The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-19 00:00:00

CHANCERY cbuRT.—(THIS DAY.)

Due

Arrived. Due Arrived. Due Arrived
0 America.......... 0 2 France.....—..... 0 - I Lisbon
0 lirazil
0 Buenos Ayres.. 0 0 Hamburg ..... ... 0 0 Mexico 0
0 Carthagena ..... 0 0 Holland
1 Dublin... ...... 0 0 Jamaica 0 0 Sweden .. 0
0 Randers

is liberal, and therefore opposed in every essential par-
ticular to their creed. Its triumph is their annihila-
!ion. Hence their clamour against it. Yet they show
no want of tact in the conduct of their opposition.
They keep clear of Don CARLOS, and would fain
have it believed that they repudiate his principles and
abhor his cruelties, at the very moment when they
arc advocating a motion, whose chief object is
to remove all obstacles that may prevent him from
ascending, the throne of the Spanish Bourbons. Honest
men I Most consistent and conscientious Statesmen
We trust that all the friends of Ministers will make
a point of giving their attendance to-night in the
House of Commons.' Let none absent himself, for
much depends on the result of the present discussion.
If it be carriA by the Opposition, then farewell to
all hope of peace for Ireland I Farewell to the Church •
rates, and every- other sensible, practical measure of Re
form, and welcome instead the sway of chicanery and
humbug ! But we need not be apprehensive on this
score. Ministers will be sure to defeat their oppo-
nents, and by such a majority as will compel Sir R.
PEEL to put off' his visit to the Promised Land of
Office to the Greek Kalends. He has now, like Moses,
a Mount Pisgah view of it, but like Moses, he will
never get further. He will die, just in sight of it.

A brief discussion, which may lead to very im-
portant results, took place in the House of Commons
last night on the subject of a breach of privilege com-
mitted by the True Sun, in publishing extracts from
certain evidence taken before the Poor-law Committee
previous to the presentation of the Report of such
Committee to the House of Commons. Had Lord JOE-IN
RUSSELL, by whom the subject was formally brought
before the House, complained merely of some error,
or misrepresentation of the purport of the evidence by
the Journal referred to, we should leave to our Con-
temporary—as we always do on such occasions—the
task of accounting for any mistake or inadvertence
into which it might have fallen. But when we find
the Noble Lord prepared to make an assumed or imputed
breach of privilege on the part of the True Sun the
pound of a motion which may seriously affect the
Liberty of the Press, the question is no longer one of
an isolated or individual character ; and it becomes our
duty to deal with it as endangering the existence of a
great principle, which constitutes the main bulwark of
our liberties, civil and religious. We repeat, we have
nothing whatever to do with the question as far as
regards the particular breach of privilege imputed to
our Contemporary. We published no part of the
evidence taken before the Poor-law Committee, and
simply because we could not have done so without ex-
cluding from our columns what we considered more
important matter. But this is not the question. Lord
JOHN RUSSELL pronounces the publication of such
evidence to constitute a direct breach of the. privileges
of Parliament ; and he has given notice that he will
to-morrow move the following Resolution on the sub-
ject :—" That according to the undoubted privileges
of this House, and for the due protection of the pub-
lic interest, the evidence taken by any Select Committee
of this House and documents presented to such Com-
mittee, and which have not been reported to the
House, ought not to be published by any Member of
such Committee, or by any other person." Now were
this motion only to include evidence taken
before Secret Committees, appointed to inquire
into the management of any department of the
public service, in which the character of private
individuals might be involved, or which might
in any way unduly affect public credit, we would
not offer the slightest objection to it. In a country
the pecuniary affairs of which are so complicated as
ours—and in a Monarchy, where it sometimes be-
comes necessary to institute delicate inquiries relative
to the conduct of persons in high station, in order
to restrain the executive power within constitutional
bounds—occasions will arise when secrecy on the
part of the Legislature becomes a duty. But to
extend such a doctrine to all inquiries by the House
of Commons, would defeat the very purpose for
which Parliamentary Committees are appointed. Does
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, or any other Member of the
Government suppose, that if all knowledge of the
proceedings of Parliamentary Committees were kept
from the public till each had laid its huge blue folio on
the table of the House of Commons, the people of this
country would care a farthing for their contents ?
If the Noble Lord and his Colleagues entertain such an
impression, we beg to tell them that it is a most
erroneous one. The apartment in which we sit is
lumbered with such documents ; but except the por-
tion of their contents which we published while the
respective Committees were sitting, they are to us and
the public quite valueless. We might publish them
indeed, but nobody would read them.

