The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

that there would be a difficulty as to estuaries
and tide rivers, but the traffic on canals might be
stopped on Sundays to the advantage of the
public. The Committee was appointed. We
hope their Lordships will examine the boatmen,
as well as the boat-owners and the clergymen, on
the lines of the canals. For our part we do not
believe that the boatmen wish for their Lord-
ships' interference. Let them, however, at least,
be asked. Perhaps the boatmen, taking our part,
will depute some of their own body to ask their
Lordships to hear them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a
Bill to remove doubts as to the liability of a
Peer to be punished for felony. Their Lordships
then adjourned.
In the Commons Sir CHARLES GREY extorted
a little explanation from Lord STANLEY as to a
speech the Noble Lord made in 1832, touching
the Irish franchise, in which the Noble Lord, as
reported in the Mirror of Parliament, was made
to speak throughout of a rent of 101., while he
had really spoken, he said, as the Bill spoke, of
an annual interest of 101. According to the Noble
Lord, the Mirror of ,Parliament had committed
an error throughout the speech, and made it un-
intelligible. Whether the reporters were in error
or the Noble Lord's memory have failed him, is not
for us to say. If the reporters were not in error,
however, the Noble Lord, when he brought for-
ward the Irish Bill, must have meant to give the
Irish a totally different franchise from that
for which the Noble Lord now contends.
The House went into a Committee on the
Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill. Lord
HOWICK moved an amendment to the first clause,
with a view to establish that the beneficial inte-
rest in a freehold or leasehold property shall be
the test of the right of voting. The Noble Lord
offered this amendment to the House with a
view of settling the important question, and me-
diating between the conflicting parties. He
spoke of the change proposed by the Ministerial
Bill as very great, and he treated it throughout
as upsetting the principle of making the franchise
depend on property. Yet the Noble Lord voted
for the second reading of the Bill, and then pro-
fes.sed himself pleased with the simplicity
of the rate-paying principle. He has now
come to the conclusion that the principle of
the existing law is wise, but the manner in
which it is carried into execution not so. He
proposes that the value of the property should
be ascertained by the assessment to the Poor-
rate. But were he to keep up the 10/. principle,
he would make the franchise even more stringent
than is contended for by the Tories ; he meant,
91erefore, to propose that the beneficial

interest, as determined by assessment to
the Poor-rate, should be 51. ; the 5/.
being over and above the rent payable. He
meant to propose, too, that being rated to the
poor at, it was understood, 20/., though the per-
son had no lease, should give a vote, thus esta-
blishing in Ireland, as in England, a right to
Tote in a tenant-at-will. The Noble Lord con-
cluded a long speech, by declaring that his
scheme was just and fair to all parties. Just and
fair, or not, it is one of those trifling, petty-
fogging arrangements, which are not adapted to
the age and to the people, and will be laughed
at, as if a doctor was to recommend a little
sugar to man in a violent fever.
Lord MORPETH opposed the amendment, and
declared his intention to abide by his own pro-
position. He properly pointed out that Lord
HOWICK'S introduction of a tenant-at-will fran-
chise was a total departure from the principle of
the Reform Act, and as great a change in princi-
ple as the Ministers had proposed. He consi-
dered it moreover a delusion, and not calculated
to enlarge the franchise.
Mr. C. WOOD spoke in favour of Lord
HOWICK'S proposition, and described it as an
addition to the franchise. He mentioned that
at present disfranchisement was at the rate of
1,000 persons a-year, and that in a few years
the whole question would have to be again taken
up. Lord MORPETH'S plan, he said, would dimi-
nish the number of electors to the extent of
one-sixth. The leasehold franchise was one of
sand, which was gradually falling away.
Sir C. GREY said the amendment, far from a
verbal one, would operate most injuriously.
Lord STANLEY considered the amendment
identified with the great principle for which he
contended, and which the Government measure
sought to destroy.
Mr. O'CONNELL merely confined his remarks
to telling the House that Ireland understood the
insults it was heaping on her.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he had made
concessions for the sake of getting the Bill
passed, and he was disappointed. He called on
the Tories, if it was their determination not to
allow the Irish to be represented, to take their
stand on that ground, and openly adhere to that
principle.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wound up the debate, di-
recting his force chiefly against what Lord JOHN
, RUSSELL had said, accusing him of seeking to
divert the attention of, and indulging in decla-
mations against the intentions of, his opponents.
After the Hon. Baronet resumed his seat, and
Mr. O'CONNELL, Lord HOWICK, and Lord Jonx
RUSSELL had given some explanation, the Com-
mittee divided. The result is stated above.
The House resumed soon afterwards—the
Committee to sit again on Wednesday—and then
adjourned.
Lord Howrcies first amendment, which in-
volves no consideration of amount, was adroitly
devised to catch all the Tories, and it caught
them. We are inclined to suppose that Minis-
ters were of opinion that the Tories would not
vote for it, and their too great confidence on this
point led to their defeat.

