice, and which was only a few days ago tried before the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench ( Denman). In the course of the summer of last year, a foreigner of distinction, the Duke de Cadaval, arrived in this c. , untry accompanied by his wife and family ; after landing at Dover and proceeding to town, he took lodg ings there. Shortly afterwards he received a letter from a per son of the name of Collins, which recounted groat services done to the Duke, and intimating that his claims were consider able for these services. The Duke shortly afterwards received another letter, demanding payment of the money alleged to be due, and threatening proceedings in case of noncom pliance. The Duke was much alarmed, but not complying with the request, Collins swore an affidavit of the debt, stating it at 10,0001., went down to Falmouth, and accompanied the sheriff's officer who arrested the Duke, giving or promis ing to give the officer 501. for making the caption. The Duke being much distressed at the prospect of a gaol and separation from his family, and being a stranger in the country, he, under the pressure of these fears, agreed to give the plaintiff 5001. as present payment, which sum he obtained from the Portu guese Consul, and actually handed over that amount in sove reigns in a bag to Collins, to be permitted to go out of cus tody ; and the terms were drawn up in the shape of an agree ment, by which it was stated that the 5001. was part of a sum of 16,2001. which the plaintiff claimed, and the action was to proceed in its usual course as to the remainder. Subsequently the Duke, finding the fraud that had been practised upon him, brought an action against Collins, and, he was glad to say, had the satisfaction of recovering the 5001. so fraudulently ex torted from him. Was not this a state of the law which de manded the serious consideration of the House, and some change which would give better protection to the public ? He could state to the House, from the returns which had been made of the money spent in connection with the present law of arrest, and proceedings consequent thereon, that there was the enormous sum of 300,000/. annually expended by the respec tive parties, debtor and creditor. These funds, which ought to be distributed among creditors, were idly spent among sheriffs' officers and their followers. He would state an other consequence resulting from the present law : the cruel creditor who disregarded the feeliags of his debtor had the priority, and had thus an advantage over an indulgent cre ditor who had a reluctance to resort to harsh proceedings. The harsh creditor swept away the whole of the debtor's property, and those who exercised feelings of kindness and indulgence had no remedy left them. The remedy he pro posed for this was to abolish imprisonment, but to compel the debtor to abide by the verdict and justice of the court, unless, indeed, it should appear that the debtor was dis posed to attempt an escape, when he should be compelled to give security. This would deprive the creditor of an opportunity of committing an injustice on his debtor with out diminishing his remedy. When he thus proposed to deprive the creditors of their present remedy by imprison ment, he would on the other hand propose to give them greater facilities against the property of their debtor. By the present law there was this difficulty in the way of cre ditors. Suppose a creditor at Liverpool wished to proceed against a debtor who was about to go abroad, he must send up an affidavit of the debt to London, which must again be sent down to the country, by which lost time the debtor may have escaped by the sailing of the vessel. He would propose as a remedy for this, that on an affi davit being made of the debt and circumstances, a magis trate on the spot should have power to grant a warrant against the debtor, whom the creditor should keep in cus tody until he could give security. According to the pre sent law, be the debt ever so small, the debtor can be immured in gaol, and so his liberty and exertions are abridged, instead of being allowed to exert himself for its payment. His person may be enclosed within the walls of a gaol, but such imprisonment does not enable the creditor to get at the property of his debtor. The miserable conse quence of this is, that our gaols are filled, the debtor becomes acquainted with vice and misery, and his mind contaminated with his new associates. He would give the creditor therefore power to reach the property of the debtor, but not to inflict the evil he had described. There was another evil in the present law of arrest—it made no distinction between the honest and the fraudulent debtor—none whatever. The unfortunate honest man, who could not fulfil his engagements, was no better off than he who would not pay. He should therefore propose that unless there was fraud (as we understood the Hon. and Learned Gentleman). or the debtor refused to obey the judgment or absconded, his person should not be molested ; but if so, then the creditor should have the power to take the body of his debtor in custody. He was aware that creditors would not be willing to give up the advantage of arrest ►without an equiva lent; by the present law a creditor only got indirectly at the pro perty, but he would propose as an equivalent, speedy judgment —speedy execution ; and that all the property should be forth coming for the satisfaction of the creditor. His first objection to the present law was, that in the case of bonds, bills, promissory notes, and instruments to which any one may hare solemnly set his THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1835. hand, there was great delay in proceedings when the creditor may need immediate execution. Why after a bond was executed should the creditor be put to the expense of a trial ? He would pl ()- pose, that after a certain number of days the creditor should have the power of having an execution against his debtor. An objection might be made as to those accounts which were running as unliquidated demands and not secured by any in strument; he should propose that the creditor bring his ac tion, and then after verdict have instant execution, in like manner as in a bond. He next proposed that the creditor should be enabled to compel the debtor to surrender his pro perty. By the present law the debtor may be taken and im prisoned, but he has the privilege of taking lodgings in the Rules without the prison, where he may live despite of his cre ditors, and waste his substance which ought to be applicable to the payment of his debts. And with respect to this there was this strange law, that if the debtor was possessed of property under 3001., he might be compelled to surrender it, but if above