The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-14 00:00:00

C ORN-L AWS.

Mr. P. BORTHWICK presented iineteen petitions
from places in Worcestershire against any alteration in
the present system of corn-laws.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Mr. C. BERKELEY wished to know from the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, what had been the cause of the delay with
regard to the introduction of the Charitable Trusts Bill?
It would be in the recollection of the House, that the
Right Hon. Baronet bad promised that the Bill would be
introduced by the Lord Chancellor in another place.
Three weeks had elapsed since then, and no steps had
been taken with regard to its introduction. If the Bill
were delayed till July, when the House was thin, he
should feel it his duty to throw every obstacle in the way
of its passing. He wished to know when the Bill would
be introduced ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Lord Chancellor was
entrusted with the Bill, and he had every reason to be-
lieve it would be proceeded with forthwith.
Sir G. GREY wished to know whether the Govern-
ment had any intention of passing the Bill ; and, if so,
at what time it would come be'ore the House ?

Sir J. GRAHAM said that the power of introducing
Bills was in the hands of the Government; the power of
passing them rested with the House. It was impossible
for him to say within what period the Bill would come
Mr. CHRISTIE said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had not only promised that the Bill would be introduced,
but that it was the intention of the Government that it
should be passed during the present session; and he
wished to know whether there was any change in the in •
tentions of the Government with respect to the passing
of the Bill ?

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the power of passing
Bills rested with the House. If there was any change
in the intentions of the Government, it arose from the
circumstance of the delay in passing the Ecclesiastical
Courts Bill.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the Right. Hon. Baronet
had told them that the Bill was to be introduced by the
Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords. Now, nothing
that occurred in that House could be a reason why the
Bill should not be introduced before the House of Lords.

Sir J. GRAHAM could only repeat what he said
before. The Government were desirous that the Bill
should be passed, but it was in the power of that House
to decide whether it should pass or not.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY asked when it was pro-
bable that the Bill would be introduced.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the matter was in the
hands of the Lord Chancellor, who had prepared a Bill
on the subject, and who would introduce the Bill which
he had prepared into the House of Lords forthwith.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know when the return of the
convictions under the game-laws during the year 1843,
which had been moved for at the beginning of the
session would be laid on the table.

Sir J. GRAHAM (as we understood) replied that
the returns would be laid on the table without delay.
Sir G. GREY wished to state, with regard to the
Charitable Trusts Bill, that he had no wish to offer any
obstruction to the measures of the Ministry merely
for obstruction's sake ; but it should be recol-
lected that this was a Bill of very great import-
ance. It had not yet been introduced into the
House of Lords, it could not by any possibility be in the
House of Commons before the latter end of July or the
beginning of August, and he protested against the
Bill being hurried through at a late period
of the session in a thin House ; and if it
should be necessary to propose amendments in
that Bill, he claimed to himself a right to propose those
amendments, and to discuss the matter fully without
being charged with offering wilful obstruction to the
measures of the Government.

SHIPPING INTEREST.
Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that there was a no-
tice on the paper of a motion of the President of the
Board of Trade for a Committee on the subject of the
shipping interest. That motion must give rise to dis-
cussion. He trusted it would not be introduced at a
late hour.

Mr. GLADSTONE would not introduce it at too
late an hour for discussion.
AMERICAN LOYALISTS.
Mr. HUME wished to know when it was the intention
of the Government to move for a Committee of Supply,
as on the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
he intended to direct the attention of the House to the
case of Mr. Cooper.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that it would be better
for the Hon. Gentleman to give notice of motion on the
subject, as he could not undertake to move the Com
mittee of Supply for the purpose of affording the lion.
Gentleman an opportunity of bringing forward his
motion.

Mr. HUME would then give notice that he should,
to-morrow(this day), on the moving of the first Govern-
ment order, bring the case of Mr. Cooper before the
House.

