The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-20 00:00:00

BANK CHARTER.

Lord ALTHORP moved the order of the day for the
third reading of the Bank Charter Bill.
{llr. COBBETT would propose that it be read a third
time that day six months. He had no objection to the
renewal of the Chart-r, or to that partof the Bill which
had relation to joint-stock companies. His great objection
was to the legal tender. He doubted the right of Parlia-
ment to make bank-notes a legal tender. To coin money
was the prerogative of the Crown, which could not be
taken away nor delegated by the Crown itself. This was
the first time it was proposed to enact a legal tender. The
King, by such a step; was made the partner of a body of
merchants, who alone could profit by the partnership.
The Noble Lord (Althorp) told them there would
be no fluctuation now in the value of money, as was
the case formerly. How did the Noble Lord know
that ? Making bank notes a legal tender must have the
effect of increasing the quantity of bank paper, and therefore
of diminishing their value. Water could not be p:.tired
into wine, and have the wine still remain as strong as
it was before. All the Members who supported this Bill
did so upon the ground that it would depreciate the cur-
rency and raise prices. In fact it had already caused a
rise of prices, and millions' worth of goods were ordered
from foreign countries in the expectation that prices would
rise. The Noble Lord (Althorn) was deceived if he
thought he could check the issue of bank paper when the
exchanges were against them. The state of the exchanges
did not prevent an over issue in 1825 and 1826. Tiie
fact was, the gold was not exported till long after a❑
over-issue, and it was impossible to get it back imme
diately when the inconvenience began to be felt. It was
the-over-issue of paper in 1824 which produced the panis
of 1825. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
182* gave a glowing description of the present prosperity
and future prospects of the country he (Mr. Cobhett)
said, "Your prosperity will be of short duration, your
banks will be blown up in two years ;" and it happened six
months earlier than he predicted. Thjs discovery, however,
was not his. He had not the merit of it. It was diUdis-:
covery of a plain tradesman in Marylebone, who came
and told him such Would be the result, and thirfiiY
diction would be verified in eighteen months. He (Mr.
Cobbett) did not wish to run the risk of announcing the
fulfilment within so short a period, and therefore to make
the matter more secure took two years. It was too much
to place such power in the hands of any set of merchants.
It was against law ; it was flying in the face of common
sense and experience. What was the use of making bank
notes a legal tender, having once more got back to the

King's eolno . e Z told it would relieve the coun-
'ry. How? By rendering people better able to pay
taxes; but in proportion as they gave relief in this way,
they must also create danger. If he consulted merely the
gratification of his own feelings, he ought to rejoice at this
measure, for it went to prove his prediction that Peel's
Bill could never be carried into effect. That Bill pro-
vided that a legal tender should cease, and that 11. notes
should be no more issued. 'I he Noble Lord was, in fact,
passing a Bill to made him (Mr. Cobbett) a true prophet.
He was already making preparations for the festival of
the gridiron. He had it gridiron ready in Bolt-court half
the size of the window. If this Bill passed, he would
continue to dress the gridiron with laurel as long as he
lived, and it should remain so decorated until they came
hack again to the legal coin of the realm.
Mr. CLAY seconded the amendment. He believed it
teas not the object of the Noble Lord by this measure to
put an end to the convertibility of notes into gold, but it
must in a great degree have that effect. Why ratify the
bargain with the Bink now when no party approved of
it ? There were few in the House or out of it who thought
it an advantageous one. The House, by allowing the
Rill to be read a second time, ratified the interoretation
putt upon the agreement by the Noble Lord (Althorp).
The Noble Lord very properly brought forward a cl jute
'he other night to remove doubts upon the point whether
joint-stock compsuies of deposit with more than six
partners might exist within less than sixty.fire miles of
London. It was the opinion of the Solicitor-General and
of other able lawyers that the B ink had no legal right to
prevent such establishments. A meeting of Bank Pro-
prietors, however, was held, and a resolution come to that
'he terms of the agreement were &parted from by the
introduction of tl.ii clause into the Bill, and the Bank
-aid they only con'ented to ratify the engagement because
they considered it advantageous to the public. For his
part he had no wish to force it on them. It was ri.iicu-
'out, or something worse, to see "the re'uctant, amorous
tklay" with which the Bank came into terms which they
knew were highly to their advantage. Some weeks ago
he told the Noble Lord that this measure would be pro-
ductive of extensive speculation. The Noble Lord denied
i'. He was now confirmed in his prediction by all he saw
and heard Prices rose 30, 40, 50, and even 100 pr
cent. The Noble Lord might look for great revulsion and
for extensive distress in the course of next winter. The
legal tender was a decided infringement of principle. His
only consolation was that the Bill would net come into
op ration till August, 1834, and he had no doubt the voice
of the public would by that time be raised strongly against
it. He opposed it, first, as a bad bargain ; secondly, be-
cause of the legal tender; thirdly, because there was no
necessity for the measure now, because it was pregnant
with d inger by its tendency to increase paper money and
to narrow the metallic bases.