that sum, then he could not be made to surrender it ; when, indeed, the very circumstance of the large sum renders it more proper that the larger property should be made applicable to the payment of his debts. He would propose to give a power to the creditor to sum mon the debtor before a judge, and on cause shown, the debtor to be compelled to assign over a sufficient propor tion of his property for the payment of his debts. If a man were indebted to the amount of one hundred thousand pounds and became bankrupt, he could not be imprisoned un less fraud were proved against him ; but when a man owed only 40s. he could be immured in a gaol and there kept, when the larger debtor escaped with impunity—and he did not see why this should be. His next measure was, that all the pro perty of a debtor, property of every description, should be made subject to the payment of his debts. If a debtor was possessed of ever so much money, it could not be taken by any proceeding. If a debtor possessed 10,0001. in Consols, or in bonds or bills, they being chosen in action, could not be taken under an execution. If he possessed land, the creditor could only take one-half, and afterwards another half of the remain ing half, and so on ; but he never could at once take the whole. Copyhold land was entirely protected from judgments, and he could see no earthly reason for the distinction. Thus, therefore, though a debtor may be possessed of large copyhold property, he could, if he thought preper, keep the whole from his creditors—( Hear.) He proposed that all funded property should be made subject to debts—( Hear, hear, hear.) If a man posssessed 10,000/. in the three per cents., he may go abroad, there receive hid dividends, and leave his creditors un paid ; and there was now no law to prevent him. A court of equity would, indeed, prevent a transfer; but neither a court of equity nor any court of law could prevent him receiving his dividends—( Hear, hear.) He therefore proposed to make copyhold and funded property, and money, bonds, and bias, all liable to execution—( Hear, hear.) He would make no distinction—he would make them all liable to the payment of debts. While thus looking to the interests of the creditor, he would not overlook those of the debtor. He would propose to allow him to make a cessio bonorum, without being driven within the walls of a prison. Suppose an unfortunate debtor is obliged to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, though he is freed from arrest and imprison ment, yet all the property that he sUbsequently acquires is, by the present law, liable to the payment of his debts. He would propose that if the property of the debtor were not sufficient to pay the whole of his creditors, he may, by a de claration of his insolvency, a surrender of his property, and an equal distribution, be enabled to procure a certificate of entire discharge, and be enabled to commence the world again unshackled by continuing claims. Need he say the conse quences of imprisonment were of the worst possible descrip tion ?It is always pernicious to morals—a man never goes into prison without being contaminated by the society he finds there. The practice was productive also of this bad conse quence, that the debtor, in the face of great expenses, was in duced to collect monies and property of which he defrauded his creditors, for the purpose of maintaining himself in prison, and paying the expenses of his discharge. The returns made of the average amount of dividend paid upon the estates of all persons passing through the Insolvent Court showed that those estates did not pay more than one farthing in the pound.-- ( Hear, hear.) And he felt quite sure that if the debtor were, instead, declared insolvent, and his property promptly and equally distributed, the same debtor who paid under the present insolvent system one farthing in the pound, would pay a respectable dividend ; and it might be allowed, that if the creditors were satisfied with the conduct of the debtor, they might give him a memorial or certificate of that satisfaction to enable him again to conduct himself in the world with credi bility and success. So much for the debtor when honest in his transactions; but if a debtor should conduct himself fraudu lently then he would act contrariwise, and he thought that it ought to be provided that several things should, as against debtors, be declared misdemeanours, and punished. He would have it declared a misdemeanour when a man absconded from his creditors ; he would have it made a misdemeanour when a man refused to disclose his property after judgment ; he would have it a misdemeanour for a man fraudulently to convey his property, or to dispose of it among his friends ; he would also have it declared a misdemeanour for a man to contract debts without a reasonable prospect of paying them. When two or three persons acted together in accomplishing some fraud, they could be punished for a conspiracy ; but when there was only one person, who, though he might pretend to be in afflu ent circumstances, and obtain on that ground a large quan tity of goods, and dispose of them, yet however absurd it was in principle, there was no punishment for this injustice. He would propose to make such persons liable to punishment. Although a great change was thus proposed, he was of opinion that a considerable majority of the public was against the con tinuance of the present system. When this subject was dis cussed in that House, so far back as the year 1780, in which Mr. Burke had taken a part, that distinguished individual did afterwards express his regret that he did not advocate a more extensive change. The Learned Commissioners who had sat upon the inquiry on this subject, agreed that a change must be made. What he then proposed was, that the subject should be referred to a Committee up-stairs, who would be more competent to go into the important details than he could at present, and he trusted that his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General would allow his name to be added to those of other gentlemen ; for his part he would willingly give the Committee his best attention on the various details which would be there better discussed. He knew the public took a deep interest in the matter—(Hear)--he had received hun dreds of letters from all parts—he had received memorials without number, and deputations from all parties, which clearly showed that the public fully felt the importance of the subject He would not then detain the House at greater length, but he hoped that it would allow the Bill to be read a second time, when the amendment could be fay discussed, and he hoped it would be then such a measure as would receive the support of that House.