BANK CHARTER BILL.
The order of the day for the second reading of the
Bank Charter Bill having been read.
Mr. B. HAWES rose to move, that no sufficient evi-
dence has been laid before this House to justify the pro-
posed interference with banks of issue in the manage
ment of their circulation. The question they had
to discuss was one of such vast importance, and
involved such a number of details, that he must
at onee ask for the consideration and indulgence
of the House while he endeavoured to state the grounds
on which he ventured to oppose the further progress of
this Bill. It should be recollected that if this plan should
be rejected by the House, the plan of 1819 for regu-
lating the currency, and the principle of the Bullion
Committee of 1810 would still remain in force. Against
these plans he intended no opposition. All that the
Right Honourable Baronet had stated with regard to
the standard of value, the necessity of having promissory
notes being payable in gold, and of the necessity
of maintaining the convertibility of notes, he as cordially
agreed in as the Right Hon. Gentleman himself. The
Right Hon. Baronet intended that the circulation of
paper should be governed by that of gold,—was it
to fluctuate as that fluctuated ? The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman had so clearly explained the
objects of his Bill that he need hardly refer to it ;
but it was so important that he should not hesitate to
repeat the Hon. Baronet's own words. (The Hon.
Member read an extract from the Right Hon.
Baronet's speech in reference to this point.)
He thought these things ought to be well considered
before they were adapted ; and if they were not
it was the fault of the parties and not his.--(Hear.)
He (Mr. Hawes) would be glad to know one single
authority of practical experience. that the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) could produce to contravene
the opinions he had just quoted from Mr.
Deacon Hume. But how did they attempt
to prove the existence of this excessive issue of paper,
upon which they laid the blame of every evil, and which
they made the justification of their present measure?
For this asserted over issue had been made the ground
for change in 1811, and it had been made
the ground of the measure of 1819. What was the
proof—where was the proof in these two years of the
depreciation of paper ? In his (Mr. Hawes's) opinion
they were bound to show that there had been an excessive
issue of paper, and that this had led to a depreciation of
the eurrency and to an increase of prices. Again, he
said ho defied the Right Hon. Gentleman to show that
the paper currency had been depreciated by those issues,
and that the prices of commodities had been so
affected by this. In the evidence before the Bank Charter
Committee there was not a tittle of proof of this effect ;
nor did he believe that any valid expression in sup-
port of it would be discovered in the various
pamphlets and other publications upon the subject.
They had had assertions in abundance, but they had
had no facts. He, hewever, would not give them asser-
tion against assertion ; he would show them that the
amount of circulation had produced no direct
effect upon the variation of prices, and he
would defy any one to prove the contrary.
If it was asserted that the amount of circulation pro-
duced a direct effect upon prices, he asked them to show
the grounds up n 1 which they rested that assertion.
Where was the evidence to prove that an increased cir-
culation had been invariably followed by high price, ?
He would refer to the work of Mr. Tooke on price:, to
show that such had not been the case. There was no
proof that the variation in prices was referable to the
variation in the circulation. Let thorn take the year
1838, when there was the highest amount of circu-
lation--there were thirty millions of local cir-
culation. The amount of bullion in the Bank was
ten millions, and the rate of discount was 21 per cent.
If this theory were correct, the rise in price should
have been coincident with the increase in
i the circula-
tion ; but, on a reference to Tooke, t would be
found that such was not the case. Then there was
the theory of Mr. Jones Loyd ; if that theory
were correct in the year 1834, the depreciation
of Bank paper as compared to bullion, ought to have
been 75 percent. Such, however, had by no means been
the case, and therefore the Right Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken in adopting that theory, for at that period the
circulation had been preserved safe from depreciation.
It should be recollected that the Right Hon. Baronet
did not deal with the paper credit contained in bills of
exchange to a small amount ; be limited bank notes
only, and left other securities untouched. He referred
to the rage for speculation that had prevailed in
the United States, the embarrassment caused by
which was remedied by compelling the banks
to resume cash payments—by in fact introducing the
principle of the Bill of 1819. The not limiting the
amount of the paper credit issued by the country banks
in the shape of bills of exchange and other
securities, would leave them free to issue what