The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-27 00:00:00

Bank of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said
he did not stand up as the advocate of the Bank of
Ireland, and the question then was, whether these
privileges, which everybody condemned, were to be con-
tinued ?—( Hear, hear.) He was surprised to hear the
Hon. Member for Bridport say there was a free trade in
banking in Ireland. Ireland was a very obnoxious term
in that House, but it was necessary they should understand
what was meant by the term free trade in banking. There
was nothing in a free trade in banking which precluded
these companies from being restricted by the Government
as to their proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) He was sur-
prised to hear the. Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets
say that the system of a paper currency convertable into
gold at sight had failed. Why the Bullion Committee
had reported that to be the only safe and economical cur-
rency, and Mr. Horner, Mr. Huskisson, and Mr. Ricardo,
entertained the same opinions. What new light had
sprung up, to shew that that system was an erroneous one ?
America had been referred to, but that was no fair test of
that system, inasmuch as paper was then made a legal tender,
and taxes were paid in it. He maintained, with the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny, that there could not be an over
issue when the notes were made payable at sight. If there
was an over-issue the paper became depreciated, and was
purchased up. During the war that had been frequently
done, and if they only realized I- per cent. the profit was
sufficient to remunerate the parties who presented the
paper. That was the great check upon the over-issue of
paper in that country. So long as they had two great
Joint-stock Companies influencing the commerce and cir-
culation of the country and the world, wi-h extraordinary
privileges, they could not give the system a fair trial. He did
not know what the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer) meant by continuing the monopoly--it
was a continuance of the system he had himself condemned,
and he feared if the present opportunity was lost it would
perpetuate the system for four or per Laps ten years. The
fact was, the subject was distasteful to the House. They
were not thoroughly acquainted with it, and its discussion
would be just as objectionable and distasteful in 1840 as
it was in 1839. He feared, therefore, there was nothing
in perspective but a continuation of these two most mis-
chievous monopolies of the Bank of England and the Bank
Ireland. Any person who read Mr. Huskisson's speeches
in 1826, and who knew what was the opinion of that pe-
riod, must be convinced that if the House did its duty, the
charter never would have been continued. He feared in
1840 or 1842, there would be the same listless and reck-
less system of legislation at a period of the Session when
Hon. Members were heartily tired of it. Let them take
advantage of the present opportunity, and put an end
to that most mischievous monopoly, which had been
productive of much evil to Ireland. For these reasons
he should vote most strenuously against the renewal of the
Charter.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ELLIS thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had very little reason to congratulate himself upon having
brought the subject under the consideration of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that that
was a question of greater importance than any that
had been discussed concerning Ireland. He conceded that
to him, but in doing so he should not refrain from remind-
ing him that they were discussing that important matter on
the 26th of July, and he thought they-had a right to com-
plain of the unfair manner in which they were treated by
having that important question brought on so late. It had
been agitated for four years, and was of importance enough
to have formed a topic in the Royal Speech.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) He confessed that he saw no reason
why the privileges of the Bank of Ireland, which
amounted to a monopoly, should be continued. The accomoda-
tion afforded by the Bank was not adequate to the new wants of
the commercial community. If the system was good for
Dublin, why should it not be extended to Liverpool and Bir-
mingham? If the monopoly was to be continued, why should
it be confined to the Bank of Ireland ? It was proved that the
fluctuations in Scotland had been much less than those in Eng-
land and Ireland, owing to the banking system, then carried
on. Why should that system not be extended to Ireland.
There were other banks who would gladly perform all the
duties now performed by the Bank of Ireland, and for which
she was well paid.—(Cries of " Question, question.") He
was sorry to detain the House—(Hear, hear) he would
merely inform them of the state of commercial accommodation
afforded to the place he had the honour of representing. In
Newry, with its 13,000 inhabitants, and trading to the amount
of 1,135,5.171., the accommodation afforded by the Bank of
Ireland in 1832 was 293,8001., while in 1836 it was only
164,0001., so that while trade was increasing, the accommo-
dation was decreasing. The monopoly ought to cease, and
Ireland ought to be put upon the same footing with Scotland
and England—by continuing the monopoly they did not give
Ireland a fair chance.—(Loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Right Hon. Baronet, the Mem-
ber for Tamworth, had thrown out a suggestion which ought
to be acted upon—let the whole empire be treated alike on such
a question. The privileges of the bank were continued
according to the present laws so long as the Government
pleased therefore the question did not press. Why not
leave it till next Session, when it might be consi-
dered in reference to the whole kingdom. In one of
the Dublin papers it was stated, with respect to the inter-
view of the deputation with the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, that he agreed in the necessity of giving free banking
trade to Drogheda and Dundalk. That was the opinion of the
deputation. Many persons had a greater opinion of the inge-
nuity than of the sincerity of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and
they were justified in that opinion by his conduct on this occa-
sion. As the mistake has only been discovered within these
three weeks, he trusted the further consideration of the ques-
tion would be postponed till the next Session, and he therefore
moved that the Chairman leave the chair.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —s6
The House again divided on the original motion, when there
appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority -55
In answer to a question by Mr. ELLIS,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
should bring up the Report on Monday, and introduce the
Bill.
The House then resumed.
METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS RILL.