Mr. FRYER would not oppose the Bill further. He
would recommend to Ministers to make provision against
a scarcity of gold by a large issue of crown pieces. This
silver money would answer for the payment of wages. He
had no doubt the gold would be withdrawn if Bank paper
was made a legal tender. By making silver a legal tender
it was to give the landowners an advantage of 10 per
cent., and then that odious tax the Coin Law might be
repealed.
Mr. HERRIES should not oppose the further progress
of the Bill, as the most important clause had been so
modified by the addition of a few words as to remove any
ground of serious alarm. They were called upon to de-
termine upon an accusation of a very grave character,
brought by the most important body in this country are!
perhaps in the world, the Bank of England, against his
Majesty's Government. The charge brought against the
Government was of injustice and bad faith ; and, with
this measure before then), that House was undoubtedly
called upon by the adoption of the measure to implicate
itself in the charge one way or the other.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bank of England had declared that they submitted
reluctantly to the measure brought in by his Majesty's
Government, and they protested against the proceedings
adopted towards them. Now he (Mr. Herries) was one
who thought the Bank had no right to be dissatisfied with
this measure so far as Parliament was concerned. As to
the Noble Lord, however, the case was different ; for he
was accused of having made specific engagements anti
promises to the Bank, and not having performed them.
If he (Mr. Herries) could be satisfied that the law was
as his Majesty's Government contended it was, then he
should he prepared to give his assent to the Bill as it
stood. The House, however, were in this awkward pre-
dicament with regard to this Bill, that with the remark..
able variance of opinion on the part of the legal autho-
rities respecting some of its provisions they had cot
the Bill before them. The particular clause npon
which there existed so great a difference of opini .n
had net been printed, and was not therefore fully
before them. He (Mr. Herries) had been under the
n .cessity of availing himself of the courtesy of the clerks of
ti e House in order to get at it for the purposes of the pre-
sent discussion. He must say that he doubted whether
in the particular clause to which be referred the law had
(teen rightly construed. It did seem to hint teat in all
the Acts of Parliament relating to the Bank of England
there was always something professed to he granted. The
9th and 40th George 111., he believed, embodied the
privileges of previous Statutes, following their provisions
almost in the same words. By that Act the exclusive
p.evi!eges were of two descriptions'. One v, as, that or.
other bankers should be countenanced or allowed by Par-
liament ; and the other, that it should not be lawful for
mere than six persons in partnership to draw, accept, or
endorse bills on demand in London, or within 65 miles.
Nov Ile (Mr. Herries) had always been of opinion that,
provided they abstained feum doing the things here ripe-
eitied, it mattered not bow many there were in partner.
ship. There might be 500 for aught the law said to the
ameiry. If the clause of the Noble Lard went no
farther than that, then his opinion coincided with that of
the Noble Lord. But if it went the length of declating
t'lat any body of persons, consisting even of more than
six, might carry on these things in London, then he must
say that he was far from being satisfied that this particular
provision was accordant with the law as it stood. He
did not mean to say how it was in point of law ; but there
was a very prevalent opinion abroad that under the words
of this clause joint-stock banks might carry on such basis
ness within 65 miles of London. Ile did not mean to say
that this opinion was a correct one ; but he thought at all
events that a right understanding should be come to upon
it. 1-fe regretted much that so important a question
should not he settled without complaints and accusations
of bad faith on the part of those who were so principally
interested. This was not a party question. It was one
which all persons, of whatever party, must feel anxione to
see settled upon a permanent and satisfactory basis.
Lord ALTHORP wished to say a few words in answer
to the Hon. Member for Oldham before he addressed
himself to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite. The Hon. Member for Oldham (Mr.
Cobhett) had assumed throughout his speech that the
object of making Bank of England notes a legal tender,
was the depreciation of the currency. Now no man could
look upon a depreciation of the currency as a greater evil
than be did. Upon that point be concurred with the
Hon. Member for Oldham in all his doctrines; and be
should concur with him altogether if he thought his pre-
mores well founded. But he did not think there was in
this measure anything calculated to depreciate the cur.
rency.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Oldham spoke
of his prophecies. He said he had prophemed, when a
former Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in high terms
of the prosperity of the country, that in two years a great
crash would,coule. If so,the Hon. Gentleman had mistaken
dates very much, for the speech to which he referred had
been m ide in 1825.—(N0, no; in February, 1824, from
several voices.) In his (Lord Althorp's) opinion, it had
been in February, 1825. There was, however, another
prophecy of the Hon. Gentleman, the realization of which
depended upon the Hon. Gentleman himself. The
Hon. Gentleman, he understood, bad declared, that if
ever the Bank of England paid its notes in gold—that
if ever the currency was put upon its proper
footing—he would consent to be roasted on a
gridiron.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now the
Hon. Gentleman had distinctly admitted that night that
the currency had returned to its proper footing, and that
there was now a metallic currency ; for the chief terength
of his argument wes upon the impolicy and injustice of a
depreciation now that the currency had been restored.-.-
-(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had
contended that the exchanges could never operate upon
the currency. If, however, the exchanges had not bean
against the country in 1825 the panic would not have
happened. Unfortunately the Batik were under a con-
tract at that time to aid in paying off the dissentients in
y
quoted
the then recent transfer of stock. This obliged them to
'the mere PP
increase their issues just at the time when they ought. to
have contracted them, on account of the exchanges being
against the country. Now he was of opinion thaV:c_
making Bank notes a legal tender would be a
ges
f He (Lord
Member
rurt of Bank
Agnoeinl
ginaogdasi,oisftctlhreeckeion4gotthrye. cAonnseHqoune.nces of thehve:dereqh
Proprietors as the opinion of the whole ""
expression of the
helm) of an individual ira.te
Althorp) certainly had reexeuetiaonieef bo y.
individual, as well as the
ell.e:(l:aut the expression to Wh ch
As, however, it appeare
in a moment of best, he
he alluded had been made
thought that no more should be said about it.
(The Noble Lord then referred to the areuntent
upon the state of the law of the Righr. ilunourablu

