The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-13 00:00:00

-,410
tihe
• "A I. - -

LONDON,
SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 13, 1833.

WI,
lek -en men speak and write about the
of coining paper inoney, we wish they
the -41 Put the question to themselves, why shouetc,
by law of coining paper money be conferred
WO Upon any person or persons whatever ?
bled/o4hbuld the Bank of England be ena
%rife sell its notes, by the exclusive privilege
Pal-13,1:41 upon it? No other Banking Corn-
they ao sell its notes, or put them forth, unless
Wh,74,e required from them by their customers.
b "u'old the
Bank of England be enabled
the 14 t° use its notes as capital, and to deluge
°thet/11-41 with its power of over-issue ?No
eaPitsi 44king Companies can use their notes as
1111,!4t%% f ,TheY can use them only as instru-
711Y :1;'-'xchange, as coin is used in currency.
irctilati-euld there ever be more of notes in
were „o°4 than there would be of coin if there
elusiYA il°tes If the Bank possessed no ex-
.. nr;,..,
42ar "liege, we affirm there never would be.
4tivarl't-211' when men speak and write about the
Would-lea of a metallic currency, we wish they
third, ask themselves how it happens that two-
for 1; of our currency are in paper. Is it not.
e very same reason that gold and silver in
°l1.• are more convenient for the purposes of
lloli?g and selling than gold and silver in bui -
vel,; In truth, notes are so much more con-
or nt for the purposes of currency than gold
he,,,d
erver coin, that gold or silver coin would
ah,ol be required for them, beyond what is
the utelY necessary for petty transactions, if
°f the exchangeable value of notes were al ways
adopt'4llie exchangeable value with the standard,
Th41,,t1,,hY law, whether that be gold or silver.
(.0,6" it is neither advantageous nor possi-
ustely us it
have a metallic currency, it is abso-
4taitnr,ecessary that we should have a metallic
,11() pti-rm. But we have a metallic standard to
bal ih rPh°Be, if it is to be suffered to be destroyed
t'•4'll.te. '3wer of over-issue conferred upon the
Pan,.ll further,
eurrene-Y , hen men speak and write about
eut
driving gold out of circulation,
sll Le
rebY would ask themselves, is the gold
4t not jth'ost to the country ? On the contrary, is
thereby restored to the purposes of com-
titaw hot
frein
theevery ounce of gold. with-
co 'le purposes of commerce a loss to
111'"Y? I •
tr'34Per Sit not one of the advantages of
1' the I.l,:trency to have the cheapest in place
4'l'l is pr,(l).,st expensive instrument of exchange,
itN `1 in coin useful for any purpose, but
W 'rbient of exchange ?
,t4tio e Put the
itit 114 i.that the B
se qu.eisltions. not with any expec-
.tc44Y, —ord ALTRI 0 which has been brought
w,
Wish the country at large to become.
Int
er it es. wan the subject, that when, if
It a& shall be
LI):" are to Proposed to renew such parts
be
apas.s, the sense of the people may b
()f. g.salnat them. With a view to the
, tlr)d
e.: better arrangement at an early
ontend--1. That provision should

be made for putting an end to the exclu •
sive privilege upon reasonable notice, and upon
the repayment to the Bank of the debt due to it
by the Government ; 2. That Bank notes shall
not be declared a legal tender, because, so long
as the exclusive privilege exists they will not be
of the same exchangeable value with gold, and
will even be lowered in exchangeable value by
this very declaration ; 3. That the exclusive
privilege shall be confined to 35 miles from
London, and that joint-stock banking com-
panies, not issuing notes, may be allowed to
establish themselves even in London, or within
the limited distance, whether it be 65 or 35 miles.

We hope that those Members of the House
of Commons who are opposed to cant and
humbug will make a point of attending on
Monday next, and throwing out Mr. PETER'S
Sunday Starvation Bill, which comes on for a
second reading on that day. Were the Bill in
question at all practicable ; were it founded on
principles of common sense or justice, of course,
as public journalists, anxious to further, by every
means in our power, the well-being of the
people, we should be foremost to recommend
it ; but it is nothing of the sort ; it is
simply absurd and visionary, and so far from
advancing the cause of religion, lends an
impetus only to the movements of hypocrisy.
At this late period of the session, too, when
every hour is wasted that is not devoted to the
consideration of questions of real practical utility,
it is too bad that cant should be allowed t o make
good her claim to the monopoly of one night's
discussion. Mr. PETER would do well to allow
people to employ themselves after their own fa-
shion on the Sabbath, provided they transgress
the laws neither of propriety nor common sense,
instead of compulsorily insisting on their be-
coming puritanical hypocrites. Mr. BULWER,
speaking on this subject, observes—" It is by
making the Sabbath dull that we make it dan-
gerous. Idleness must have amusement, or it
falls at once into vice ; and the absence of en-
tertainments produces the necessity of excess."
There is much wisdom in this remark, which,
brief though it be, is by far the most compre-
hensive reply we have yet met with, to the crude,
stern, sanctimonious theories of Sir A. AGNEW
and Mr. PETER.

It is stated this morning in the Ministerial
circles that several of the Tory Peers, alarmed
at the prospect of commotion, have be-
come of a sudden moderate, and have an-
nounced their intention of allowing the Irish
Church Reform Bill to pass, with a few
slight modifications, through the House of Lords.
It is, therefore, thought the measure will not
be successfully opposed. Such is now the im-
pression in the Ministerial circles, but we
cannot find that the Tories generally confirm
this cheering view. On the contrary, they
talk and threaten as loudly as they did. It seems
certain, whatever may be the result of the
opposition to the Irish Church Bill, that there
will be some Ministerial changes, for there has
been a marked difference lately between some of
the most influential Members of the Cabinet, and
it is not probable, if the liberal party get the
upper hand, that it will allow the temporizers
to remain.

