The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-26 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

I(Hear, hear.) Now, what was the state of the Bank
of Ireland? Tho banking assets of the Bank of Ireland
according to the account he had were as follows :—Circulation,
3,481,0001. ; Deposits, 2,698,000/. ; Surplus fund, 1,053,000/. ;
making a total of 7,432,000/. It was to be recollected that the
Bank never gave any cash credit. If a mercantile man wanted
accommodation he must begin by discounting his paper, say to
, the amount of 2,000/. or 3,000/., the Bank charge discount for
that ; the party whose bill is discounted is allowed to draw
etieteues, bat no interest is given by the Bank for the use of the
moNly,4o that they had tbe benefit of every shilling the man did
nest claw out the day after he had. discounted the bill,
and if be attempted to draw out the whole, the Bank of Ireland
would refuse to discount a shilling for him. It was clear,
therefore, that the Bank of Ireland was an unaccommodating
Bank. They had private securities in their hands to the extent
of 2,1300,000/., and they had in Consols and Exchequer Bills
upwards of 4,176,0001., and the House must recollect that that
four millions was money lent to them by the public, payable on
demand, so that in reality the Bank of Ireland was a trading
company and not a bank.—(Hear, hear.) Their monopoly
consoled them. Their control over individuals gave them
great profits, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer
heated that in times of difficulty they had stood their
ground. In all that he had stated, he begged it to be un-
derstood that he did not mean to say one word in disparage-
ment of any gentleman connected with the Bank of Ireland.
He treated them only as a commercial company, but indivi-
dually he believed them to be persons of worth, honour,
and integrity. The 2,600,000/. that he had spoken of
was distributed thus at their two branches. They de-
voted 1,450,0001. to one establishment—while in Dublin,
they only devoted 1,198,0001. so that where a large
sum was not wanting they gave it, and where a large sum was
wanting they were stingy.—( Hear, hear.) He had a state-
went of the monopoly profits of the Bank, which could not be
less than 107,0001. a year. They had stated it at 111,0001.
Haring already troubled the House at such length he would
not go into the details ; it was enough for him to know that
they made a profit by their monopoly.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He was himself a Governor of one of the
Joint-stock Banks in Ireland,' and if any person thought
that he put any profit into his pocket from that concern, they
were at perfect liberty to do so. He believed that he should
make the property in the Bank of which he was at the head
1 more secure by allowing the monopoly to go on ; but speaking
there as the Representative of Dublin, he was ready to join in
any law to make Joint-stock Banks secure to the public, but
then, as a matter ofjustice, ifthey limited the Joint-stock Banks
in order to giie that security, let them limit the Bank of Ireland
also. They ought not to limit the one without pursuing the
same course with respect to the other. He would now come to
Drogheda. Steam navigation had reached it, and it was now
becoming prosperous, and all that it wanted now was a proper
and secure state of banking. Some of the delegates from that
town, he believed, were listening to that debate. Their object
was to ask the House not to leave them entirely under the lash
of the Bank of Ireland. Dundalk also asked the assistance of that
House. He believed that Newry raised the same cry—Carlow
also called upon them. There were also the towns of Kilbeggan
and Moate—the former was within the metropolitan circle,
whilst the latter, which was prosperous and flourishing, was'
without it. Look also at Mountinellich, in which they could
not establish a branch. Why the nature of the monopoly was
to wither and decay instead of promoting the life-blood of com-
merce, and as to the whining cant of their referring to Ame-
rica, where there was a free trade in banking, let them recollect
that in England they had a free trade, and also in the rest of
Ireland exclusive of the capital.—( Hear, hear.) He was ready
to give them any security that might be required for the credit
of Joint-stock Banks, but let them not extinguish the commerce
and enterprise of the country under the blighting and withering
influence of monopoly. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
against a free system of banking let him out with it at once.