Gentleman, Mr. Herries.) That Right Hon. Gentle
man agreed, that if by the I,Lw, as it now stood, any num•
her or partners tn;ght set together as hankers, then the
provision in the measure to which objection had been
made was correct and proper. In that view of the lax•
the Attorney and the Solicitor-General agreed. He ad-
mitted, however, that he had been wrong in affirming the
other evening that no barrister of eminence thought dif-
ferently ; for he had since understood that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Norwich (Sir J. Scarlett) enter-
tained a different opinion. It was impossible for hhn
(Lord Althorp) not to pay great attention to an opinion
of so much weight ; but he had gone through all the Acts
'iron the subject, with the Learned Solicitor-General, and
ho was satisfied in his own mind that the clause he had
introduced was no infraction whatever of the privileges of
the Bank of England. He (Lord Althorp) must certainly
admit that he hail been guilty of a breach of faith if this
clause took from the Bank any privilege it had ever held.
The first Act said nothing about exclusive privileges. Thr
second Act gave the Governor and Company the exclusive
right of banking in England. The question upon that Act
was, what was the meaning of such exclusive right in
those days ? It was well known that in the time of Wm.
111., there were nn hankers such as in the present day ;
the business of banking was carded on by goldsmiths.

That provision in the second Act, then, did not apply
to the business of banking as now carried on. If it did,
then theie Was not one banker in London who was not
acting illegally.—(Hear, hear.) The next Act to which
he should refer was the 39th and 40th of George 111.
By these various Acts it appeared that the privileges of
the Bank of England were the exclusive privilege of
banking, as already recited, and besides, that no company
of more than six partners should have power to do those
things 'ts hich would make it in fact a hank of issue. Par
li iment was precluded from setting up any other similar
bank ; but there was nothing to prevent the establishment
of joint-stock bank;. He was clearly of opinion, that, in
tit- measure before the House, there was no interference
with the exclusive privileges of the Bank of England.
Mr. HERRIES wished the Noble Lord would state
whether the clause in question Would not permit joint-
stock banking companies already existing to do tbat within
sixty five miles of London, which at present they might
do beyond that limit ? He (Mr. Herries) was not the only
person who had read the clause in that sense.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, before the time
of William 111. it was the common right of all persons to
carry on the business of banking or any other business
without restriction as to numbers. That being the case
the restriction sought to be set up must he found in the
original Act having reference to the Bank of England, or
in some subsequent Act. The Act of the 4th and 9th of
Willi to 111 contained the first restriction. That was
nothing more than a mere Parliamentary pledge given to
those who at that time were lending a considerable sum of
money to Government that no other similar company
should be erected by Act of Parliament. If the Act went
further than that, then it must be regarded as putting an
end to all private banking. This pledge, therefore, left
individuals to do just what they might do before the pass-
ing of the Act, viz., to form banking companies of five,
ten, or one hundred, to carry on business with a conjoint
capital. He found then from the Act of William to the
7th of Anne, which was the first Act which spoke of the
number of persons.—that Act did not say that it was
illegal for more than six in a company to issue paper. He
defied any one to point out the Act which showed there
was anything iilegal in the clause introduced in the pre-
sent Bill. He contended that persons could now do with
reference to the business of banking whatever in these
respects they could do antecedently to the passing of
these Acts.

Mr. J. A. SMITH was authorized by the gentleman
ho rnA,fe use of strong expressions towards the Govern-
ment the otter day at the meeting of the Bank Proprietors
to express his regret at the language he had used. He
did not, however, withdraw the sentiment. For his own
part he hail always expressed the deep obligations be felt