A Tory journalist has devoted a considerable por-
tion of this morning's leisure to a philosophical inves-
tigation of certain political phenomena, which occasion
much perplexity to him and to the school of which he
is a disciple. The main problem which he endeavours
to solve is the continuance in office of the present Mi-
nisters ; and after much laborious and ingenious
speculation, he confesses himself perfectly at a
loss to discover any one satisfactory reason
for the MELBOURNE Administration's remainin,, in
power. According to the logical principles laid down
by the highest Tory authorities, he makes it as clear
as the sun at noon-day, that Sir R. PEEL and his
associates ought to be now in the occupation of the
Treasury Benches. If this be so, is it too much to
ask why these gentlemen are not there ? Is it any
insuperable objection, on.their part, to undertake the
cares and toils of office, that stands in the way of this
happy consummation ? That will scarcely be alleged
after the desperate adventure of 1834, and the late
" wha-wants-me" advertisement put forth by Sir
ROBERT in the House of Commons. Is it the predi-
lectio❑ of the Court for a liberal system of Govern-
ment that prevents the Tories from re-entering the
delightful abodes of Downing-street ? This, we fear,
is es unlikely a supposition. Where then shall we look
for the obstacle to Tory Government, or rather to Tory
domination ? Can it be that the people are the
great barrier to the irruption of the anti-national
faction and their despotic system of rule ? We are sorry
to disturb the complacent anticipations of our Con-
temporary; but we would advise him to turn his se-
rious attention to this cause of the exclusion of his
patrons from the management of the State. We
would put it to him, and indeed to every man who has
any doubts upon the interesting question which he has
started, whether it was not " the people" that turned
out Sir R. PEEL-whether it was not " the people"
.that placed Lord MELaouRNE in his present situa-
tion at the head of his MAJESTY'S Government, in
spite of the opposition of the Court,—and whether it is
possible that the Noble Lord and his associates could
retain their situations one single moment without the
support of " the people ?"

The Paris Journals of Sunday and Monday have
been received. There is at last a Cabinet ; though
public opiniou is opposed to even the chance of its
stability. According to the Liberal journals, M.
GUIZOT was summoned to attend the KING on Fri-
day, when he presented to his MAJESTY the list of
the only Ministry which he judged it advisable to re-
commend. The KING examined it with attention ;
but finding that the ex-Minister of Public Instruc-
tion had nominated himself to the Presidency of
the Council and the Department of the Interior,
and the ill-starred Doke of MONTEBELLO, whose
blundering diplomacy in Switzerland is well remembered
in the Chamber of Deputies, to the department of
Foreign Affairs, he returneed the ex-Minister his pro-
gramme, observing that such a Government would
fling him altogether into the ams of the absolutists, and
thus accelerate a state of things for which France was
not yet prepared. M. GUIZOT then retired, and Count
MOLE was again sent far. The KING assured him
that he was now his only hope, and that the formation
of a responsible Ministry could be delayed no longer.
The Count consulted with his friends, and on Sunday
the Moniteur officially announced the reconstruction
of the Cabinet, which stands as follows :

Count Mole, President of the Council and Minister of Fo-
reign Affairs.
Count de Montalivet, Minister of the Interior.
M. de Salvandy, Minister of Public Instruction.
M. Lacave Laplagne, Minister of the Finances.
M. Barthe, Keeper of the Seals.
General Bernard, Minister of War.

M. Marti❑ du Nord, Minister of Commerce and Public
Works,
Admiral de Rosamel, Minister of the Navy.

The Chamber of Deputies sat on Monday, but
none of the new Ministers were present. It is ru-
moured that the KING has consented to the withdrawal
of the appanage and non-revelation Bills during the
present Session of the Chambers. Another report
attributes to M. GUIZOT a determination to support
the r.ew Cabinet, in the hoi,e, no doubt, that his ser-
vices will be tetnembered on a future occasion. M.
TIMERS holds aloof from all communication with the
Members of the late and present Government, and
seems resolved to support the party with whom he has
associated himself. In this lie exercises a wise
discretion.

Numerous arrests for conspiracies against the
KING'S life took place on Sunday, and during the
week. The Army grows inure and more discontented,
and great fears are entertained, that in a case of emer-
gency, the fidelity of the common soldiers could not
he relied upon. Annexed are extracts from the
Journals :

NE,h'S FROM THE FRONTIER.—In order to check the deser-
tion of the soldiers of the 11th battalion. Don Carlos has
caused the fathers of the deserters to be arrested.