Let not the Right Hon. Gentleman come forward with a paltry
rag of political economy, and attempt to patch up one portion
of the country with efree system, while he excluded all bank-
ing vitality from anther portion. Let him rather bring for-
ward a system which by its liberality and its universality
would savour of justice.—(Loud cheers.) He begged to move
that Mr. Bernal do leave the Chair.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said the two objections to the
position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that it was
too favourable to the Bank of Ireland, and that Government
had made terms of too favourable a nature to the Bank. He
must say, however, that a loan of two and a half millions at 3i
per eent. for three years, could not be considered very favour-
able. With respect to the monopoly of circulation which the
Bank of Ireland enjoyed, the Hon and Learned Member
had not shown a single instance in which the Bank had, dur- $
ing that long period of years, exercised it unjustly or impro-
perly. He admitted the truth of the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny's argument, that if too many notes were issued they
would be returned _upon the Bank, but the worst of it was,
they were sometimes returned at a time when the Bank was
noble to pay them.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had
net, however, dealt fairly with the House in alluding to the
cerrespondence of the Earl of Liverpool with the Bank of
England. • He had led the House to believe that it applied to
their circulation, while on the contrary it alluded to their en-
deavouring to prevent any bank having more than six partners.
In his (Mr. Thompson's) opinion thel Right Hon. Gentleman's
proposition was one which would confer great advantages
ttleon the country, and was only fair to the Bank of Ireland,
and it should therefore have his cordial support.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the prosperity of Drogheda
had been used as an argument in favour of the continuance of
the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland ; but if the argment was
good for anything, why had not Dublin improved ?—( Hear
hear.) The commercial prosperity of Drogheda was to be at-
tributed to her steam navigation. He believed he represented
the opinions and feelings of all parties and persuasions in that
town, the Corporation and the Liberal party, when he stated
that the general conviction was that the general accommoda-
tion extended by the one branch established there, was not
sufficient to enable them to carry out their commercial pursuits.
—( Hear, hear.) He was not afraid, although it might be
Ivied as argument in favour of the Bank of Ireland, of stating the
commercial intercourse between Liverpool and Drogheda . They
had three factories for spinning flax, and one for cotton. These
had been erected within the last two years. There were
twenty-seven flour mills within the immediate neighbourhood
of the town, 7,100 persons engaged in the linen trade, and
there were five steam-boats plying between Liverpool and
Drogheda. That was strong evidence of the prosperity of the
town of Drogheda. At what was the amount of the discount
trade? Only 600,0001. ; while it would require four times that
amount to meet the demands of the trading community.—
(Hear, hear.) The consequence was, they . were obliged to
carry. their discount trade to Dublin, Belfast, Dundee, Liver-
pool, and other places ; and the result was a steady and
wholesome state of things in the commerce of the town.
They were completely at the mercy of the Bank of Ireland, which
' limited their discounts, and, as far as they could, controlled
the extension of their trade. All they wanted was permission
to go elsewhere. It was a great fallacy of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to compare Dublin and London. The latter
was the great commercial head of the empire, while Dublin
was but a mere provincial town.—( Hear, hear.) They had
consolidated the Customs, they had consolidated the Excise, and
why should they continue the banking monopoly in Dnblin ?
Liverpool was the commercial capital of his (Sir. W. Somer-
ville's) part of the country, and not Dublin, with which their
trade and commercial intercourse was comparatively trifling.