teat the count!), was under to the present Administration,
but he thought in the present matter that the Noble Lord
opposite had held out expectations and made promises
which he had nut redeemed. H wished the Noble
Lord opposite had addressed himself to that point; but he
had omitted it altogether. He believed the Bank had,
with greater readiness than otherwise they would have
tihr.e, acceded to the proposals of Government, because
t;:ey felt that the interests of the country demanded a
speedy settlement of a question so materially affecting the
currency.—(The Hon. Member spoke in so low a tone
of voice that he was very imperfectly heard in the gallery.)
Lard ALT HORP said that it was represented to him
that the Bank had taken the opinion of competent lawyers
upon the subject of the law relating to the Bank, and upon
that he had consented to bring in a clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it his dnty to
declare that, after the most deliberate and dispassionate
consideration of the vevion, he was more and more satis•
tied of the correctness of the opinion he had already given.
Ile was satisfied that it never was prohibited by statute
to have more than six partners in a bank. Whatever,
therefore, was before lawful remained lawful, unless pro-
hibited.

Mr. ROBINSON expressed his surprise at the state-
ment of the Hon. Member for the Tower }l atlets (Mr.
Clay), that neither the Bank of England nor the public
were satisfied with this measure. As to the public, lit
took their silence trirn the subject of the Bill as a token of
their assent. The House was not now discussing a Bank
Restriction Act. As it atLcted a depreciation of the cur-
rency, and feeling that to throw out the Bill now would
act as a balance of evil to be given to the country in any
case of momentary alarm, he would therefore support the
tlhrti reading of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman-THOMPSON objected to the declara-
tory parts of the clause proposed by the Ministers of the
npiniona of the Learned Attorney and Solicitor-General;
;int, with respect, he would say that the opinions of Sir J.
-t:arlett and Sir E. Sugden ought to receive the best con -
sideration of the Crown, although be would not object to
the insertion of words which would settle the doubts which
prevailed with respect to the existence of joint-stock banks
within sixty five miles of London.
Mr. G. WOOD said a few words, which did not reach
the gallery.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD said—Taking the conduct of the
Government altogether upon this question it was one of
procrastination, danger, and disorder ; and in truth there
was too much business of serious importance now before
the House to admit of this Bill being as fully discussed as
it would necessarily be in the course of the next Session.
In discussing the question of jlint•stock companies of
deposit in London, the opinions of lawyers should not be
rep, chilly regarded ; fur in fact the common sense of
hankers, of traders, and merchants generally, could much
better decide the question. If lawyers had been consulted
before the bargain was made by the Government with the
Bank, there, might have been something, in it ; but in the
present state of the case, the opinion of lawyers could he
of lit!le or no advantage. The B Ink had charged the
Chancellor of the Exchequer with a breach of faith in
this transaction, anti particularly as to making the Bank
of England the only joint-stock hank for deposits to vest
in the Bonk of England. . He (Mr. Attwood) could not
say whether the.case exactly stood as it was stated between
the Bank and the Noble Lord (Althorp); but if the
letter of the Noble Lord (Altliorp) was to be relied
upon as evidence in this case, the Noble Lord
might plead guilty. A bargain was made by the
Noble Lord ; it was admitted by him ; and the only
ground upon which he refused acceding to it was, that
some previous bargain had been made some thirty years
ago upon this subject with which he was not previously
acouainted. That, however, could he no answer to the
Bank, to whom a positive pledge had been given. This
question involved the consideration of the whole of our
monetary system, and of the enterprise and industry of the
people of this great country. The Bank Directors con-
tlidered that their system had been the means of conferring
great prosperity upon the country : large issues took place