By an order of Don Carlos of the 6th of this month, the
penalty of death shall be inflicted on every person who, after
the Bth, shall be detected in carry ing provisions to Pampeluna.
He shall be allowed only sufficient time to confess.
The Infant Don Sebastian, to recompense the services of
the authorities of Aspeitia, has had the Alcalde taken to the
Castle of Guebarra for a year, and has imposed a fine of 500
ducats on each Regidor. -
By an order of Irribarren given to the garrisons which corer
La Rebiera, every person going to Estella is to be arrested.
All the cavalry of Navarre and of the three provinces,
amounting it is said to 1,920 men, have just been new clothed.
Brigadier-General D. J. A. Gariategui, went on the 7th
to Ulzama, with the 2d, 3d, sth, and Bth battalions of
guides ; it is said that he intends to attack the convoy which
is going to set out from Valcarlos. —Sentinelle des Pyrenees.
The Sentinelle says also that General Evans and Lord Hay
have received despatches from the English Ambassador at
Madrid. It is believed that the Queen's Government has ap-
plied to the English Government for some battalions, and that
they are expected. We are assured that in a few days the
Pluto, English steam-boat, will arrive with 400 English ma-
rines.— Journaldu Commerce.

FRENCH FUNDS.-Pasts. APPIL 17.
Five per Cents.. 106 f. 55c. 90c. 84)c.
Four per Cent., M. 40c.
Three per Cents., 79f 78f. 90c.
Bank Actions, 2,410 f.
Rente de Naples, 99f 95f. 95c.
Roman Five per Cents., 10234.
Spanish Actives, 23% 243434%.
Spanish Passives, 634 6.
Belgian Loan, Five per Cents., 10034.
Portuguese Loan, Five per Cents , 47.
Portuguese Loan, Three per Cents, 29%.
RICRANUIL ON LONDON.
Onemonth, paper, 25c. 4734 c. ; money, 25f. 45c.
Three months, paper, 25f. 2734 c. ; money, 25f. 25c
-Court Autkentique.
LAST PRICES.
rive per Cents., 106 f. 85c.
Three per Cents..79f. sc.
Bank Actions, 2,414 f.
Rente de Naples, 99f. 15c.
Roman Five per Cents., 10234.
Belgian Loan, 106%.
Brussels Bank, 1,340 f.
Portuguese Loan, Five per Cents., 47.
Portuguese Three per Cents., 29%.
Spanish Actives, 2414.
Spanish Passives, 6
Spanish Differes, 7%.
HAMBURG BORSEN HALLE, APRIL 14.
Bills. Money,
Austrian Metal'iques, 5 per cent. ...... ..... 10334 103
Ditto ditto 4 per cent.
ditto 3 per cent. 73% 73%
Ditto Bank Shares 1341 1342
Anglo-Russian Loan
Paper Inscription, 6 per cent
Russian 5 per cents. Metal.
Russian Inscription. Hope and Co., 3d and 4th
Series
Ditto, Certificates -
Portuguese Regency Bends, 5 per cent
4K -
Ditto, 3 per cent. 2934 29
Dutch '234 per Cents,
Ditto 5 per Cents
Polish Bonds, 3 per cents.
New Tickets 156 155%
Angle-Danish Loan, 3 per cents 7134 -
Norwegian Loan of 1834, 4 per C •nts.
Spanish, in piastres, 3 per Cents -
Cortes Lean, 5 per Cent 22
Greek 4 per cents. 1833, guaranteed by France 93 9.239
EXCHANOES ON LONDON.
Hamistto, APRIL 14.-13 ; two months. 13 8.
ST. PETEENBURGIII APRIL 1.-Three months, 1034
BERLIN, APRIL 11.-Three m•nthg. 6. 2434.
-Hamburg Papers, April 14.
PRUSSIAN FUNDS.-BERLIN, APRIL 8.
Bills.
St. Schuld. Sch., 4 per cent .....
Prussian English Loan, 1830, 4 per cent. 100
Exchange on London, three months ..,6 2434
-Prussian State Gazette, April 9.

Money.
101%
99%

Lisbon Journals to the Ist inst. inclusive have been
received. Baron D'ALMEIDA, Physician to the
QUEEN, officially announces the perfect recovery of
her IVlAsasilt from her recent slight indisposition ;
and in her name assures her faithful subjects that she
would resume her customary habits and occupations,
"if the delicacy of her situation, which every day
becomes more flattering and more interesting" did not
require measures of precaution. We are sure the ladies
of Portugal ought to be much obliged to her MAJESTY,
for the solicitude which she manifests to make them

