The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-24 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY

The causes that came before his Honour the Vice-Chancel
lor, up to the period of our reporter's leaving, wore totally de
void of public interest.

URT.-(THIS DAY.

BANK OF ENGLAND V. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER.BANK.
SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, on behalf of the Bank of Eng-
[and, in rcpiy, said that very little had been added to the ar-
gument of the defendants on the present occasion to that which
had been urged before the Court of Common Pleas. He
would show by authorities and statutes that the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas was founded on just legal principles,
that it was alone the conclusion to which that Court could
come, and that the province of this Court now was to grant
the injunction-in the terms prayed. The case sent to the
Common Pleas had been agreed upon by both parties ; every
fact considered to be material was inserted in it, and now the
other side had had the boldness to say, that assuming the judg-
ment of the Common Pleas to be right, there was no case for
an injunction. He did not understand, this, neither did be con-
sider it very respectful to the Court to pursue such a line of ar-
gument. The question his Lordship had to decide was whether
there was any statute which prohibited persons who were
bankers—their number exceeding six—from accepting a bill
in respect of money in their hands at a less date than
six ;months, they giving such bill in lieu of the money in
their hands. He would satisfy the Court the original inten-
tion of the Legislature was not to permit any persons exceed-
ing six in number to accept bills for any consideration what-
ever. :The argument had been divided into three material
questions : first, that " bills and notes," in the original Statute
of Anne, did not include bills of exchange; and that the word
"bill" meant a sealed bill ; secondly, that the word " bor-
rowed" did not apply to a transaction like the present; and,
thirdly, that the bills on which borrowing was prohibited were
not the bills of the London and 'Westminster Bank. His
Learned Friend Mr. Pemberton had started this proposition,
that the question of legislative protection granted by the dif-
ferent Acts of Parliament to the Bank turned on this, that the
Bank of England was a bank of issue ; that the word Bank
meant a national establishment, supplying its credit in the
place of the current coin of the realm ; and that the object of
the Legislature merely was to prevent an interference with the
substitution of. Bank paper in the room of the current coin.
On the first braitch of the argument he would observe, that
"sealed" bills had entirely disappeared from the year 1711 ;
and what did the word " bill" mean in the twelve or fourteen
Acts which had been passed since " sealed" bills had disap-
peared altogether ? A book from the Bodleian Library had
been 'referred to by the other side, on the subject of sealed
bills ; but he would refer to a legal authority, which he thought
the Court would pay more attention to; for it showed what
the contemporaneous exposition of the Acts of Parliament was.
Iu ?Tiers' Abridgment, under the head " Bills of Exchange,"
was this passage, showing what bills of exchange were then
understood to he :—" Bills of exchange at first extended only
to merchants, strangers, trading with English merchants; and
afterwards to inland bills between merchants trading the one
with the other here in England ; and afterwards to all traders
and negociators ; and, of late times, to all persons, trafficking
or not." That was in the Bth year of the reign of William
the Third.. Promissory notes soon afterwards followed ;
but, as early .as the Statute of Queen Anne, bills of
exchange had become very general. In the thirteenth
volume of the Commons' Journals, page 480, there was
a resolution clearly illustrative of the proposition, that in
1711 " sealed" bills were discontinued. Resolved-_" It is
the opinion of a Committee of the House of Commons that
the restraining the Bank of England from borrowing money at
interest, on any security that is not under their corporation seal
will be a great encouragement to trade, and a support of the
public credit." The 9th and 10th of William 111. chap. 44,
was decisive of the question, which was" an Act for the better
securing the privileges of the Governor and Company of the
Bank of England," because that act shewed that as far back as
1698 Bills of Exchange had been mentioned along with " other
bills or notes," and " bills or notes" was a phrase used in ac-
cordance with Bills of Exchange. In the 7th Geo. 1., there
was a similar enactment. Under these circumstances, he ap-
prehended that whether " sealed" bills were meant or not, Bills
of Exchange must be meant, and the very subject matter of the
enactment itself required that Bills of Exchange should be
included. Then upon the second branch of the argument that
this was not a" borrowing," he could not go higher in point of
authority than the two Statutes he had referred to. The Acts
of Parliament viewed it as a borrowing, and the Bank was to
be considered as hntrowing, the customer as lending. If that
was so, what was the effect of a Bill of Exchequer drawn by
the customer in favour of another party, and accepted by the
Banker ? It was a transfer of so much of the effects to the
person in favour of whom the bill was drawn and accepted.
v bill of exchange was the bill of the acceptor, and it was in
the faith of the Banker accepting the bill, which they were to
pay at the end of 21 days, that they were allowed to keep the
loan from the customer to them, and which, therefore, became
a borrowing on their part from the holder of the bill. Ile
contended, therefore, it was idle to say that this was not
a borrowing. The Learned Counsel then went into the cases
which have been quoted on this point, both in this Court and
the Common Pleas, and contended that the case of " Brough-
ton v. Manchester Water Works," had not been overruled by
any subsequent decision. Under all the circumstances, he
contended there was a sufficient case made for the injunction,
and hoped the Court would grant it without delay.
Lord LANGDAT.E said he should take time to consider it, and
would not take longer time than was absolutely necessary,
owing to the other engagements that pressed upon him