The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-24 00:00:00

SMALL DEBTS BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to that part of it which
gave the governor of a gaol power to administer an oath. Be-
sides, that officer was often absent at the assizes, or in convey-
ing convicts from one gaol to snother. He considered that the
oath ought only to be administered by a visiting justice. This
was the only objection which he had to the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said, inferior officers, the Clerk of the
Papers in the Queen's Bench, for instance, were empowered to
admini-ter oaths. They bad no means of making a justice
come to the gaol, and a poor debtor was unable to pay the
expense. The Governor, in 99 cases out of 100, was at home
when required. Last year, many persons were kept 10 days or
a fortnight in gaol because no person was at band before
whom they could swear an affidavit. A debtor could not go
to a justice, but was compelled to wait until he could come to
him in prison.
Lord PORTMAN understood that that portion of the Bill
had been omitted, and such was the impression of many Noble
Lords. Certainly, the shortening of a person's imprisonment
was an advantage, but he conceived that no great delay would
occur in obtaining the attendance of a justice to administer the
oath. An oath was invested with more solemnity when admi-
nistered by a person in a high and responsible position. He
wished his Noble Friend could have got rid of the oath in this
case altogether, and hoped the words " visiting justice " would
be added in the place of the words at present in the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that there could be no
objection to accept the suggestion of the Noble Duke opposite,
for there was no doubt bat that the justices were very constant
in their visits at their prisons, and when they could so easily be
found, he thought it would be very objectionable to allow these
oaths to be administered by the gaoler.
Lord CAMPBELL really saw no objection to the adminis-
tration of these oaths as were prescribed by the clause of his
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham), for certainly he
was quite ready that the governors of gaols should be entrusted
with this power. Several of them, he knew from his own ex-
perience on circuit, had served her Majesty both in the army
and navy, and were to all intents and purposes gentlemen.
They were generally treated with great respect, and he believed
that these functionaries would administer oaths with much
more solemnity than they were administered in the Court of
Queen's Bench, or even in the Court of Chancery. When an
affidavit was to be administered in the Court of Chancery, the
officer of the Court simply said to the witness, " Is this your
handwriting?—kiss the book—a shilling ;" and on the payment
of the fee the ceremony terminated. Even this did not pass in
the Courts, but was performed in the passages.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, beside, it must be re-
membered that these persons were in no position to compel the
justices to came.
Lord BROUG HAM said that in Scotland the matter was
very different. There the oaths were administered by the
judges themselves in the most awful form, and with the utmost
solemnity, but such was not the case here.
The Lord CHANCELLOR—That was sufficiently evident
from the way in which oaths were administered in the hall in
that House.
Lord BROUGHAM could bear testimony to that, for he
had seen forty- witnesses being sworn in at once, and that, too,
with so little form, that in one instance he had passed between
the swearer and the person being sworn, without at all inter-
rupting the ceremony. And with regard to an affidavit—who
ever heard of any solemnity in the administration of an affida-
vit? His Noble Friend had coolly asked him to alter the whole
law of England in the administration of an oath. That was
all. No matter whether the parties affected were Quakers,
Separatists. or members of the Church of England. With re-pert
to the testirneny of his Noble and Learned Friend, he eould
bear equal evidence to the high respectability of the gaolers,
both at York and Uneaster. Of Mr. Higgins especially, the
governor of the gaol at Lancaster, he could speak, for lie
knew it for a fact, that the member for the county, on his late
visit to his constituents, had dined with him, which was more
than he would do with every one of the visiting justices. In
many instances he knew the governors of gaols to be of the
highest respectability.
The Duke of RICHMOYD ruggssts3 that the imbability

The Duke of RICHMOND moved the third reading of this
Bill.

Lord POL WORTH moved the insertion of a clause em-
powering the justices of Scotland to license toll-bars, provided
there was not a public-house within two miles of the spot
where the toll-bar was situated.
The Duke of ROXBURGH opposed the clause, and sup-
ported the Bill as it stood. There were already too many
licensed public-houses in Scotland, and he was glad their Lord-
ships had entertained a Bill for restricting their number.
The Duke of MONTROSE supported the clause. He
thought it was a great convenience to travellers and carriers
that toll- bars should be licensed, for they were mostly situsted
in parts of the country where a house of refreshment could not
be met with for miles and miles round.
Lord CAMPBELL said the licensing of toll-bars only bene-
fited the road trustees, and as he thought the people of Scot.
land had already been sufficiently demoralised by these houses,
he should oppose the clause.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH reminded tl:eir Lordships that,
under an existing Act of Parliament, no toll-house could be
licensed without the recommendation of the road trustees ; and,
acting upon this Act, they had recommended that almost every
toll-bar in the country should be licensed, because the toll of
itself was unable to pay the interest of the trust. The trustees
had thus been enabled to raise larger sums of money on the
tolls than they otherwise could have dune had there
been no such Act. The alteration in the law, he
had no doubt, would be beneficial to the country at
large, but it would, at the same time, entail great
and serious difficulties upon many important trusts in Scotland.
With respect to the amendment he did not think the restric-
tion to a couple of miles was sufficient. He admitted that in
some parts of the country the traffic was not sufficient to main-
tain an inn, and it was highly desirable that some provision
should be made in the Bill to meet such cases as these. It was
not se much he thought the system of granting licences to toll
bars that had tended to demoralize the people as the system of
granting licences to small shop-keepers, and thus inducing ser-
vants and others to go and deal with them for the sake of the
dram.