acquainted with the Royal mode of treatment during
pregnancy. For our own part we shall be glad when
an heir is born to the throne of Portugal, as in addi-
tion to the joy which such an event must occasion in
that country, we ourselves will he spared the disagree-
able necessity of alluding to details only fit for the ear
of an accoucheur. The tone of moral feeling must be
at a very low ebb in a Court which can sanction the
publication of such disgusting trash as the Queen of
PORTUGAL'S physicians have been in the habit of
publishing, ever since the'date of her most Faithful
Majesty's first marriage.
The Viscount DE SA BANDEIRA submitted to
the Cortes a Report of the State of the Portuguese
Furign Relations. With France a Treaty has been
concluded for the payment of the French claims re-
cognized- by the Convention of June, 1831. The
Commercial Treaty with England is still on the tapis.
Between Portugal and Spain the best feelings of
friendly intercourse are cherished. In presenting the
Report, the Minister alluded to the civil war in the
Peninsula, and spoke in the most laudatory terms of
the disinterested services of Great Britain. He praised
the gallantry of the British Auxiliaries, and added that
he felt confident England would accomplish for Spain
what she had so nobly achieved for Portugal. The
presence of her fleet on the Cantabrian coast was a
sufficient guarantee that Don CARLOS would not
ascend the Spanish throne.

LONGFORD COUNTY ELECTION
COMMITTEE.-(THIS DAY.)

The Committee met to-day at eleven o'clock.
Mr. WRANGEIAM objected to the vote of a person named
James Doherty, on the ground that he had been opposed at the
Registration, and also for insufficiency of value. 'A witness
was called who deposed to the oppo4ition before the barrister,
babe could nut positively swear that the value of the land was
also inquired into, when
Mr. 1.11E5310ER objected to the note being struck off, as it
was particularly necessary, under the terms of the Act of Par.
liament, that the value of the land should also have been ob-
jected to at the same time. Here, further let it be observed,
there was the oath of the party claiming to vote, and the oath
of the assistant barrister, wholly to place such claimant on the
poll ; and yet it was now sought to strike the voter off. If
the Committee decided to strike off the vote, then the Irish
elections would be a complete nullity.
The room was cleared, and in about half an hour, on our
re-admission, the Committee decided that the vote should not
be struck off.

Mr. WRANGIIASI said that he was in a position to prove that
an objection to the value of the land was made at the time of
egistration.
Mr. TIMMER warmly objected against letting in new evi-
dence upon this point, and called upon the Committee not
only not to strike the name off the poll, but to come to an af-
firmative resolution that it should remain on the poll; but this
was refused.

It havingr, been stated to the Committee that a person in the
interest of Mr. White communicated portions of the answer
'to witnesses to be examined at a subsequent period, Arthur
Bowles was examined, but he only proved that he saw a person
taking notes, but what they were he could not tell, and the
matter dropped.
It was next proposed to strike off the vote of John Ledwick.
A witness was called who proved the objection, the extent of
the farm out of which the claimant voted, and that it was not
worth ten pounds a-year over and above the rent paid fur it.
Mr. AUSTIN contended, that when the claimant's right to
vote arose out of the lease under which he held the land, that
documea should be produced.
Mr. WRANGHAM expressed great surprise that such an ob-
jection should have been taken at so late a period of the pro-
ceedings, and when he was now adducing precisely the same
evidence as had hitherto induced the Committee to strike off
several voters.
Mr. AusriN.L.-Late or early in the proceedings, I feel it
my duty to take the objection whenever it arises, and I now
persevere in maintaining it.
The room was cleared, and on our re-admission the Chair-
man said it was the decision of the Committee that one counsel
on each side should be heard to argue the question of the ne-
cessity- of proving the lease, deed, -or covenant under which
the voter was registered.
Mr. WRANGHAM proceeded to argue the point, and had
not concluded when our Reporter left.

LIVERPOOL, MONDAY. Messrs. Buchannan,
Laird, and Co., extensively engaged in the American 014,
stopped payment this day.

The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster to-
day, and heat d original causes, but no case of any public im-
portance came before his Lordship previous to our Reporter's
leaving.