Believing that the continuance of the monopoly would be
detrimental to the best interests of the country, he should
support the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Mr. HUTTON regretted the subject was introduced at
that late period of the Session. He concurred with his Hon.
and Learned Colleague in his entire disapprobation of
the narrow and confined spirit in which the Bank of
Ireland had administered its important functions. If
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny's amendment meant to
' deprive the Bank of Ireland of the power it had of issuing notes,
and putting the Bank on a sounder basis, he (Mr. H.) would
have concurred with him ; but he confessed he was not pre-
pared at present to give an unlimited power of issuing notes to
every bank within a short distance of Dublin.—( Hear, hear. )
He was afraid so great a power would prove ruinous, and, by
adopting that course, they would be creating vested interests,
which would render the subject more difficult to be dealt with
hereafter.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON could not agree with the Hon. Mem-
ber for Kilkenny, that there would not be an over issue pro-
vided there seas a free trade in banking. It did not follow that
beiteseise there was a free trade in banking there would be a
payment in specie. Therefore he was against a free trade in
beets ; but it was because he was opposed to the Hon. Alem-
ber for Kilkenny, that he could not agree to what the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said, " Let us renew the Charter of the Bank of Ireland,.
which he admitted was established on incorrect principles." Why
should the bank be continued for four years on false principles?
A good opportunity was now afforded to the Government if
they wished to do so, to put the Bank on better principles,
• and during these four years the foundation might be laid for a
better system at *he period when the charter would expire.
He thotight the Hon. Member for Dublin was perfectly correct
in objecting to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, at this late period of the Session, and he should vote
for the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
far this reason, that it left the matter open. The existing
contract with the Bank of Ireland would run to the next
Session, and next Session Parliament would have the opportu-
nity of revising all that related to the Bank of Ireland. It
was for that reason he agreed to the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin, and he believed many would
vote for that motion, but would not have voted for the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought the Government had laid them-
selves open to the animadversions of the Hon. and Learned
:Member for Dublin, for not having brought this subject for-
ard at an earlier period of the Session. Indeed the question
they were then discussing ought to have been discussed two
'Veers ago. The Government ought to show why this discus-
sion had not been brought forward in 1837, and he was satis-
fied that the course taken by her Maje,ty's Government
en this question would create surprise and disappointment. In
discussing this question, they ought not to be guided by local
circumstances or interested parties, but they ought to deal
fairly by the public on general principles. The Bank of Ireland
was conducted on unsound principles, and he contended nothing
had been urged to show why Ireland should deviate from the
sound principles of banking. It appeared to bias that the pub
lie had demanded that, such a system of banking should be esta-
blished as would guarantee the public against the contingency of
failures. That system was adoeted in the Joint-stock Banks.
The public would repose confidence only in those establishments
which, to all appearance, had solvent partners, and
which had the greatest number of partners ; and he was satis-
fied that in three or tour years there would be no private
banters at all. The Bank ought to publish its accounts. It
would be utterly impossible for an unsound bank to continue in
existence for an hour under the system of weekly publication of
its accounts. The question before the House, he apprehended,
was whether it was just to confer on one Company advantages
which they were not prepared to confer on another.—( Hear,
hear.) They might maintain the principle that the State
alone ought to issue notes and coin money, but it could not be
maintained that one Company ought to have advantages over
another. He conceived the only justification for renewing the
charter and privileges of the Bank of England was that there
was a sort of State necessity ; and had he been in Parliament
he would have voted against the renewal of the Charter to the
Bank of England. He trusted the Hon. 11Iemter for Kilkenny
would press his motion to a division.
Mr. REDINGTON thought no case had been made out
for granting a new monopoly to the Bank of Ireland. With re-
gard to this monopoly it extended for 65 miles from the metro-
polis, an area of one-third of Ireland, a larger extent in propor-
tion to the area of that country, than the Bank eof England oc-
copied in proportion to the area of this country. lie should
vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Dublin, and con-
sider that he should best promote the interests of those who
sent him here, and his own views, by offering every opposition
to the plan laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
oellor of the Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER replied. A
more important vote the Committee was never called upon to
give. The reposition was to pass a resolution upon which a
Bill was to be introduced, which the House would have the power
of discussing in all its details, and making such amendments as
might be thought proper. Between the first and second reading
ample time would be given to the considerationfurther
of the Bill.
