The Sun.
London, England, 1804-03-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF PEERS.

TUESDAY, MARCH 6.
COUNSEL were heard at some length relative to
the. Appeal Cause from the Court of Exchequer in
Ireland WilliAn..Stewart
.and. Others Edward
Young ; viz. Messrs. ALEXANDER and Fox.
BLANQUE for the. Appellants, and Messrs. Ro.
MILLY and STEPHENS on the part of the Respon-
dent. The farther healing of the Case was ad.
knurled till.to-morrow.
. .
- The Marine'Mutiny Bill, and the Scotch Bank-
rupt Law Bill, _were brought up from the
,Com-
mons .by Mr. VANSITTART and others, and seve-
rally read a first`-time'.
The Bills upon the Table were forwarded in their
respeElive s-tages : among these were the Duke of
Ei!ate Bill, the Report of which was agreed
to ; the Mutiny'Bill was read .a second time, the
Committee upon it negatived, and on the suggestion
of Lard HAWKrsstntY, ordered to be read a. third
time to-morrow : the London Port Bill was read
a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then went upon the Order of
the Day for committing the Bank
.of Ireland Re.
striftion Bill, and accordingly the House resolved
into a Coinmittee—Lotd WALSINGHAM in the

Chair.
Lord AUCKLAND took the opporttinity afforded
by the reading of one of the clauses, to offer a few
observatiOns'upon the measure. -He was of opinion
that some limitation should be set to the issue of
the Bank of Ireland paper ; and he should have felt
it a serious public duty to have called the attention
of the House forcibly to the subjeet, were it not
that two of the provisions in the Bill sets his mind
at ease, under the present circumstances,, upon that
part' of 'the subject. Of that- clause. which em_
powered the Legislature to alter, modify, or repeal
the Bill, -in the course of the present Session, he
particularly approved. Without these salutary pro. ,I
visions, he 'was open to acknowledge, that he should' 1
feel some apprehensions respelling the issue of Irish ,
Bank paper : the excessive issue of which, lit en- :I
tertained no doubt, was the principal cause of the -I
great depreciation of- the currency in that pall of 1
the United Kingdom.' 'He calculated there was
at present six tnees the amount of paper in circere.,
Liao that there had been prior to the Restridloin'
upon the Bank ; o.'-ed, that an excessive issue
'should cause a deprei.eion, resulted from the very
nature of things, -as a g:iit in the ruirket of any
commodity tended to lower the price.
Lcrd HAWIOESRURY expressed his coincidence.
in (re :Aryl willi the 'Noble Lord, as 'to a part of his
cbeervations, but not witi;•resped to the wh 'le of
them. 'le was' at present averse h
Ibar giving' an
opinien-either effirmatively'or neeativery, as to the
real cause of the deptcciatio'n of the Irish currency ;
and in like Moeller, lie would then refrain from
'stating a decided opinion upon the point of an In.
-quirt' being set on foot' in that House, similar to:
what was instituted in the other House of Parlia-
ment. , Witlerespeft to a general investigation of,
the subjed, the inclination of his opinion was, that
under the present circumstances of the Country such
a proceeding would be,' upon the whole, rather in-
jarious than beneficial. 'He thought, however, it
would be preferable to wait the'result of the pend-
ing Inquiry, before any proceeding or measure of
-importance, relative to the subjed, should -be
adopted in that House. He - was of the Noble
Lord's opinion as to the expediency of a provision
in the Bill, -enabling Parliament to modify or alter
the measure during the, present Session. .
Lord KING stated, that he, had to • kopose the
insertion of a Clause in theklill, •explanaeory of a
provision which had been Madeein the ;Bill 'of Re-,
stridion, originally passed 'in the Parliament of
Ireland, and had been 'since• regularly enaded -in the
. subsequent Bills : the' effect of this provision, his
Lerdstiiiedescribed, went- to prohibit the recovery
• of Costs in Actions brought against the Irish Bank
• Direrfori, •hut which he understood had been ailed
upon in such a way in some 'of the Irish Courts of
Law, as he was inclined to think, could nOt have
been the sense of the Irish Legislature at the period
of the enantrient. • His Lordship instanced the Case
where a Note w.as. ste4peded to be fictitious, by
one of the Clerks of the Bank, it was the'custom to
refuse payment of the Note, in the first instance at
least ; and
.these Notes were.*freqeently marked, in
red ink, .‘ forged," by the.,Cierk. In some in.:
stances of this kind, payment was insisted upon by
the presepter of the Note, who, in the event of re-
currence to a Court of juvieee proved the goodness
of the Note, at least in the-opinion of the Jury ; or
sometimes: the 'validiry of the Note was acknow-
ledged on the part of the. Bank. In the Cases he
alluded to, the costs were ,withheld, by reason of
the Clause ie question. Such he understood to, have
been the eradice, and he doubted not the concur.
rence of their Lordships in opinion with him, ,that
such a provision cught to be properly explained, and
.in the particular cases, to 'which' he had/ alluded, to
enact the-recovery of costs..
Lid Viscount C ARLETOIV observed, that this
was the first time he had heard of the proceedings
stated by the Noble L,)rcti- as far as related'to the
-withholdieg costs ; possihly such decisiOns• might
have taken place in the Irish Law Courts :- he did
not pledge himself to the negative, but. he assured
- the Committee he had- never, heard of any-Snch.
Upon the authority before their Lordships he thought
it would he going too far to enact the provision
proposed by the Noble Lord. , In the state of dark.
ness, in that tesped, in ' which they then were, he
thought it -would-
and
edptrielfaetrathhleey toshl:,,uthithe
-"main as it' stood, waitA a r
untile -
inquiries shall have been mede, . and the fads asCer-;
•