ROLL'S COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

DANK OF ENGLAND V. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER DANK.-

JUDGMENT.
Lord LANGDALE gave judgment this morning in the above
most important case. His Lordship said the case came be-
fore him upon a motion made by the plaintiff for an injunction
to restrain the defendants from accepting any bill of exchange
or promissory note, payable at a less time than six months
from the date thereof, and from in any other manner hot row-
ing, or owing, or taking up a sum of money on the bills or
notes of the said company payable on demand, or of any time
less than six months. Notice of motion was first given in
July, 1835, and the case came on before him in March, 1836,
when it appeared the Lcnd.in and Westminster Bank was
established • under certain Acts of Parliament. It appeared
that on the 21st of February, 1835, Mr. Muskett, who car-
ried on business a; a banker at St. Albans, drew on the Lon-
don and Westminster Bank a bill of exchange for 251., pay-
able to the order of Mr. Robertson at 21 days after date.
That bill drawn at St. Albans, and payable at a time less
than six months from the date thereof, was, on the 23d of
Feb., 1835, presented to the London and Westminster Bank
for acceptance in London, and was by the order of the Di
rectors accepted. It was alleged on behalf of the Bank
of England, that regard being had to the 3 and 4 William IV.,
chap. 98, and the other Bank Acts, this acceptance was not
lawful, and the Bank of England, therefore, claiming the
pretection of this Court against the alleged violation of their
rights, prayed for the injunction. It appeared from the state-
ments and arguments of counsel, that the legality of the de-
fendants' transactions depended on the construction of several
Acts of Parliaments; and the question was of such a nature,
and the determination of it was of such importance, that a
satisfactory result could scarcely be hoped for without the as-
sistance of a Court of Common Law. He had, therefore,
suggested that a case should be stated for the opinion of a
Court of Common Law, and that the motion should stand
over until that opinion was obtained. That suggestion was not
willingly acceded to by the plaintiffs, and the defendants
thought it should be determined by an action ; but a case set-
tled by the parties themselves was directed to be made for the
opinion of the Learned Judges of the Court of Corjnon
Pleas. The Learned Judges of that Court had returned
their certificate ; and, on this occasion, had departed
from a practice which had long prevailed, and which
in this Court had been always regretted, of returning their
certificate without reasons; and they had his respectful thanks
for the course which, on this occasion, they had been pleased
to pursue. They had stated it as their opinion that, regard
being had to the Statutes of the Bank of England, a copart-
nership.consisting of more than six persons, and carrying on
the business of bankers within 65 miles from London, could
not by law, in the course of such business as bankers, accept a
bill of exchange at a time less than six months from the time
of such acceptance, and they had certified that the acceptance
mentioned in the case was not lawful. Upon that certificate
the motion originally made in this Court was renewed, and on
the hearing of the renewed motion the defendants had thought
fit, as they had an undoubted right to do, to argue the whole
case as to the legality of the acceptance ; and the plaintiffs did
not content themselves with the certificate that the acceptance
was illegal as having been made in the course of the banking
transactions, but had argued, as they also had a right
to do, that the acceptance would have been illegal as having
been made on the behalf of more than six persons in partner-
ship together, even if it had not been made is the course of a
banking business, and they had asked for an injunction on that
extensive claim. Upon a perusal of the pleadings, and hay.
ing regard to the nature of the rights claimed by the Bank,
and of the consequence likely to ensue from such acts of the
defendants, his Lordship was of opinion, if the acceptance
was illegal, the plaintiffs were entitled to be protected by in-
junction against a repetition of such illegal acts ; but if the
illegality depended not merely on the fact of acceptance, but
to some extent on the nature of the transactions, and the cir-
cumstances affecting these transactions, the injunction ought not
to extend to all the circumstances under which the London and
Westminster Bank might owe money, but only to such ac-
ceptances on which the illegality depended. The last Act of
Parliament affecting the privileges of the Bank of England
was the 3d and 4th of William IV., chap. 98, and upon the
construction of that Act the plaintiffs prineipallyrelied. They said
that according to the true construction of that Act, a partner-
ship in London, consisting of more than six persons, could not
legally accept a bill of Exchange, payable on demand, or at
any time less than six months from the time of the acceptance.
The second section of that Act, after speaking of bills of ex-
change and promisory notes, that were not to be issued
by partnerships of more than six persons, said that
such partnerships at a greater distance than sixty-five
miles from London, might issue those notes payable on
demand, and spoke of bills or notes in such terms as
it would make it appear that by the terms " bills
or notes" it was meant to describe bills of exchange
and promissory notes. But the ad section was that on which
the question in this case principally depended. If he was to
look no further than that Act, he thought it could
scarcely be doubted that the words " bills or notes"
used in the 3d section were intended to designate the
bills or notes of the partnerships therein described,
and meant the same sort of bills or notes mentioned in the
second section, namely, bills of exchange and promissory
notes. There was nothing in the language of the third
section opposed to that conclusion. When a man bor-