froth 1933 to-18:2-1 and 1825,- and the result was, that

speculation and distress followed such over-issues. Such
a power should not be granted to any body, even though
;t were as respectable as that of the Bank of England.
The price of Bank Stock had risen, but in what other
cases had the prices of other commodities equally risen ?
The course of the Government was one of vacillation,
inconsistency, and disorder; and yet, rather than unseal,
things as they now were, he would support the third
leading of this Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME objected to this Bill on two grounds—
fitst, because the Government had made a bad bargain
with the Bank ; and secondly., because it would interfere
with the currency of the count' v ; and his third objection
was, that there were so few Members present upon an
occasion like the present. To the legal tender clause he
would give his most decided objection.—(Hear, bear, and
" Question, question.")
Mr. PRYME thought that joint-stock banks of deposit
would be of grt at general benefit, and shove all things he
would wish to preserve the convertibility of paper into
gold.—(Cries of 4, Question, question.")
Mr. HA\VES hasi the most decided objection to the
legal tender clause as it existed in this Bill. If this clause
were carriadj.kriiairritable result would be to have a re-
_
i"4"e- j.; . lfsthe metallic currency were once
_ ,
destroyed :.ih ::i. effect would be to create at once
oflirto
igh priCeSt-an - gh_rents.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and
._ . No, nc.") tliiiAauie ought to be postponed; it.waa nut
I'ems'l' y, inti-iferiiiid& would vote against it.
e
7.,?..:

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when a diri-
•io took place—

For the original question
Against it
Majority

On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. G. WOOD addressing the House upon the motion
which he had made upon a former occasion, having for
its object to cause the insertion of words in this Bill to
guard against claim for compensation on the part of the
Bank, if at any time during the continuance of the Charter
Parliament sheuld think fit to repeal or modify the enact-
ment making the B ink of England notes a legal tender ;
also to move the addition of a clause providing that so long
as the Bank of EnEl and notes continue a legal tender, the
Bank shall he required to continue branch banks for
purpoes of business, at convenient stations in different
parts of the kingdom. He considered that the branch
banks were very convenient in the districts where they
existed.
Mr. COBBETT, in seconding the motion, was sure it
would have the effect of causing a rise in prices. He hoped
that the Lords would throw out this Bill, or at least the
legal tender clause. He had some confidence slto-
gether in the House of Lords; and again he hoped this
Bill, as it now stood, would never pass into a law. It
was now quite clear that the Whigs were going on with
insolence, effrontery, and ignorance; and their conduct,
sooner or later, would be discovered and scouted by the
country. As to the conduct of the Bank, no one could
look at it without reprobation, perhaps less, however,
than to that of the Whig Government.
The clause of Mr. G. Wood was then brought up and
read a first time.
On the motion that it be read a second time,

Mr. P. THONISON said if the clause proposed by his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Wood) were agreed to it would be in-
operative, for by it the Bank of England would not be
compelled to issue gold to the Branch Banks. On this
subject he should, therefore, feel it to be his duty to give
the amendment his most decided negative. He did not
support this Bill as it now stood in order to aid the Bank
monopoly, nor to increase paper circulation throughout
the country, nor to depreciate prices, but to act as a secu-
rity to a single bank of joint issue in London. Prices had
been affected, but he believed that that circumstanze arose
from matters unconnected with the Bank Charter.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON protested against the
Bank being compelled to support an establishment which
the public did not require.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD objected to a plan which made
the notes of the branch banks payable only at the branch
bank where they were issued, whereas, he considered that
these notes should he also made payable at the ptrent esta-
blishment. If the Bill remained in its present shape, a
bank of Swansea might circulate its paper to any remote
part of the country, its notes being only payable at the
branch hank where they were issued.

