The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-12 00:00:00

JOINT STOCK BANKS.

On the motion for bringing up the reiio7t-an this Bill,
The Earl of RADIIOR presented a petition against it.
It was numerously signed by the unchartered banks of
Scotland.
The Earl of St. GERMANS hoped that his Noble Friend
the President of the Board of Trade would not postpone
this Bill until another session. He knew that his Right Hon.
Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid
a great deal of attention to the subject, and as he
(the Earl of St. Germans) considered it to be a very good
measure, he hoped that it would become the law of the
land without delay.—(Hear, hear.) He really thought that
his Noble Friend who had first spoken did not really
understand the provisions of the Bill. The Bill did
not propose to affect in any way the present banks
of Scotland. If the proprietors of those banks sought
for charters, then certainly they would come under the opera-
tions of the Bill (which would extend to Scotland
the same privileges as were enjoyed I" England).
To him the Bill appeared to be most simple and unob-
jectionable. It would compel those banks that would
come under its oporation to give the names of their
partners, the amount of capital, the position of bank, the
number of the shareholders, and the value of the shares,
&c. After all the bankruptcies and miseries that had
happened under the old Joint Stock Companies' law, it did
appear to him that this Bill aught not to be postponed for a
single day, as it would confer great benefits on the people of
Scotland.
Lord KINNAIRD thought, that after what had fallen from
the Noble Earl, it was necessary for him to contradict some of
his statements with regard to the horrors, miseries, and bank-
ruptcies which had taken place in Scotland.—( Hear, hear.)
Earl ST. GERMANS—I said in England
Lord KINNAIRD still maintained that tile same remarks as
applied toEngland, applied to Scotland with reference to banking.
All parties connected with banking in Scotland bad expressed
themselves in the strongest terms against this Bill. The present
system had worked to the satisfaction of all parties in Scotland,
and after the deputations that had waited upon Sir
Robert Peel with respect to it, previous to the late
change of Ministry, it was hoped that the Bill
would be hung up, for this session at least, and he
therefore protested against it being pressed forward
at so late a period of the session. The bankers
of Scotland, as well as the landed gentry, had ex-
pressed themselves most decidedly against the Bill.
He must certainly complain of the hurried manner in which
Government was passing this Bill through. The Bill had
taken the bankers of Scotland by surprise, and he thought for
the present it ought not to be persisted in.
The Earl of CLARENDON said it would have been much
better had this discussion taken place when the Bill came be-
fore their Lordships; but, at all events, he trusted the question
would not be discussed a second time.—( Hear, hear.) Now
be must express his surprise at the statement of the Noble
Lord that the Scotch bankers had been taken by surprise. It
was introduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chan-
- eeilor of the Exchequer last year, but owing
to the neceessity for poroguing Parliament earlier
than was expected, the Bill was postponed.
On the 16th of July, notice was given that the Bill would
be read a second time on the 22d of the month. When
that day carne the Government were asked to delay
the second reading -till the 30th, in order to receive
s deputation from the Scotch bankers against the
Bill. When that deputation was received, the
only reason given by them against the Bill
was that the banking interest of Scotland had been
taken by surprise. Under these circumstances, there-
fore, the Government determined on proceeding with
the Bill. There was only one division in the other
House on the Bill when but 14 voted against it. It was then sent
up to this House. Lord Eglinton at first opposed it, because
be thought it was against the interests of the unchartered
banks, but he afterwards found out that he was mistaken, and
withdrew his opposition. The provisions of the Bill were
simply to extend those of the English Banking Act to Scotland.
The Act had worked extremely well in England, and would,
he bad no doubt, do so in Scotland.
After a few words from the Earl of RADNOR, to the effect ,
that he trusted better reasons than had been given would be
brought forward ere the Bill passed. the subject dropped.
TITHE AMENDMENT BILL.
' On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, this Bill
went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third
time on Thursday next.
DEBATE ON THE SUGAR DUTIES.
The Bishop of OXFORD was desirous to draw the attention
of their Lordships to a matter personal to himself, though it
was not wholly personal to himself. He alluded to the unusual
course adopted last night with respect to the sugar duties in
taking the debate on th, first, instead of the second reading
of that measure. He was entirely ignorant of that arrange-
ment, and the consequence was that the debate went forth
to the public without his having taken any part io it, although
it was his determination to have done so. As far as their Lord-
ships were concerned, his absence might not be of much con-
eminence, but he considered that such a departure from the
erdinary course was a personal injustice to himself, as he was
most desirous to have had an opportunity of entering his
protest against the measure. He said he was anxious to take
that opportunity of saying that something like an understand-
fog having been come to, that there would be no further debate
on the second reading, he, being no party to that agreement,
could not be bound by any such agreement. He said he did
not stand alone • he had been requested to mention this on
behalf of the Right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, who
was equally ignorant of any arrangement, though he was
present at an early part of the evening last night:
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE saidnothing could be
further from the intentions of Noble Lords en that side the
House than to take any course which would exclude any Noble
Lord from taking part in the debates.
Lord BROUGHAM—There was no understanding.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said there wasa
comm
consent that the whole business on the Bill should beopenoedn
on the
first reading; but it was not intended thereby to ex-
clude any party who thought proper to re-open the debate on
the second reading.
OXFORD said he did not mean that he
intention of Noble Lords to exclude
The Bishop
itsthobpadof
supposed dth •h •
any, but he laments beentthheat he, an o ers wit him, not being
. to that arrangent, had been excluded from taking part
privy
In the discussion.
Lord BROUGHAM said that no one suffered more than he
did, having come 300 miles to attend the House a week earlier
than lw intended; but at the same time he felt the arrange..
anent to be a great convenience at thattimefoorf
tthhee
cseouunitorny,
when many of their Lordships were leaving
but he felt nothing more than the absenocef
Wilberforce
i itbheer Hon.fßorigeehtsho
ill c I
Prelate from the debate. That the name
be left out in a debate on slavery and the slave trade was
lc
-g 40she, anilt d
unlnsyotf h ha liiiust
DagorewelEle
fail o tlt
upon
7. ..r Ttheir Lordships'
t.," - -
tilts 4 o.4ninutes of the Committee of the PrivyCouncilthone
``' 1 Edecstioti also the sixth report of the Commission on
(-4 Fine Ittlfe

TREATY OF VIENNA.
Lord I:I7BAUMONT rose to call the attention of their Lord-
ships to the subject of which he had given notice, with reference
to events which had taken place in Cracow and its neig,hbour •
hood, and the violation of the treaty of Vienna. Ile founded
bis claim to the attention of their Lordships on three grounds—.