rowed or took up money on his bill of exchange, it was
of every day's occurrence to do that by accepting bills of
exchange drawn on him by the person from whom he
had borrowed; and he accepted a bill for a sum
which he Lad previously taken up or borrowed, or for
which he was previously indebted, and in either of these cases,
having accepted the bill of exchange, in common parlance he
owed, or was indebted upon the bill. In the transaction now
in question the London and Westminster Bank, a partnership
consisting of more than six persons, were the London bankers
of Mr. Muskett, who carried on business at St. Albans. On
the 23d of February, 1835, they were indebted to him to an
amount exceeding 251. He would not dwell on the nature of
the pecuniary transactions of banker and customer, it being
clear that what was called money in the hands of the banker
meant no more than a debt due from the banker to the cus-
tomer. In this state of things the London and Westminster
Bank owing more than 25/. to Mr. Muskett, he drew on them
a bill of exchange, payable in twenty-one days to the order of
Mr. Robertson. When the bill was accepted what then be-
came the relation between Muskett and the London and
Westminster Bank in reference to the money pay-
able on the Bill, and what was then the relation between the
London and Westminster Bank, and the payee or endorser of
the bill? Could it be said the London and Westminster Bank
continued to be united to Muskett in the same way they were
united to him before the acceptance, or that they did not owe
money on the bill, or that the bill did not evidence their lia-
bility to pay the amount to the payee or indorsee ? His
Lordship considered that after the acceptance the bill consti-
tuted evidence of their liability to pay the amount. It was
the security they gave for the payment, and an acceptance
under such circumstances was, in ordinary language, called
the bill of the acceptors, and the acceptors by law were pri-
marily liable to pay the same. It did not appear to him the use
that had been made of the words " from the borrowing thereof,"
occasioned any material difficulty. It was probable, in its ap-
plication to pecuniary transactions, the word "borrow" meant
to secure the repayment of a sum lent. However that might
be, he thought that in the phrase " borrow, owe, or take up,"
the words" owe or take up" were put in apposition with the
word " borrow" for explanation ; and taking the word "owe"
as part of the sense in which the word " borrow" was used,
" from the time of borrowing," meant from the time of owing
on the bills or notes referred to. The arguments of the Coun-
sel for the tlefendants were distinguished by great learning,
ability, and historical research. They had contended
that the Learned Judges of the Common Pleas had
not attended sufficiently to the distinction between banks of
issue and banks of deposit, and had consequently applied
to the defendants, who were carrying on the business of a
bank of deposit, an argument which could only be applied to
persons carrying on the business and transactions of a bank of
issue. Farther, they had argued that the acceptance of bills
of exchange was a necessary incident to, and formed part of
the business of a bank of deposit, and that the acceptance of
bills of exchange by persons carrying on the business of a
bank of deposit could not produce any of the mischief's the
Bank Acts were intended to guard against. To the argu-
ments offered in support of these positions, he had given the
best attention in his power, but it did not appear to him the
.Learned Judges of the Come of Common Pleas had made any
oversight or mistake in their view of the nature of
banks, or of the business carried on by the defendants ;
and althought it might be true the business of a bank of de-
posit could not be so advantageously carried on under a pro-
hibition to accept bills of exchange payable on demand, or at
short dates, yet it could not be correctly said that without ac-
cepting such bills of exchange, a bank of deposit could not
be carried on at all, or even to a considerable extent. The
Legislature, at the time of passing the Acts which had been
referred to, had two objects in view, to permit banks of de-
posit to be carried on, and at the same time to protect
the Bank of England in its general circulation. It was
no argument against the existence of the prohibition,
that the persons affected by it would be able to transact
their business more conveniently and profitably without
it. There was nothing so unreasonable in the restric-
tion as to make it improbable the Legislature meant to
impose that restriction ; and as to the consequences against
which the Bank Acts were intended to guard, it could not se-
riously be doubted that the issuing of bills of exchange for
small sums payable on demand, or at short dates, might pro-
duce those consequences which the Legislature contemplated
as mischievous, and against which it was intended to protect
the Bank. The argument most relied on related to the pro.
hibition contained in the 6th of Anne. It was said the last
Act, the 3d and 4th of Will. 4, chap. 98, was not intended to
give any new privilege, but only to continue the privileges
given by the former Acts. It was on many accounts proper
to consider the statute of Anne, but the object which he had
in view on the present occasion was to ascertain the effect of the
Act of 3 and 4 Will. 4, and he looked only to the former Acts
for the purpose of obtaining a better construction of the latter,
The ad and 4th of William IV, after reciting the 7th of Geo,
IV., chap. 46, proceeds to authorise Corporations and part-
nerships, consisting of more than six persons, carrying on the
business of bankers in places exceeding the' distance of 65
miles from London, to issue their notes, payable as desired,
and to.borrow, owe, or take up sums of money on their own
notes, and all the members of the Corporations or copartner.
ships were made liable for the payment ef all notes so issued,
Tin tieVßlld Vecticq §utigkrisoB 8014 cksrpQr4tlm Qr cOrrtnery