—( Hear, hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took the earliest oppor tunity of declaring his approbation of the principle of the measure of his Hon. and Learned Friend, to whose labours and talents he would bear a willing testimony.—( Hear, hear.) During the last session of that House, he had the honour of introdueinc , a Bill which involved the first proposition of his Hon. and Learned Friend. He regretted that his Hon. and Learned Friend did not (as we understood the Learned At torney-General to say) render his assistance in forwarding that Bill, as it would have allowed the public to judge of the operation of the principle then proposed to be carried into effect. He was satisfied that the best mode in these matters was to proceed gradually and carefully, and the commercial world would rest satisfied that they were proceeding safely. It was not fitting, neither was it the general spirit of our laws, that misfortune should be dealt with as a crime. We should not confound misfortune with crime ; nor, on the other hand, should we allow crime to escape. There was one thing, how ever, advanced by his Honourable and Learned F r i en from which he dissented. He objected to the increase of our cri minal code, which was sufficiently extensive.---( Helir.) He was averse to multiplying crimes and offences, but with that exception he was generally in favour of the principle of the measure then before the House. Mr. O'CONNELL asked if it was intended to extend the Bill to Ireland ? Sir J. CAMPBELL answered in the negative. Mr. O'CONNEL L regretted that such was the case ; for he thought that it was founded on the clearest principles of justice. Alluding to the monstrous absurdities which existed in the present state of the law, he observed that the time was come to destroy them—not bit by bit, but in a wholesale way. There •could not be a clearer principle than that misfortune ought not to be punished as a crime ; and it was evident, there fore, that they ought to go the full length of abolishing impri sonment for debts—always giving a remedy against fraud in the contracting of them. That remedy might be obtained by making the fraudulent debtor liable as for a misdemeanour, in which case he would be tried by a jury. He did not wholly concur with the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh ( Sir J. Campbell) in the propriety of releasing the debtor, who had given up the whole of his property, from any subse quent claims on the part of his creditors ; indeed, he might say that he doubted much whether any good effects had resulted from the system of granting certificates to bankrupts. The man to whom a debt was due ought to be under the protection of the Legislature equally with him from whom it was owing ; he should not lose his right of requiring payment from his debtor because that debtor happened to fall into misfortune, but ought to have a claim upon the fruits of his debtor's in dustry until the debt was paid in full. He, therefore, begged to differ from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to the mode of what was technically called " whitewashing." In conclu sion, he repeated his regret that the measure was not to extend to Ireland. Mr. RICHARDS felt that it was an odious task to oppose any measure of apparent benevolence, but felt it his duty, as a commercial man, to state some objections to which the pro posed bill was open. It would not facilitate the recovery of book debts ; and it would have the effect of reducing the amount of paper in circulation, inasmuch as to lessen the number of bills of exchange to one half of their present amount. It would also have the effect of lowering prices. The intention of the Hon. and Learned Member was, he be lieved, to abolish imprisonment for debt in all cases except where the debtor was about to abscond ; but then the onus probandi—the task of showing such an intention en the part of the detor—was to be thrown on the creditor. It was a false philanthropy to call the proposed measure one for the relief of the debtor, for he would not, under its operation, be able to get credit to the extent to which he now obtained it. Mr. F. SHAW expressed his approbation of the principles laid down both by the Hon. and Learned Member for Edin burgh and his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-Gene ral ; and also of the course proposed to be pursued with the intended bill, and trusted that means would be taken to extend its operation to Ireland. Mr. WARBURTON did not apprehend that the Bill would have the injurious effects anticipated by the Hon. Member for Kna,resborough (Mr. Richards). So far as re garded its operation on the circulating medium, if it had the effect of driving bad bills out, and leaving none but good, its results would be highly beneficial. It was not from the circu lation of bills drawn on men unable to pay them that the community derived any benefit. The only effect of multi plying bad bills must be artificially to raise prices for the mo ment; but when those bills came to be dishonoured a panic would ensue, and prices would again be lowered in a corres ponding degree. The system which had of late years in creased in prevalence of substituting bills of exchange and negotiable securities for book debts, might, under this Bill, be rendered more general ; but that would, in his opinion, be a beneficial result. On these grounds he supported the measure. Mr. H AWE S confirmed what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Bridport ( Mr. Warburton) as to the advantages arising from the alteration in the mode of transacting business by the substitution of bills of exchange for book debts. _ _ Mr. PEA SE supported the principle of the Bill, but thought that some hardship might wise both to the tradesmen and farmers of England. Mr. ROLFE supported the Bill. An Hos. MEMBER would venture to express a hope that so beneficial a measure would be extended to Ireland.—(Cheers.) Sir J. CAMPBELL having replied, Leave was given to bring in the Bill, which was read a first time. WILLS AND EXECUTORS. Sir J. CAMPBELL then moved for leave to bring in a Bill, " for the amendment of the law with respect to wills and to executors and administrators." He wished, by the proposed alteration in the law, to effect that property of every descrip tion should pass under wills signed by the testator, and at tested by witnesses. The Bill was read a first time. The Hon. and Learned MEMBER also obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the enfranchisement of copyholds, to abolish heriots, and to amend the law respecting copyhold tenure, while the same shall subsist. An fox. MEMBER wished to ask the Learned Gentleman whether it was his intention to include in any bill which he might bring forward with regard to copyhold tenures, any clause relating to customary tenures, which were general in the north of England? Sir J. CAMPBELL replied that it was his intention to provide in the contemplated bill for the description of tenure to which the Hon. Member had referred. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that there appeared to be a variance upon the notice which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had given of the Act which he expressed an intention of submitting to the House, inasmuch as he seemed to propose merely to facilitate the enfranchise ment of copyhold tenures, but to abolish heriots altogether. Sir J. CAMPBELL intended to confine the Bill which be then brought forward to facilitating the enfranchisement of copyhold tenures, and to propose another bill for the abolition of heriots. Mr. CUR TE IS expressed his regret that it did not appear that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman intended to introduce into his Bill any compulsory clause regarding lords of the manor. The Bill was then read a first time. DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. H. G. WARD said, the practice now pursued of publishing the names of the Members of that House, furnished, as they were, by some individual Members of it, was, in his opinion, attended by all the evils which could possibly result from the authentic publicity of them, and by none of the ad vantages which, he was satisfied, would follow the adoption of the mode of taking the votes which he meant to suggest. The names of Members were, at present, sent to the news papers after a division had taken place, without the sanction of the Speaker's name, and without being placed on the votes of the House; and the only manner in which Hon. Gentlemen could correct the mistakes, which, of necessity, constantly take place under this system, was to throw themselves upon the courtesy of editors, and to beg of them to rectify the errors which were committed.—( Hear, hear.) He recollected to have seen in the Times no fewer than five letters o upon one day's paper, and nine upon that of the following day, all com plaining of the mistakes which had been made in reference to one division. He (Mr. Ward) also remembered the words which were used by the editor of that paper upon the occasion alluded, to, and they, as he thought, conveyed a just rebuke, and were to this effect—" We repeat, usque ad nauseam, that we are not responsible for the correctness of the lists which are furnished us. Why does not the House adopt some plan of giving them to the public in a correct and authentic form ?" He did not think that there was any insuperable difficulties in the way of devising some plan by which all the evils arising from the present mode might be completely obviated. He would not presume to lay any specific plan before the House for its immediate consideration or adoption ; but he thought that the divisions could at present be taken by means of cards or tickets, and afterwards with an authenticity and correctness which would be equally satisfactory to those Members and to the public. Though he must admit that the Committee appointed upon this subject last Session had recommended a plan which could not be adopted without great loss of time and inconve nience, still he did not hesitate to express his confident expec tation that the result of the prOteedin:4s of the Committee for which he intended to move would prove more satisfactory. It was almost unnecessary for him to advert to the many incon veniences and mischiefs which occurred under the existing system ; but he would just mention that incorrect lists of those who voted upon divisions were, during the late elections, fre quently produced upon the hustings, and it was often found almost impossible to remove the impression thereby produced upon the minds of those constituencies to which he referred. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee to take into consideration the best mode of giving correct and authentic Lists of the Divisions of the House. After a few words from Mr. RUTRVEN, the motion was agreed to, and the following Committee appointed : Ward, HG. Wortley, Hon. J. S. ‘. lay, w. Fretnantle, Sir T. Graham, Sir J. R. G. Ewart, W. Inglis, Sir R. H. Sinclair, G. O'Connor Don Grote, G Shell, R. L. Ross, C. Hawes B. Grey, Sir G. Aglionby, H. A. Wynn, , C. W. Stewart, P. M. Gaskell, J. M. Warburton, H. COURT OF SESSION IN SCOTLAND. The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for making certain alterations and reductions in the esta blishment of clerks and officers attached to the Court of Ses sion in Scotland ; and to diminish the expense of judicial pro cedure in that Court. The Learned Lord observed that the Bill was founded on the recommendation contained in the re port of the Commission which had been appointed to investi gate the subject. The result of the measure, if adopted, would be the reduction of thirty-five officers, and an annual saving of 15,000/. Mr. WALLACE wished to know when it was likely that the second report of the Commissioners would be laid on the table? The LORD ADVOCATE replied that it was in prepa ration, and that he had every reason to believe it would soon be ready. Mr. WALL ACE strongly recommended that the saving to be effected by the proposed measure should not go to the consolidated Lund, but that it should be applied to the aboli tion of all the fees in the Court of Session. Mr. MURRAY considered that the Learned Lord had per formed a great public duty in the introduction of this measure, and that the country was greatly indebted to those who had proposed the Commission on the Report of which the measure was founded, as well as to the Commissioners themselves. He thought the recommendations of the Hon. Member for Greenock were highly deserving of the Learned Lord's atten tion; for unquestionably the fees in the Court of Session in Scotland were at present exceedingly exhorbitant and burden some to the suitors. Mr. CUTL AR FERGUS SON thought it might be more expedient to wait for the second report of the Commissioners before they proceeded to legislate on the subject. He per fectly concurred with the Hon. Member for Greenock as to the expediency of abolishing the fees in the Court of Session. He wished that the provisions of Home Drummond's Bill for reducing the expences of the Sheriff's Court in Scotland were extended to the other courts of that country. The only mode of reducing the expense of the Court of Session, to which the Learned Lord had referred, was by the reduction of the num ber of officers. In his (Mr. Ferguson's) opinion, the reduc tion of fees was a still more important object. The LORD AD VOCATE concurred in the expediency of reducing the fees in question as much as possible. Leave was then granted to bring in the Bill. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT IN SCOTLAND. The LORD ADVOCATE then moved for leave to bring in a bill for abolishing in Scotland imprisonment for civil debts of small amount, and for rendering more available the process of cessio bonoruni, and restraining the arrestment of wages. He observed that the Scotch Bill would not require so many provisions as the English Bill. It was his intention to propose the abolition in Scotland of imprisonment for a civil debt under the sum of eight pounds six shillings and eight pence. Of 12,852 imprisonments for civil debts in Scotland, which had taken place in the five years ending at the close of 1833, 7,160 were for sums under that which he had mentioned, and 3,109 were for sums under two pounds. Another object of his measure would be to allow the debtor to apply for relief to the local Sheriff's Courts, instead of being compelled to resort to the Court of Session. Mr. ANDREW JOHNSON wished to know whether the Report of the Commissioners appointed two years ago to in quire into state of Municipal Corporations in Scotland was ready ; and if so, whether the Learned Lord intended to bring forward any measure founded upon that report ? The LORD ADVOCATE said that no report had yet been made by the Commissioners; that he was very anxious to see their report, but that, of course, until he had seen it he could not state whether or not he might think it expedient to introduce a measure on the subject. Mr. C UTLAR FERGUSSON thought it highly de sirable twat the sheriffs in Scotland should sit in more places than one for the trial of cases of debt, as their jurisdiction was much better with reference to that subject than that of the justices of the peace. If it were not too extensive a revolu tion, he would abolish the sheriff substitutes altogether, and make the sheriffs go a kind of circuit in their counties, and not leave a single case untried. He also thought that some im provement might take place in the proceedings of the sheriffs' courts, although he begged not to be understood as detracting in the slightest degree from the merits of that valuable body, the sheriffs of Scotland. After some conversation between the Loan ADVOCATE and Mr. C. FERGUSSON, leave was granted to bring in the Bill. FORMS OF PROCESS IN THE COURT OF SESSION. The LORD ADVOCATE then moved (as we under stood) for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulating of the forms of process in the Court of Session in Scotland. Mr. WALLACE stated that the House would be aware that he had given notice of similar Bills as those now intro duced by the Learned Lord Advocate—that leave to bring in those Bills would have been moved for to-morrow—that the Bills were actually ready to lay on the table—but that he would postpone bringing them forward in deference to the law-officer of the Crown—feeling assured that the Learned Lord would not oppose the introduction of his Bills, should he find the ob jects he had in view were not embraced in those now brought in, for which the country at large are in duty indebted to the Learned Lord Advocate, as there was nothing more wanted in Scotland. The LORD ADVOCATE expressed his doubt of his Bills going so far as those of the Hon. Member for Greenock might do—that he certainly would offer no opposition to the introduction of his Bills, if he should see it to be his duty to bring them forward ; being well aware of the great attention which the Hon. Member had bestowed on the subject.— ( Hear, hear.) Leave was then granted to bring in the bill. PARLIAMENTARY REPORTERS. Mr WALL ACE said that, in consequence of the appoint ment of a Committee to investigate the best means of giving publicity to divisions, he would withdraw the motion of which he had given notice for allowing the reporters for the public press to remain within the House while divisions were being taken. COLONIAL MILITARY EXPENDITURE. On the motion of Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, the follow ing Select Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure was re-appointed:— Gladstone, W. E. Bang, Sir John Grey, Colonel Ebrington, Viscount Parnell, Sir H. Gisborne, f. Stanley, Lord Darling on, Earl of Fancourt, C. S. J. Hardinge, Sir H. Fox, C. R. Verney, Sir H. Rice, T. S I.efevre, C. S. Grote, G. Herries, J. C. Gordon, Hon. W. Evans, Col nel Ellice, E. Bentinck, Lord U. Hay, Colonel L. Donkin, Sr R. D'Albiac, Sir C. f;ortlon, R. Hume, Joseph Bonham, Francis R. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL brought up his Bill for the Abo lition of Imprisonment for Debt, except in cases of fraud, and for amending the Law of Debtor and Creditor. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday, the 18th inst. WILLS AND EXECUTORS. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL brought up his Bill for the amendment of the law with respect to wills, and his Bill for the amendment of the law with respect to executors and admi nistrators. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday, the 11th inst. BEER ACT. Mr. RICE TREVOR moved for an account of all convic tions under the Act for the sale of beer during 1833 and 1834; and also for an account of the number of licenses granted un der the Beer Act ; but, as we understood, the Hon. Gentle man postponed the first motion on the suggestion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, and the second on the representation made by Mr. RUTHVEN of the lateness of the hour. KING'S LYNN ELECTION. A petition was presented from Sir John Scott Lillie, com plaining of an undue return for the borough of King's Lynn. DUBLIN. A petition was presented from Robert King, complaining of an undue return for the city of Dublin. At a Quarter before One o'Clock this morning the House adjourned to Friday. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK. The first annual meeting of the proprietors of this company took place yesterday at the Company's house, Throgmorton street, for the purpose of receiving the report of the directors. The meeting was numerously, and we need scarcely add, most respectably attended. The meeting was summoned for one o'clock, and at that hour precisely, P. M. Stewart, Esq., M. P. accompanied by all the directors, with, we understood, only one exception, entered the room. Mr. STEWART, having been called to the chair, addressed the meeting. He did not, he obsei ved, know that it would be necessary for him to trouble them with any remarks previously to the reading of the report, which had been drawn up, and was about to be submitted to them, but he could not help con gratulating them on the first meeting of this establishment, and, with the exception of the Bank of England itself, the first meeting of so large a company of banking proprietors in Eng land.