But if.the resolution should be negatived, all considera-
tion would be prevented. The proposition to leave the Bank
of Ireland monopoly unchanged came from those who objected
to it altogether. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pro-
posed to go on with a legislative measure, in order to consider
whet portion of these exclusive privileges should be continued,
and what veers . o to objection. With respect to the Hon.
,Member for Bri.. -.
,who disagreed with the principles of free
trade, in fact, te combined with those who wer in

favour of unrestrictive banking. There could not be two
opinions more strongly contrasted. He (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) was not contending for any mono-
poly in banking. He was contending for the exclusive power
of making money, issuing promissory notes paying in that d s-
trict. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, as well as the Hon.
Member for Limerick, said that a distinct pledge had been given
by a former Government, and that it was so stated in th.i evi-
dence. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was nce in-
clined to dispute that. He confessed that any pledge iven
by Mr. Huskisson, and the Earl of Ripon, was entitled to every
respect, and he did not wish to undervalue it. In the evidence
of Mr. Callaghan it was stated that Mr. Huskisson and the
Earl of Ripon regretted that they could not give any pledge
beyond that of suing and being sued. Nothing could be more
distinct. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) communi-
cated with the Earl of Ripon, and drew his attention to the evi-
dence, and held in his hand the answer of his Lordship,
who stated that he had no distinct recollection of the trans-
action ; there could, however, be no doubt that he did not, be-
cause he could not give any pledge as to what might be done
fourteen years after the question arose. His Lordship stated
that he had no doubt expressed his regret that no more could
be done for the Joint-stock Banks than to give the power of
suing and being sued, and that he should have been ready to
have given to them the same advantages as were obtained in
1826 from the Bank of England for Joint-stock Banks in this
country. Now, here was a distinct denial of the fact, on the
Earl of Ripon's recollection, that any engagement had been en-
' tered into. The House would bear in mind that the utmost
extent of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) proposition was
to make an arrangement with the Bank of Ireland, which might
be terminated within the period of four years with any principle
which might be adopted as to the currency here. Under these
circumstances, he hoped Hon. Gentlemen would do him the
favour of voting for the resolution.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that Mr. Callaghan must have had
a distinct recollection of the fact, because he was looking out
for, and obtained, 225,0001. in consequence of that pledgo.
The Earl of Ripon merely reasoned upon the subject, and
stated that he had no distinct recollection. It was strange that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relying on the impropriety
of establishing free trade in banking, said that he should have
the votes of those who disliked the principle. Would he vote
against free trade in banking?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
he would, and submitted that it was clear, from the answer of
the Earl of Ripon, that he did not give any pledge as to what
might be done fourteen years afterwards.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. ELLIS in ex-
planation, the House divided.
The numbers were—
For reporting progress ....•• 35
Against it
Majority --80
We understood the Committee again divided on Mr. Hume's
motion, when the numbers were—
For the motion ... ••
Against it ... 112
Majority
On our re-entering the gallery, we found
Mr. O'CONNELL said he would divide on every stage. The
people of Ireland could never have time to consider the Bill till
the 20th of August, when who would keep Members here
after the grouse-shooting had began, and the partridge-shoot-
ing was coming.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought this
opposition unfair. He believed it was for the interest of the
country that the Bill should pass : some Bill on the subject
must pass this Session.
Mr. ELLIS protested against such a measure being imme-
diately pressed forward at thisperiod.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is abso-
lutely necessary.
Mr. ELLIS denied that it was at all, for the Charter of the Bank
might go on till altered, and might therefore be postponed till
next Session. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the people of Ireland had bad no
notice of the measure ; it had not been inti odnced more than
three weeks, and from that short. period it had been under-
stood that a different plan would have been proposed. Not a
single argument had been urged in defence of the monopoly ;
and the people of Ireland had been very ill treated by the
' Government in the matter.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE corroborated what had fallen from
the Hon. Member for Dublin. He thought that it had been
understood that this monopoly line was to be given up. He
considered that some longer time ought to be given for consi-
dering the report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. SHIEL believed that the great body of his constituents
were averse to the renewal of this Charter.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN thought the question ought not
to be proceeded with in the present Session.