ships to draw bills of exchange to the amount of fifty
pounds or upwards, payable in London ; but it prohibits
them from issuing any notes or bills payable on de-
mand, or to draw on any agent in London any bank-post
bill, or bill of exchange, or promissory note, for
a less sum than 501. Then the 3d section prohibits any such
Corporation from issuing any bill or promissory note, or any
bill of exchange, contrary to the provisions of the 39th and
40th of George the Third, save as provided by the Act on
that behalf. Then the 19th section imposes a penalty for any
violation of the provisions of the 2d and 3d sections There
was therefore nothing in the Acts which could throw any
doubt upon the meaning of the words " borrow," " take up,"
or " owe any sum of money" upon bills of exchange of a less
date than six months. The same words were found in the
39th and 40th of Geo. 111., chap. 28, and also in the 3d
and 4th Win. IV., chap. 98 ; and with reference to these
words, as contained in the 39th and 40th Geo. I I 1., chap. 28, the
provisions of the 7th Geo. IV. were enacted. By the provisions
of that Act, it appeared that the Legislature considered that the
acceptances of partners carrying on the business of bankers
were within the meaning of those words. It was argued, upon
the true construction of the 39 & 40 of Geo. 111., that the ac-
ceptance of bills of exchange by banking companies, consist-
ing of more than six persons, was not prohibited. The effect
attributed to that Act, it was contended, was erroneous ; and
that such erroneous attribution could not be taken in opposition
to the expressions used in the schedule to 7 Geo. IV. ; and that
it ought not to be inferred that the accepting of a bill of ex-
cha ‘ge amounted to the delivery of it, or ought to be considered
as an issuing of the bill. lit the enactments of the 3d and
4th Wm. IV., similar words were used. It was said if you
went back to the origin of these enactments, it would be found
that Corporations were in the habit of raising capital on their
sealed bills, sealed bill of credit, debt, or cha-ge ; and it was
said that partnerships, not being Corporations, might have
issued such sealed bills, by affixing the seals to them.
Because such things might be, and because such a species of
borrowing was not forbidden, it was argued that the words of
the Act could not have any application to the acceptances of
Bills of Exchange. He wished that Acts of Parliament were
uniformly more clear and explicit in their expressions, but
still the duty he now had to perform was to endeavour
to give the best construction of the Acts, without reject-
ing them on account of some difficulty, or straining them
to a sense which they could not properly hear. Looking at
the statute of Anne with the light afforded by the contempo-
raneous history, and considering the words with reference to
the different Acts of Parliament, and also their contempo-
raneous history, it appeared to him, for the reasons stated by
the Court of Common Pleas, that the words bills and notes in
the statute of Anne would with more propriety be confined to
bills of exchange than bills tinder seal. His Lordship could
not avoid thinking that upon the true construction of all the
Acts they did not prohibit parties in partnership consisting of
more than six persons carrying on the business of bankers,
from borrowing, owing, or taking up money upon bills
of exchange payable on demand, or at a less date
than sit months from the acceptance thereof. His Lordship
therefore concurred in the opinion of the Court of Common
Pleas. It was truly observed that that decision did not decide
the question respecting bills of exchange issued by persons
carrying on banks of deposit. There were many such ques-
tions, which were not, and could not be decided in the suit, as
it was at present constituted, and he would not therefore ex-
press an opinion upon them on the present motion ; some of
them were more fit for the consideration of the Legislature.
His Lordship thinking it unlawful for the London and West-
minster Bank to accept bills of exchange, payable on demand,
or at a less date than six months from their acceptance, and
finding that such acts have been done, and that the defendants
claimed the right to make such acceptances, he thought
that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction restraining
the defendants from repeating such acts. It was, however,
another question, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the
more extensive injunction which was claimed by the notice of
motion and at the bar. It was clear that the object of the
Legislature was to impose restrictions upon persons carrying
on the business of bankers ; but upon the present occasion ho
did not think it necessary that a more extensive injunction
should be granted than was necessary to protect the in-
terests of the plaintiffs. The order, therefore, his Lord-
ship would make was, that an injunction should be
awarded to restrain the defendants, their agents, clerks,
or servants, acting on behalf of the Company of
the London and Westminster Bank, so carrying on the
trade or business of bankers, from issuing or accepting, or
causing to be issued or accepted, any bill or bills of Exchange
payable on demand, or at any date less than six months from
the acceptance thereof.