After a few words of explanation from Lord CAMPBELL and
Lord POL WORTH,
The Earl of HADDING TON hardly knew how to vote, but
he thought under the circumstances the number of miles
mentionpd in the clause ought to be increased.
Lord KINNAIRD should vote against the clause proposed
by his Noble Friend.
The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH did not know much about
Scotland, but it appeared to him that the interest of all parties
would be consulted by allow ing toll-bars to he licensed for the
sale of spirits, if the nearest public-house was not within fire
milee.

Lord BEAUMON T said that was more than was sought by
the amendment. If they put " five miles" after the word
" to." he conceived that the object sought for would be gaired,
as a toll-bar could not then be licensed for the sale of spirits,
it a public-house was within five miles of either side of it.
The Duke of RICHMOND considered that if they put in
any saving clauses, the trustees of the roads would be too
strong for them, many of whom were desirous that their toll-
bats should be licensed in the way they were, that they might
obtain a larger revenue from them. If a clause were inserted
for the purpose of giving the trustees compensation, th.'y
would not object to the Bill. For many miles, in some of the
most remote parts of Scotland, there were no tol l-bars, but
those that existed were opened during the whole of the Sab-
bath, and added greatly to its desecration. He considered
the Bill was of great importance to that country, and could
see no reason why there should be one law for England and
another for Scotland. For the purpose of giving time, he
should postpone the 3d reading until Friday.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
SCOTCH BANKING.
The Earl of RIPON moved the second reading of this Bill.
He said two measures had been passed for regulating joint-
stock and other banks in England, and that they were generally
admitted to be wise and just, and that the advantages expected
to result from them to the public interests, considering the
short time that had elapsed since they were passed, had been
fully realised. The Government had, therefore, been induced
to propose a measure for regulating the banking of Seotland,
on a somewhat similar plan. He admitted that the present
system had not produced any prominent evils, but, as regarded
the general security of the banking establishments of
the United Kingdom, a more rational assimilation
between the banking system of this country and Scotland
was exceedingly desirable. It was not proposed to de,srive
the banks of Scotland of the privilege which they enjoyed of
issuing notes below 51., but, simply to impose some limitation
on the amount of the issues. There were 19 banks in Scot-
land, an average was to be taken of their whole monthly issue
separately, as well as collectively, for 13 months between the
Ist of May 1844 and the 31st of May 1845, and that the ave-
rage of the total issue in these 13 months should be the maxi-
mum amount of the future issue of each and all of these
banks; but in order to give the greater accommodation they
were allowed to issue any quantity of notes they pleased, so
long as they were in proportion to the quantity of coin which
might be in their possession for four consecutive weeks. The
average maximum circulation of Scotland was to be 3,363,0001.
in notes and in other securities. As he had said, they would
be empowered to make a further issue to any extent, provided
they had coin to the amount in their possession. This
additional amount would be one-fifth of the regulated
issue or 60,0001., making a total of 3,663,000/.
This was a larger amount than they had issued during any
stated time. For the year ending December their issue
amounted to 3,486,0001., so that that sum gave them the
power of materially increasing their issues. These were
briefly the main features of the Bill, which he was of opinion
would not cause any inconvenience to the monetary affairs of
Scotland.
Lord RADNOR said the measure was an unnecessary inter-
ference with the banking system of Scotland. There was an
old maxim, that when anything was going on to the satisfac-
tion of all parties. that it should be left alone. He was, there-
fore, at a loss to know why the Government wished to inter-