—( Hear, hear.) It had often struck him with some sur prise, that with so enlightened and enterprising a body as the commercial community of the British metropolis, acquainted, as it must have been, with the plain and simple system of bank ing in Scotland, and attended with so many advantages to de positors, some establishment on that plan had not been at tempted before the present. One of the chief features of this new system was that it admitted an indefinite number of part nerships, and that at fixed periods it gave publicity to the state of its affairs—an advantage which, contrasted with the difficulties that stood in the way of coming at an exact know ledge of the state of other large banking establishments, must be bv i ,us to evt.ry c n who considered th• subject for a moment. Every gentleman present knew the characteristics of this es tablishment—that it admitted depositors to a certain partnership of the profits of banking; and he need only refer to what was so well known of the system on which they proceeded, and which he had stated in another place, to justify him in asserting that it was impossible that any person confiding their money to such an establishment could ultimately lose by it—( Hear.) He would here venture to repeat what he had said in his place in Parliament when this subject was under the consideration of the house in the last session. On that occasion he referred to the opinion of Sir Robert (then Mr. Secretary) Peel in 18 . 26. After estimating the failures of the banks in England from 1810 to 1825, at no less a number than upwards of 700, Mr. Secretary Peel said—" Could any system be worse or more pre judicial to every interest in the community than one which, like the one at present subsisting, admitted of so enormous an amount of failures ? Let the House now look at what had beer the case under a different system in Scotland. Mr. Gilchrist, who had been the manager of one cf the banks there for many years, was asked (by the Committee of 1819) how many banks had failed in Scotland within his me mory ? His t eply was, that there had only been one, that the creditors were immediately paid 14s. in the pound as a dividend, and upon the winding up of the concern the whole of their demands. If, then, the consequences of the system of banking had been to produce the number of failures in England which he had stated (upwards of seven hundred), while during the same period there had been only one in Scotland, was not that a strong presumptive proof that the system of the latter, if not quite perfect, was at least far pre ferable to that under which we had been so long acting?" " This is practical, and as such, very powerful argument, and bears forcibly upon our present subject in discussion. I dare say it will be said that the evil stated by the Right. Hon. Baronet, and the remedy pointed out, had been already con sidered and adopted by Parliament, as far as regards the country which lies beyond the preserve of the Bank of Eng land, which includes not only all London, but 65 miles roun it ; but I answer that the statements of banking disasters made by the Right Hon. Baronet included those of the metropolis, along with others throughout the country; and moreover, for the satisfaction of lion. Members, I will now state in a few words the failures which occurred in London exclusively within the same period, or rather from 1810 to 1832. I take the return from the only public documents I can lay my hands on for the purpose, and I believe it to be accurate. Of 70 bankers existing in London in 1810, no fewer than 22 have failed ; 3 only of which paid in full, whilst 19 were insolvent. The debts proved against these unfortunate establishments amounted to 7,350,0001., and the average dividend amounted to only Bs. 3d. in the pound ; so that the public have lost up wards of 4,000,0001., sterling in that short period of time. I would add, that I am not aware that in the same period of time any failure took place of any bank established in Edinburgh ; at least I cannot recollect one—l mean a joint-stock bank, and throughout all Scotland I can learn of only two or three failures, but all of them ultimately paid 20s. in the pound." [ln order not to make any break in the above extracts, we have given them as if they were read at one time, but we may here state that, during the reading of them, the Chairman was interrupted, and the whole business of the meeting for a time suspended, by an alarm that the room was giving way. Some gentlemen had observed that a lath-and-plaster partition,which separated the meeting-room from an adjacent apartment, had sunk from the ceiling about half an inch, owing to the pressure upon the joists in that part. The Company's surveyor was sent for, and having examined as.to the cause of the sinking, reported that there was no danger, but suggested, that as some gentlemen might feel uneasy under the circumstances, it would be better to adjourn. An adjournment was then pro posed to the London Tavern, but this was rendered unneces sary, by the offer of the use of one of 'the rooms in the Auction Mart. A delay of a few minutes intervened before the room could be got ready, and in this interval several of the pro prietors amused themselves on the cause of the interruption. Some hoped it was not ominous of the stability of the Com pany, others looked upon it as a favourable sign, that at their first meeting the room was not sufficient to hold the pro - prietors. On the arrival of the proprietors at the room in the Auction Mart, the cause of their removal from the former place was amusingly forced on the attention of most of them, for an auctioneer (who had previously occupied it) was in the act of knocking down a lot of houses to some fortunate bidder.] Mr. STEWART having again taken the Chair, expressed his regret at the interruption, but added, that the banking build ings in that neighbourhood were not built on scantling calcu lated to hold a large proprietary, and it was consolatory to think that it was to the numbers and weight of their proprie tors, that the Company had been for a moment obliged to shift its position.