The House then divided—
Against the clause 9B
For it l9
Majority against the amendment...-79

Mr. WARBURTON proposed as an amendment to omit
the legal tender clause. He believed the rise of prices was
owing to this clause. Any gentleman looking to the news-
papers would find that companies were starting up. If it
had already had this effect, he thought that in future it
would lead to all sorts of vacillation. He thought the
tendency of the legal tender clause was to get rid of and
depreciate the feelings of the people in respect to the me-
tallic standard, and the notion of the convertibility of paper
into real sovereigns.

Mr. HU3IE supported the amendment, and held that
this clause ouiht to be postponed for one year.
Mr. COBBETT said that the legal tender meant the
depreciation of money, and went to compel men to take a
something which was not as good as another something.
Mr. G. WOOD supported the amendment.
The House then divided—
For the amendment 35
Against it BO
Majority against the amendment —47
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
TITHES (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion of Mr. LITTLETON, for the further
consideration of the report on this Bill, the House divided
on the amendment of Mr. Home, providing that it be an
instruction that if these sums which ought to be paid were
not paid within the time prescribed the deficiency shall
be made good out of the temporalities of the Church of
Ireland.

The galley was then cleared for a division, when the
nu mberg Were—
For the amendment 42
Against it
Majority against the amendment —27

The BM was then re-committed.
Mr. O'REILLY proposed an amendment to the 7th
clatts to tie effect that the words " and he is hereby
required" he inserted, "in order to compel the tithe-
owners to accept the money."
Mr. LITTLETON could not support the motion.
Mr. lIUME asked why those clergymen who had tithes
due to them in prior years were to be excluded from the
operation of this Act?
Mr. LITTLETON—They considered these tithes as
bad debts.

Mr. SHAW said that there were many cases in the
diocese of 06sory, &c., in which tithes previous to ISSO
were due.

Lord ALTIIORY said as it was optional to those parties
whether they would apply for the relief, he did not see any
ground of complaint.
Mr. HUME wished to introduce the years 1829 and
1830 in justice to the parties.
Mr. O'REILLVS motion was then negatived without
a division.

Mr. HUME said that if a man had five years' tithes
due to him he would be shut out from two years' tithes as
this clause stood. He would therefore propose to insert
the years 1829 and 1830
Lord ALTHORP said his Hon. Friend must remember
that this amendment, if carried, must cause an increase of
expense.

Mr. HUME still maintained that justice should be done
at any rate.

The motion was then negatived, and the clause agreed to.
On the Bth clause being put,
Sir R. INGLIS complained of the clause as promoting
the power of persons to evade its provisions.
Mr. LITTLETON defended the clause in a few words.

The clause was then agreed to, after a few words from
some lion. Members.

Clauses up to 18 were then agreed to.
On the 19th clause being put, several verbal amend-
ments were made.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to the clause.
Mr. SHAW objecte,f to the clause. He felt convinced
that the Bill would be quite inoperative, like that of last year.
Mr. LITTLETON contended that this measure gave
much less objectionable and more efficacious modes of re-
covery tha❑ the measure of last year.

Mr. JEPIISON said it was vain to expect that tithes
could he recovered while the Catholic peasantry were
brought into contest with the Protestant clergy.
After a few words from Mr. TOWER and Mr. Sit Aw,
Mr. WALLACE said the real difficulty in this caise
was, that neither the Crown nor the clergy could collect
the tithes. The best wily would be to remove tithes out
of sight altogether, and substitute a simple land tax for
them.

Captain JONES proposed the following amendment :
" That any landlord who had agreed to a composition,
and who was entitled to recover from any other person,
should not be liable to an in,talrnent."
After a few words from Mr. HUME, the clause with
this amendment was agreed to.
Clause 20, 21, 22, 23, and 21 were agreed to.
Clause 25 was objected to by Mr. O'FERRALL.
The House divided—
For the clause
Against it
Majority
The clause was agreed to.
The succeeding clauses to clause 32 inclusive were
agreed to without amendment.
Upon clause 33 it was proposed by an Hon. Member,
whose name we could not learn, that the expenses of the
Bill should he chargeable on the Church of Ireland instead
of the Consolidated Fund.

Upon this amendment the Committee divided—
For the amendment lB
Against it 4O
Majority
The clause was then added to the Bill.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to,
and the House resumed.
The report was ordered to be received to-morrow (this
day).
Mr. HUME said that on bringing up the report be
Should propose the clause of which he had given notice.