We quoted on Thursday the promise of
Lord BROUGHAM not to be discouraged in his
endeavours to refbrm the law by the rejection
of the Local Courts Bill, but to persevere in
offering to the House such measures as, in his
judgment, justice required at his hands. This
promise has already been amply redeemed, for last
night his Lordship brought in no less than three
important Bills relatingto the administration oldie
law. The Chancery Regulation Bill, to which we
have more than once adverted, went through a
Committee pro forma. To please certain Noble
Lords, some important clauses of this Bill have
been struck out in the Select Committee,
hut Lord BROUGHAM promises to make
them the subject of a separate measure.
The. first of the new Bills he brought
forward was founded upon the report of the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners, and is intended to
remodel the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Courts. There are no less than 340 of these,
some of them established only for a parish or
two, whilst others extend over large districts. This
evil, and others connected with it, are suffi-
ciently obvious, and no observation was made
upon the statement of the CHANCELLOR, except
by the Marquis of WESTMEATH, whose ex-
perience of the Ecclesiastical Courts will be as
little matter of dispute as of envy, and he
expressed a fear that all the recommendations of
the Commissioners had not been adopted. It
is wonderful how sharply a man looks after
the removal of evils by which he has himself suf-
fered. Here is Lord WESTMEATH, who hasspent
enough in different Ecclesiastical Courts to make
the fortunes of half a dozen Proctors, hopes that
all the recommendations of the Commis-
sioners for their amendment will be adopted.
But where was his Lordship on the divi-
sion on the Local Courts Bill ? We do not find
his name either in the majority or the minority.
The mere " Poor Man's Bill" was not worth
attending to, we suppose. Simple neglect of
duty from idleness is a sin, which his Lordship
would have to share with many of his fellows ;
but it contrasts badly with such readiness to at-
tend to his own interests. The Local Courts Bill
will doubtless again come under the consideration
of the House of Lords, and we trust to
find his Lordship among its supporters.
The second Bill brought in by Lord BROUGHAM
is intended to give two puisne Judges of the
Court of Review a concurrent jurisdiction with
the Insolvent Court in cases of insolvency, so
that insolvents may not be detained in prison
during the long vacation, for want of a tribunal
to adjudicate their cases. It is intended also that
the Judges of the Insolvent Court should extend
their circuits to Wales. His Lordship stated
that other alterations would be required when
the Bill of the Solicitor-General, giving a right
to seize a debtor's property instead of his person,
should be passed. We are glad that his Lord-
ship only considers his present Bill a temporary
one, for, independently of the alterations which
would be effected by the Bill of the Solicitor-
General, and of the Local Courts Bill, it is
worthy of consideration whether a fitter time can
be desired for the amalgamating not only the
Insolvent and Bankruptcy Courts, but the whole
of those two branches of law. .

The third Bill is, however, beyond a doubt,
the most important of the whole. It was intro-
duced to the House last session, and we fear
that it will not reach a very advanced stage this
session unless Parliament sits much longer than
was a short time back expected. The main ob-
ject of this Bill is in some degree to separate the
political from the judicial functions of the LORD

CHANCELLOR. His Lordship stated that « the
Bill proposed that the Court of Appeal should
consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of
the—Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor, a Baron of the
Exchequer, together with another Judge, to be
appointed to assist in the Court of Chancery.
There would then be a Court of Appeal ready
to sit at all times, and to administer speedy jus-
tice. It would not be an appeal from one Judge
to one Judge, but to several Judges. It was in-
tended by the Bill to appoint a Chief Judge in
Equity, preserving, however, to the Lord Chan-
cellor, his political functions, his Ministerial
functions, his functions as a Judge of that House
in cases of appeal to their Lordships, and also
his functions as a judge in the Privy Council.
It also provided that his judicial functions in the
Court of Chancery should be exercised whenever
it was necessary ; and it also provided that he
should still continue to have jurisdiction
in cases of lunacy." This amount of duty
is quite enough, if not too much, for a man
of even extraordinary versatility and power,
to discharge ; but we think his Lordship must
be misreported when he is made to say that
the Chancellor's amount of labour will not he
much diminished by the change. It is clear
that the duty thrown upon the new Equity
Judge must relieve the Chancellor of a la-
bour that he has had to perform, although,
perhaps, to the neglect of other duties
equally important. We should mention
that the salary of the new Chief Judge in Equity
is to be provided for by reductions in the sala-
ries of the CHANCELLOR, who is cut clown to
8,0001. per annum, of the Chief Justice of the
Common Plead, who is reduced to 7,000/., and
of the Master of the Rolls, who is placed
upon a par with the Vice-Chancellor. These
are vast and important changes in the
administration of justice in equity, but
they are not greater than is absolutely requi-
site, in order to make any impression upon the
hardships arising out of the present constitution
and practice of the Court of Chancery. Re-
formers must not be discouraged at the cold-
ness manifested by the House of Lords to
the improvements of Lord BROUGHAM. It
is the business of Reformers either to shame
the Upper House into decency, or to bring it
into disrepute with the people, by making its
aversion to any change, however much required,
apparent to all the world, and so forcing on an
infusion of liberality into an assembly which is
at present as illiberally disposed as it is possible
for any equal number of men to be. Now is
the time, we say, for law reformers to struggle,
for they cannot expect a BROUGHAM to turn up
every day.