Mr. FOX MAULE moved that the House resolve itself into
Committee on the Metropolitan Courts Bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Col. T. WOOD proposed that the number of Magistrates be
twenty instead of twenty-seven.
Mr. LAW suggested the postponement of this section and
several other clauses until the House had decided whether they
would entrust to the Magistrates the extraordinary powers
proposed by this Bill.
Mr. FOX MAULE could not consent to the postponement
of the clause. The Bill had been a long time before the
House, and if any amendments were intended to be proposed
ample time had been afforded for doing so.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not see the object
that would be obtained by postponing the clause.
Mr. HAWES thought the amendment of the Hon. and
Gallant Member for Middlesex for reducing the number of
Magistrates to 20 would be attended with considerable ill ef-
frets.

Mr. KEMBLE would support the amendment of the Hon
and Gallant Member for Middlesex.

After a short discussion, Col. T. WOOD withdrew his
amendment. And

The Committe divided upon the question, that the clause
be postponed, when there appeared—
For the postponement 24
Against it
Majority against the postponement —44
On our return to the Gallery, we found
Colonel WOOD suggesting that it would be better to leave
out the number of Magistrates altogether. If twenty-seven
was placed in the Bill, it was a sort of index that that number
would be appointed; and he should, therefore, move that the
number be omitted.

After a few words from Mr. HumE and Lord J. RUSSELL,
the amendment was withdrawn and the clause agreed to.
Clause 3, relating to the retired allowances of Magistrates,
was agreed to, after a few verbal amendments. _
_ _

On clause 4 being put, as to the appointment of Recorders,
Mr. LAW moved that it be postponed.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
the gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place.
Mr. LAW then proposed that the Magistrates should be
appointed from barristers of ten years' standing instead of seven.
Mr. WAKLEY said in society it was generally found that
barristers were more devoid" of common sense than any other
class.—(Laughter.) Their education almost incapacitated
them from knowing what was going on in society. They were
one day paid for converting truth into falsehood, and the next
day they were paid for converting falsehood into truth, and thus
they went on until they had the greatest difficulty in discovering
one from the ether. This was a proposition for converting
barristers into Government toad-eaters.—(Much laughter.)
The Secretary of State ought to have the fullest opportunity
of selecting from any class whatever, where he could find per-
sons best qualified for filling the office, and h e should
propose the omission of the words, " Barristers of seven years'
standing."
Mr. LAW said he should not enter into a defence of the pro-
fession from the attack just made on them. Their character
was their best defence.

Mr. FOX MAULE opposed the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury.
Mr. WAKLEY said he should divide the House on his
amendment, and trusted the House would reject the clause.
Mr. HUME thought that men might be found in otoer
classes of society equally well qualified to fill the situation of
Magistrates with Barristers. The Secretary of State ought to
have a discretion to appoint the most proper person, and he
should support the amendment.
Mr. HAWES trusted the House would not agree to the
amendment of the Hon. Member for'Finsbury. This was a
judicial situation, and the person filling it, ought to have a
judicial qualification. If this proposition should be agreed to,
it would open a door for the admission of persons who might
be wholly incompetent to fill the situation.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but Mr. Wakley
withdrew his amendment, and none took place.
Mr. LAW also withdrew his amendment, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 5 being put,
Mr. LAW moved as an amendment that the Magistrates to
be appointed under the Bill should hold their office during their
good behaviour.
Mr. KEMBLE wished to know whether there was any
clause in the Bill giving a power to the Secretary of State to
remove the Magistrates appointed under the 13111?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if they were not ap-
pointed during good behaviour they could be removed.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, Committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment .............................. 25
vrbalamendments.ee
Against it .......................... , ...... '
i —.59
...".n"du"nts.. 84
Majority the
amendments,
was agreed to.
The
clause,with
a verbalafgnewst
Clause 6 was agreed to, with some amendment

FIL 0' and
bei riogowr:ooearldet aegHlraceregdeo increase in the salaries of the
Clauses uclause
,
per annum, and it was now
Mr. HUME objected
thought they could get men of
proposed to make it 1,-0 .
They had formerly 14001.
Magistrates.
adequate talents and ability to fill the office for 1,000/., and he
should propose that the sum he 1,0001. instead of 1,200/. There
was a chief magistrate, to whom it was proposed to give 1,4001,
and he should propose to reduce that to 1,9.00/.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought there ought to be no distinction be-
tween the salaries of the chief and the other parties. The only ad-
ditional chit/ he had to perform Was to go to the Home Office and
have a little conversation with the Secretary•:
Mr. FOX MAULE said these salaries had not been fixed without
reference to the Report and recommendation ot‘ the Committee.
He thought a salary of 1,200/. a-year could not. be considered too
high for the important duties they had to perform. The present
salary of the Chief Magistrate was 1,2001., and he thought an addi.
Con of 2001. was not exorbitant.
Mr. ICA WES begged to remind "the House that Cohimrssfonere
iiil-riaers, who had by no means such important duties to perform
were paid as high, if not higher, than it was proposed to pay these