The Scotch successfully resisted the attempt
made in 1826 to put an end to the small note
circulation in Scotland. The letters of MALA-
CROWTHER, some of the fruits of that attempt,
written by Sir WALTER SCOTT, in the Edinburgh
Weekly Journal, and the replies of JOHN WIL-

SON CROKER, published in the Courier, then a
journal of considerable circulation and character,
made the attempt a part of our literary, as
well as our political history, and will cause it to
be long remembered. At present a somewhat
similar contest seems to be approaching, and the
Scotch have again taken to their pens and their
tongues in defence of their Vanking system.
A report of the proceedings of the Chamber of
Commerce of Edinburgh, on Wednesday last,
held to consider the subject, appears in another
part of The Sun. Besides that, the bankers in
Scotland have held a meeting, and have sent
a deputation to London to confer with the
Government, and oppose any plan which shall
trench on their system. It is our intention to
support their exertions as far as we can, because
we consider the Scotch system to be the nearest
approximation to a free trade in banking, which
has ever existed, and no other system has been
ever attended with anything like equal advanta-
ges. In the United States, the system is a
legislative humbug, almost as bad as it is in Eng-
land, the several States sanctioning, by the grants
of charters, and by making laws which are never
obeyed, the fraudulent tricks of the different
bunkers. In Scotland,—but we will borrow a de-
smiption of the system in existence there from
the Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle:—

BANK TINKERING.—The Bank of Scotland was established
so far back as the year 1695 and began to develope the dis-
tinctive features of the Scottish system of banking nearly at
the very first. In the year 1704 the first one-pound notes
wet e issued ; and interest en deposits was allowed, and cash
accounts were granted as early at least as 1729. The Royal
Bank was started in 1727, and the British Linen Company in
1746, and both of these adopted the same course as the original
bank. The gentlemen who first conducted these institutions
had many difficulties to overcome, and much to learn, but they
took their measures with great circumspection and judgment,
and were eminently successful both in enriching the share-
holders and benefiting the public. The prosperity of the
three banks above named, and the growing appreciation of
their utility, in course of time led to the establish-
ment of many rival Companies, but not more than have
proven beneficial to the country. Though a few of
these, and only a few, resulted unprofitably, the loss fell chiefly
on the shareholders, and not to any extent on the public.
The insolvency of a Scotch bank has been so rare an occur-
rence that it is as little apprehended as an earthquake. The
Scotch banking system has had the singular luck to escape,
hitherto, all legislative interference, and hence has taken that
form which exactly suits the circumstances in which it has
gradually expanded itself, and become an important organ in
the structure of society. Its nice adaptation to the purposes
for which it exists, could not have been contrived beforehand
by the most sagacious minds. Nothing but the lessons of ex-
perience could have enabled even the wisest of men to con-
struct the complex banking machinery, which is at ence so
powerful, so delicate, and so safe in its operations. Yet,
strange to say, there is too much reason to believe
that this admirable system, which has operated to the
signal benefit of the community, and been improved
from time to time by the most consummate men of
business the nation could produce, is menaced at this moment
with destruction, or, what is worse, with the tinkering of the
ignprant fox-hunters and conceited lawyers who sit in Parlia-
ment. One would have thought that these gentlemen would
have been cautious of touching the banking system which has
so long gone on prosperously without interference, at least till
they had managed to get the English system, which is the
creature of their legislation, into something like a perfect con-
dition. But so far from that being the case, the only motive
that can be
guessed at for the threatened attempt to meddle
with the Scotch Banking system, appears to be the unsatisfac-
tory operation of every system that has been tried in England.
It would puzzle anybody to see the reasonableness of
this. The people of Scotland rather object to being
humbugged in banking or anything else, " for the sake of
• •
uniformity," Two centuries ago they resisted successfully the