—( A laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman then went on with the reading of the extract, which we have given above, adding, that he had mentioned the statement as to the corn-. parative failures in Scotch and English banks, for the sake of their being denied if unfounded, or commented on as gentle men might please. He would now call their attention to the report about to be read, which he hoped would be found sa tisfactory. They would hear in it of opposition to the Com pany, springing rather from motives of private interest, than from any principle which interested the public, further than this—that the public may be considered as interested in the establishment of a sound and economical system of banking, and in getting rid, which he hoped they would do in no very distant time, of all monopoly in money matters, a monopoly which, though it might have been necessary at an early period of our commerce, could not be so considered in the present day. There might be, and there were, jealousies as to the throwing open of bur foreign trade, but in our domestic com merce, and he thought he might class banking under that head, the public had a right to demand that all who were disposed to compete, on fair and honourable terms, should have a full participation. All that the Company asked, was a clear stage and no favour ; and they did not seek for it longer than they should be found to occupy it on upright and honour able terms.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. M. B. RENNIE, one of the Directors, here read the report : " REPORT "OF THE DIRECTORS OF TIIE LONDON AND WESTMINST ER BANK, TO THE PROPRIETORS, AT THEIR FIRST ANNUAL MEETING, HELD MARC!! 4, AT 38, TIIIIGGMORTON-STRE ET. " The directors have much pleasure in meeting the proprietors for the first time, and in reporting to them the progress of the bank since its formation. " It was established in consequence of a clause in the Bank Charter Renewal Act, declaring it to be legal for any body politic, or corporate society, or partnership, although consisting of more than six persons, to carry on the business of banking in London, provided such partnership was not a bank of issue. " The preliminaries having been arranged, and the deed of set tlement drawn, the bank was opened for business, in Throgmorton - • street, and in Waterloo-place, on the 10th of March last. Its progress has been marked by a gradual increase of public confi dence, and a steady improvement in business. " The number of shares taken up at its commencement was 10,000, the number required by the deed of settlement. Since that period further shares have been taken, and the total amount is now 17,713. 'these are held by 502 proprietors, and represent a capital of 1,771.3001., upon which 151. per share have been called up, and the sum actually received, to this day, is 244,9451. " Many more shares were allotted, and would have been taken, but for the representations of parties interested in giving a cheek to the establishment of jointstock banks in London. The absurd fears and unjust prejudices which were generated by those represen tations are, however, gradually subsiding, and must of necessity soon disappear. " The accounts of the bank have been made up to the 31st of December last. The profits from the 10th of March to that period have enabled the directors to comply with the 70th clause of the deed of settlement, which provided that out of the first divisible profits, interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum should be paid upon all instalments received previous to the 31st of December, 1834. After paying this interest and the current expenses of the establishment, a surplus remains, which may serve as the n ucleus of a reserved fund, or be applied in payment of a portion of the preliminary expenses. " The preliminary expenses are those which attended the forma' tion of the bank. It is provided by the deed of settlement that these shall be spread over a period of ten years. • They amount to £ , the particulars of which will be found in the annexed abstract. " The directors will now advert to the difficulties they have ha d ' to encounter. These have been of no ordinary kind. They base, • been caused by an opposition. in some degree natural, but carried to an unfair extent, by existing interests, and likewise by the unite countable course adopted by Government, who seem to have been, deterred by the same interested parties from giving effect to thew own law. " The opposition of the private bankers was manifested at an early period, by their refusal to permit any clerk to attend at the clearing-house on behalf of this establishment. The clearing-hous e has been in existence for upwards of sixty years, and, although founded in the first instance for the accommodation of such London bankers as chose to avail themselves of it, yet it has become en twined with the mode of settling accounts in several branches of business, and is, for all practical purposes, a public institution. , " The opposition of the Bank of England began by their refusa l to grant to this bank the common convenience of a drawing ac count, a convenience granted, as a matter of course, to every re spectable firm who may choose to apply for it. But their hostility , as well as that of the Government, was more strongly shown by their opposition to the bill introduced to Parliament for facility of, suit. This, it was conceived, was a course that no party could adopt after the explicit manner in which the law had been laid doo9 in the preceding session of Parliament. " The clause upon the subject of joint-stock banks in London , introduced into the Bank Charter Renewal Act, and that, too, with the consent of the Bank itself, was not only declaratory that the law, as previously existing, did not extend to the prevention of pleb banks carrying on business in London, but it enacted that for the future they should be able to do so. An enactment being made, it is to be presumed that it will be carried into effect in the ordinal • manner. A technical difficulty which requires that all parties to a suit shall be named in the record exists as an impediment to the I J legal operation of large companies. "It has been the invariable custom of Parliament, which ha, not provided by any general law for the removal of this obstructio n to grant to all companies, on special application, a right to sue and be sued in the name of one or more of its officers. The directors therefore applied to Parliament for this power, as a necessary con sequence of the clause legalizing the company. " They were early assured by eminent counsel that the bank could be carried on legally and substantially by means of trustees ; but when there were two modes of conducting the same proceed' ing—one well known to the public, the other comparatively un known--the Directors naturally took that course which best ac corded with the public habits and understanding. Although th e , Bill was opposed with a zeal and tenacity rather out of the usual course of Parliamentary proceedings, it was carried in the sense • House of Commons which a few months previously had passed the Bank Charter Act, by large majorities, through each successiv e stage—viz., on the second reading, by a majority of 108 ; in Coto: mittee, after the fullest and ablest argument by counsel on both sides, by a still greater proportionable majority ; and again, On the third reading, by a majority of 97. " Notwithstanding these majorities in the House of Common ° ' the opposition was continued in the House of Lords. Counsel were heard at the bar of that House, and upon the suggestion of the Government, questions were framed for the con sideration of the Judges, who declined answering them. Und er these extraordinary and inexplicable circumsta:nces, and the See sion drawing to a close, it was deemed impossible to bring on the second reading with any chance of a fair consideration of th e question. " The active opposition of the Bank of England has been aO n lately revived, by its giving notice within these few days of its in tention to try the question of our power to accept bills of ex change at a shorter date than six months. Several months ago the Ban k of England was aware of the proceedings of the London and Wes t " minster Bank in these respects, but not until now has any step been taken. The Directors of the London and Westminster Bank are Mos t ready to meet the Bank of England in any Court of Justice on th e subject, for the Directors, having the best legal advice on the ques tion, feel quite confident of a favourable result. They have no tie sire to infringe the privileges of the Bank of England, but they, ar e equally determined to protect the rights of the London and I'vest minster Bank. na " The Directors congratulate the Proprietors that, notwithsta ing all this opposition, they have not only been able to stem th e torrent, which, it must be evident, springs from private, and n°" in any degree, from public considerations, but they have seen, fr era , the progressive advancement of the establishment, that they °calls , a more favourable position in public opinion ; and whether the or dinary power to sue and be sued be granted or not,—whether the courtesies and facilities usual amongst all competitors in busines s . oe reciprocated or not, they entertain no doubt of the prosperity of TO establishment, founded, as it is, upon advantageous and liberal prin ciples, and upon a broad basis of security." Appended to the Report was a balance-sheet showing t he statement of the Company's affairs, from its commencement to March, up to the 31st of December, 1834. On the debtor side of the account were the following items Due to the public on account of lodgments and in a 1 0 terest on deposit receipts - 0 Due to proprietors for capital paid up 182,255 0 6 Balance in favour of the Bank 3,540 6 £366,175 16 _ _ On the creditor side— Due to the Bank on account of investments in Government securities, bills discounted, &c., 6 and cash in hand £355,540 3 jo Preliminary expenses , 10,635 1 2 _ , ,, ------ £366,175 16 4 The profit and loss account was as follows : On the debtor side— Total current expenditure from March 10th to 4 g December 31st, 1834 Interest due to the public on deposit receipts Balance in favour of the Bank 8,438 1 On the credit side— Balance of interest account The account of the items of the preliminary expenses w e ; then read, and the report (after some conversation of 3 4 particular interest) was received and agreed to, and orde red to be printed (with the accounts) for the use of the pr ° ' prietors. A PROPRIETOR, after eulogizing the seal, diligence , l e ! assiduity of the directors, and observing that the conlPa e o lf was not yet in a condition to pay them, as the directors other commercial bodies were paid, suggested, that a VI, not exceeding 2,0001. should be set apart, to be usea f - r the discretion of the directors- themselves, as a fund 1, their payment, in case the establishtnent should go on Pr° perously. 0- A short discussion occurred on this, in which seyeral P r s . prietors took a part. Some thought it premature at pres en ; others, that a special meeting should be called for the pull, of considering the matter ; but there seemed to be no ference of opinion as to the great merit of the directors. The CHAIRMAN put an end to the subject by o bservq' t that the directors would t a k e as p a y men t i n f u ll for all tnhe they had done to forward the i n t er ests o f th e c ompany 1 0 0 kind demonstration of its regard which this short disen ss bt had elicited. He agreed th a t the s ubje c t, if ever brou e g rit forward, should be by special notice ; a nd that in the pr an y, slender though decidedly prosperous state of the cornP a 't they would do best if they allowed the question to lie dortui-eb for the present, and without relinquishing any claim to wh ed the directors might hereafter be considered entitled, be he ,P a y that at their next meeting they might be in a condition them (the directors) as handsomely as they could %cis"' (" Hear," and a laugh. c torl i A PROPRIETOR asked if it was the int e nti o n of the Dir e- A be to apply again to Parliament for a Bill for leave to sue a n sued by one of their officers The CHAIRMAN replied that their application would dePpy on their being able to ascertain bef o r e h an d w hether Faro ment would decide th e ques ti on on t h e p l a i n an d o bvious I ne e re mg of the Act (for the renewa l o f th e B an k Ch a rter.) seemed some underst an di ng , w hi c h h e cou ld no t explai ~,bn' ete tween some members of the late Government and soine, le t be bers of the house (the Bank of En g l an d) over the way, n e ,,„ e et had hopes that some members of the p resen t Gover n i !" — u ;ot would look at th e ques ti on o f t h e i r app li c ation to Pa rli , a more considerat e ly. Th e op i n i on o f M r . A. Baring pressed to the effect that he saw nothing in the Act i n ( l the tion which should p reven t th e gran t o f t h at power for win e p t‘ v company had sought. The expense of an application to i t 'lament was very considerable, and they would not underrecido unless they saw a fair prospect that Parliament would by the Act, and not by the mysterious understanding to " he had alluded. ed t° A PROPRIETOR—The Duke of W e lli n gton was OPP ° your bill last year. The CHAIRMAN—And so was Earl Grey. t of our The PROPRIETOR---If the Duke had influence to defen bt to object, he has much grea t er i n fl uence now ; so you ° oo look well around y ou b e f ore you i ncur t h e g reat e%P e of again applying to Parliament. The CHAIRMAN—Then there is no doubt that the Hou se of Commons would assent to the Bill, as they had done but the case may be very different in the Lords. u nd the Bank was now going to oppose them (on the gr? es t hen their issuing bills of excange payable at shorter da te ote et six months), but they (the company) would be ready Th th e c( que3ti on eg In , 11 At NI /Isoll thet a , feetly