'ere with the banking system of that country. Lord Eldon
once complained of a modern practice which had grown
into use, of not stating in the preamble of a Bill,
the effects which it was intended to realize,
and the mischiefs which it was proposed to
remedy. This Bill was a remarkable instance of this remark.
The preamble stated that, " whereas it is expedient to regulate
the banking system of Scotland," &c. It should have stated
the grievances which it was proposed to obviate in the banking
system of Scotland. The people of that country had not com-
plained of it—on the contrary ; they were very much annoyed
at the proposition. No inconvenience—no failure had resulted
from it. There were only two failures in 1842. In the report
of the Committee on the renewal of the Bank Charter, it was
stated that the failures of banks in England from MN to
1820, amounted to 113 ; but, in Scotland, during that time,
there was not a single failure. Why, therefore, the system
was to be assimilated to that of England, he could not conceive.
The Committee which sat in 1826, on the expediency of abo-
lishing the 1/. note,bore testimony to the excellence of the system,
and was in favour of retaining the 1/. note. From On to
1812 there were only two ca,es of bankruptcy in the banking
establishments of Scotland. The Committee of the House of
Commons which sat on this subject, of which Sir Robert Peel,
Mr. fluskisson, and others were members, was unwilling,
without any proof of the necessity—what proofs had the Noble
Lord given I—to destroy a system so admirably calculated, in
their opinion, to economise the capital and improve
the condition of the people and promote industry.
If the banks were so prudent as W keep so large a sum of gold
at present, where was the necessity of endeavouring to make
them act less prudently? lie thought it very foolish to inter-
fere with a system which, it was admitted on all sides, was
already managed so admirably ; and he could not therefore
see what could induce the Noble Lord to interfere at all. It
was in evidence, that notwithstanding the increased population
—the increase in trade and commercial prosperity—and not-
withstanding the establishment of the branch banks, the paper
currency was diminished. He thought the substitution of
paper for gold was one of the most ingenious inventions of
modern times, and as he considered the present Bill was alto-
gether unnecessary, and was against the wishes of the people
of Scotland, he was bound to give it his most decided oppo-
sition. He therefore moved, as an amendment, that it be read
a second time that day three months.
• Lord KINNAIRD expected that there would have been
a larger attendance of Scotch Peers on the present oc-
casion, as they ail seemed to be of opinion that the Scottish
banking system, as it at present existed, did net require any
alteration. The largest average issue was 3,500,000/., or
thereabouts, and as it was not proved that there existed any
abuses in connexion with the system, he would say " Not
Content" to the present Biil, believing as he did, with the
Noble Earl who had just sat down, that Legislative inter-
ference with the system was altogether unnecessary.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that the Noble Lord op-
posite had protested against the Government for having intro-
duced the measure on the ground that the present system
worked well. For his part, he did not question that there hail
been comparative safety and considerable advantage connected
with the present banking system in Scotland, and he would
not question the great advantage of the 11. system ; but it was
qeite a mistaken notion that the present Bill would interfere
with any of those advantages. Her Majesty's Government
could not give a stronger appreciation of the value they at-
tached to them, or a greater desire to secure their permanency.
Ihe sole object of the present Bill was, that if the banks of
Scotland hereafter exceeded their present issues, they must do
so only in the quantity of gold and silver. If difficulties had
not been felt in times past, it was mainly owing to the readi-
ness with which they could make a run upon the Bank of Eng-
land • and the present Bill was intended to meet au emergency
of that sort, and to provide that the banks shall not exceed
their present circulation without a corresponding amount of
gold and silver. Under these circumstances, he considered
the present Bill was an improvement upon the present system.
After a few words in explanation from the Earl of RADNOR,
The amendment was negatived without a division, and the
Bill was ordered to be committed on Thursday.
NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time.
HULL AND SE.LI3Y RAILWAY ALTERATION.
This Bill was read a third time and passed,
LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAILWAY EXTEN-
SION.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
The House adjourned shortly after Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 23.
The Speaker took the chair shortly before Four o'clock.
The Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Bill was read a
bird time and pasted.

Oster Extension Railway Bill was read a third time

•
and passed.
The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway
Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord H. VANE brought up the report of the Erewash
Vallev Railway Bill, which was agreed to.
The Lords' amendments to the Lowestoft Railway and
Barbour Bill were agreed to.
On the motion of Sir C. LEMAN, the Cornwall Railway
Bill was read a third time, after some observations from Cap.
tain Plumridge in opposition to the motion.
The report on the Bermondsey Improvement Bill was brought
up and agreed to.
The Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway Bill was
read a third time, and passed.
The report was brought up on the North Union and Ribble
Navigation Bill, and agreed to.
GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The report on the Glaseqw Junction Railway Bill was brought
tip, and agreti to,

was that the probable reason for the visit of the Member for
Lancashire to the governor was, that the majority of his con-
stituents were in gaol.—(Lau ,;hter.) Jesting apart, he would
suggest that the a ording of the clause should be so altered, as
to allow the gaoler or deputy gaoler to administer the oath in
the absence of the justices in the neighbourhood. That would
bz a compromise between the two plans.
Earl RADNOR said that he thoeght it was highly requi-
site that the alteration should be made, as he feared that this
Laity in the administration of an oath not only in their minor
affairs, but also in-the courts of justice, was very rapidly under-
mining the morality of the people.
Lord BROUGHAM would avail himself of the Noble
Duke's stggestion, and he Would, therefore, alter the passage
in the clause so as to make it lawful for the governor of a gaol
to administer the oath unles4 the attendance of a visiting or
ether justice could be obtained within 12 hours.
Atter some further discussion the Bill passed through Com-
mittee, and their Lordships having resumed the report was
brought up and received.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
SCOTCH TOLL-BAR BILL.