Mr. REDINGTON concurred in the opinion of the Hon.
Member who had spoken last.
3lr. HUME thought, before a question of the importance of
the present was decided, there ought to be a call of the House.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—
For reporting progress
Against it lO2
Majority 69
On our admission into the gallery we found Mr. ELLIS on
his legs, moving that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
The Committee divided after a few observations from Mr.
O'CONNELL, when there appeared—
For the motion 32
Against it
Majority against the motion —6l
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER on his legs.
He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be brought up,
and go into Committee, when any amendments it was thought
proper might be proposed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it was clear there could be no
gompromise after the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and it only remained for him to discharge his duty to his con-
stituents in the best manner he could by resisting the further
progress of these resolutions.
Mr. HUME complained that the people of Ireland wore not
apprised of what the purport of these resolutions were, and that
it was attempted to hurry them through the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought if the measure excited the great
opposition that was said in Ireland, there would have been a
fuller attendance of Irish Members in the House. Three weeks'
notice had been given of the measure, and there could be no
allegation of want of proper intimation. If it was not discussed
now it must be discussed to-morrow or Monday night.
Mr. O'CONNELL denied that there had been a full dis-
cussion of the question. He believed that the majority of
those who had heard the incidental debate of that evening
had voted against the resolutions, and if he was not de-
ceived, the Noble Lord himself had not heard the debate
—( Hear and laughter.) He had no objection to the debate
being resumed that day (Friday), but he certainly objected to
going further that night.
Colonel SIBTHORP was glad to witness the division on
the other side of the House, as his side might expect to derive
advantage from it.—(A laugh. )
Mr HUME moved that the Chairman report progress.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took
place, the motion having been agreed to without a division.
SLAVE TRADE (PORTUGAL) BILL.
Lord PAL3IERSTON moved the third reading of this Bill.
After a few observations from Sir R. Inglis, Capt. Pechell,
and Sir T. D. Acland, the Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Reports on the Jurors and Juries (Ireland) Bill, and
the Ecclesiastical Districts Bill were brought up.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, the following Members were nominated a Select
Committee on the Metropolis Improvements Bill :—Mr. Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, Sir Matthew Wood, Sir Robert Peel,
Lord Viscount Lowther, Mr. Herries, Admiral Codringtou,
Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Clay, Mr. George Palmer, Sir
De Lacy Evans, Mr. Pendarves, Mr. Barnard, Sir Benjamin
Hall, Mr. •Wakley.
BIRMINGHAM POLICE BILL.
Mr. F. MAULE moved the committal of this Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the Bill proceeding at such
an hour (two o'clock nearly), and in such a House (of about a
dozen Members).
Mr. F. MAULE said the peace of Birmingham depended
on this Bill.
Mr. PLUMPTRE recommended his Gallant Friend to
withdraw his opposition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir R. INGLIS
joined their solicitations to the same effect, with no avail.

LANDS IN NEW ZEALAND.
The DIRECTORS of the NEW ZEALAND LAND
COMPANY hereby give notice, that Orders for Land may be
purchased at their Office, which will entitle the holders thereof
to select Country Sections, either at the Company's principal
Settlement, or at Hokianga, Kaipara, Manukau, the islands
of Waiheke and Paroa, the borders of the Thames, or any other
part of the territories already purchased by the Company, as
soon as the same shall be surveyed. The holders of such Land
Orders will also be entitled to claim from the Company a pas-
sage to New Zealand, free of cost, for themselves, families, and
servants, to the extent of 75 per cent. of their purchase money.
Further particulars as to the terms of purchase, may be ob-
tained on application to the Secretary.
By Order of the Directors,

JOHIS WARD, Secretary.
New Zealand Land Company's Office,
No. 1, Adam-street, Adelphi, 23d July, 1839.