Mr. PEMBERTON said, that Sir F. Pollock had offered,
when the case was originally before the Court, to suspend the
injunction, if it should be granted, so as to enable the defen-
dants to go to the House of Lords as soon as possible, in order
to obtain the decision of the highest tribunal of the country.
That was a very fair offer, and, under the present circum-
stances, he wished to know whether his Learned Friend still
abided by it.

The MASTER of the ROLLS observed that the case was one
of such extreme importance, that if it were decided to take it
to the House of Lords, he would do all hi his power to have it
heard in the course of the present session.
Sir F. PoLLock said, that since he had made that offer his
clients had been exposed to every delay by the course pursued
by the defendants. He would, however, communicate to his
clients the observations of his Learned Friend, and the sug-
gestion of his Lordship.
Mr. PEMBERTON said that his Learned Friend was perhaps
not aware that when the petition of appeal was presented,
his clients could come as a matter of right, and
claim the suspension of the injunction. There were at
the present moment bills running; and the Court having
granted the injunction, he trusted that the plaintiffs would
take no vexatious proceedings with respect to them, on the
ground of contempt.
Sir F. PoLLocx said that no such proceedings would be
taken on behalf of his clients.

Mr. KINDERSLEY, on the part of Mr. Muscatt, the Director
of the St. Alban's Branch Bank, asked for the costs of that
gentleman, the bill against him having been dismissed.
His LORDSHIP thought the proper course for him to pursue
would be, to reserve the question of costs till the hearing of
the cause.

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE KING •V. BRIGEITWELL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been instructed in this case,
which was a quo warranto calling upon the defendant to show
by what authority he exercised the office of one of the Alder-
men of the borough of Norwich, to move for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the Crown should not be set aside,
and a verdict entered for the defendant. The case was tried
at the last Norfolk Assizes, before Mr. Justice Parke, and he
made the present application in pursuance of leave reserved.
He apprehended, that if the facts which had appeared upon
the trial had been disclosed to their Lordships, they never
would have granted the rule, because it now turned out that
the election was perfectly fair, that there was no pretence for
saying that the wishes and intentions of the electors had not
been carried fully into effect. The question arose as to whe-
ther the electors had had an opportunity of expressing their
opinions as to who should be elected, and who should not. Mr.
Brightwell had been elected on the 31st December, 1835, to
serve until the following November, and no question had been
raised respecting the legality of his election, until a
few da3s previous to the termination of the period for
which he had been elected. There had been an election for
forty-eight councillors for the borough on the 26th December,
and they were to elect sixteen aldermen on the 31st December
following. They met for the purpose, a gentleman named
Geldart being called to the chair, and Mr. Fisher, one of the
forty-eiE ht councillors, proposed a list of sixteen persons.
Mr. Bignolles, who, it appeared, was the leader of the oppo-
site party, entered, objected, as he was fully warranted in
doing, to their politics, and proposed two others, Mr. More
and Mr. Furnham. A division took place, and there were
twenty for, and twenty-seven against, the election of the two
proposed by Mr. Bignolles. Mr. Fisher then again proposed
his list, and it was proved that the chairman called upon any
of the electors, if there was any objection to be made to any
of the names to state it. Nothing was done to prevent any
other list being proposed—on the contrary, the evidence of
the chairman was to the effect that he had told the elec-
tors to make any alterations or objections they thought pro-
per. The only thing relied upon by the Crown was the impera-
tive rigid rule of law, that in every such election the candidates
should have been put seriatim, and a separate vote taken on
each. If that proposition was a correct one, then he (the At-
torney-General) would admit that the election was a bad one ;
but if it was not, then he would contend that it was as good
and valid an election as had ever taken place.
Mr.. Justice PATTESON—It was not on that ground that the
quo warranto was granted.
The ATTORNEY.GENRRAL said the question had been so put
by the Learned Judge to the Jury, but according to the pro-
visions of the Municipal Act, the election of Aldermen by lists
was the recognised and legal mode.
COURT—Take a rule.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY).

WH•RUON U. CHUBB.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the
late assizes for Warwickshire, when a verdict was found for the
defendant.

• Mr. Sergeant GOeLBURN now moved for a rule Nisi to set
aside that verdict, on the ground of the verdict being against
the evidence in the cause. The action was brought to re-
cover the value of 20 shares in the Great Western Railway
Company, which the defendant had agreed to purchase, and
had given orders to the plaintiff to purchase for him. The
plaintiff purchased the shares at 12/. premium from a broker
named Harrison, with whom he entered into a written contract
for the same. The defendant admitted a tender and refusal
of the shares, and made out his case by showing fraud on the
part of the plaintiff, and he proved that the shares up to
the day in question, the first of October, 1835, had never
reached more than Gi/. prem. The broker Harrison•was not
called by either party,. which raised a suspicion in the mind of
his Lordship, and by some questions which he put, he raised a
suspicion in the minds of the Jury that the shares never be-
longed to the plaintiff—one of the witnesses., saying that Har-
rison introduced a gentleman to the defendant, but it was not
Whardon, at the same time saying that he was one of the gen-
tlemen who owned'the shares he had bought.
The LORD CmEr BARON said he was satisfied with the
verdict at the trial. He was of the same opinion still, but the
remainder of the Court were of opinion that the verdict ought
to have been the other way. There must;therefore be a new
trial! tie Informed the Learned Sergeant that if he should be
the Judge at the new trial, ho would require the scrip for the
tfloroo 10 130 Court. They were not before.—R4le cralitCd‘