The Sun.
London, England, 1826-02-28 00:00:00

SLAVERY.

. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition
from Glastonbury, praying for the abolition of Slavery, and
approving of the measures taken by his Majesty's Government
in 1823, to obtain that end.—Laid on the table.
Lord CAWDOR presented similar petitions ftom the Coun.
ty of Pembroke, and the town of Fishguard, in that County.—
Laid on the lade.

Earl GREY presented petitions to a similar effect, and most
numerously signed, from the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; '
from Sheffield and its vicinity ; from the Master, Wardens,
and Operative Cotters of Huddersfield, in the County of York :
from several parishee in the town of Sheffield ; from the Borough
of Doncaster ; from Pontefract, Rothwell, Manley, Eckmons.
worth, Gomersal, Hosforth, Ilderston, Putisley, Stannemeath,
Disloy, Yielden, and several other places in the County of
York.—Laid on the table.
Mr. D. GILBERT, and others from the Commons, brought
up a private Bill, which was read a first time.
Mr. SPIILL ER' from the Commissioners of the Caledonian
Canal, presented a list and copy of the claims prefenred, and
comPetisetions granted for damages occasioned by the making
of the.Catial.--Laid of the table.
PROPOSITION TO THE BANK.
The, Marquis of LA NSDOWN wished to say a few words
before the House took into consideration the. Report of the
Committee on the Bank Charter Bill, when he should move a
clause for the purpose of compelling any Branch Bank which
the Bank of England might establish, to pay in coin where its
notes were issued. In order to save-the time of the House, it
might be an advantage if the Noble Earl opposite would inform
hivii‘whether it werecorrect that a communication had been made
by his Majesty's Government to the Bank of England, to influ-
ence its Directors to engage in the new system, now in practice
at least, of issuing money on goods pledged as security. if this
were correct he should make some observations on the intro-
duction of a principle so important, and as he conceived, so in.
furious.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no difficulty in stating, that
it was true that 3 communication had taken place between some
Members of the Government and sonic Directors of the Bank of
England, on the subject to which the Noble Marquis had al-
luded. He was not able to.say what the decision of the Direc-
tors, or of any branch of them, might be, the subject being still
under their consideration.
The Marquis of LA NSDOWN understood from the Noble
Earl's answer, that as far as his Majesty's Government were
concerned, their opinion was formed as to the propriety of' the
measure, and they had called upon the Bank to adopt it. He
most earnestly hoped that they would re-consider this opinion,
or that the Bank would not lend itself to such a measure. lie
lied no hesitation in saying that even admitting the necessity of
an extraordinary interference to give an impulse to the currency
the mode proposed was the most objectionable of all. A tall time
and particularly in many discussions in which the Noble Earl end
himself had been engaged, the principle had been recognized
that it was indispensable to its individual and the general good
that the hands oldie Bank should be free, on account. of the in-
fluence which It exercised over the state of the currency and the
exchanges. Now what was more likely to tie them up and to.
embarrass its operations as that particular mode of making ad,
vances to a great, if not to an unlimited extent on the security
of goods. That view of the question bad been brought under
the consideration of Government and the Bank in 1793, when
Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville, who then sat in theother House as,
a Minister of State, expressed in the strongest terms their opi.
nian that it was not tit to induce the Bank to depart from its
accustomed course: Mr. Pitt stated, that the Bank in the dis-
counts, looked to securities which could be made available in
two months, whilst the securities of goods was not disposable in
that time, and it was a course to which it was not accustomed—
! Lord Melville's opinion was still stronger, when as Mr. Secre-
tary Derides, he entered his protest against any such measure,
and declared " that to call on the Bank was by no means pru-
dent ; that the Bank discounted on security, and on the prin.
ciple that a return'would be made in two months, whilst the
measure carried far heyond that time." If these objections ex-
isted at that period, how much more applicable were they not
now, when by the consent of every man of common understand-
ing who had considered the subject, it was to tbe Exchanges
that the Bank must look for the government of its transac-
tions. And if no man could be found bold enough to antics.
pate what the course of the exchanges might be in the next
six months, would it be safe or prudent to make the Bank in.
crease its issues on the deposit of goods which could not be con.
tidered saleable, so that in a case of expediency those issues
could not be recalled. It was necessary that the-Bank should
have a. complete controul over its actions. What then would be
the result, it' in addition to the large capital already locked up
to pay the dead money, the springs of the whole machine were
clogged by the additionalaveight of issues on goods which, when
made, could not be recalled in sufficient time ? Would not this
prevent the accommodation of those who, in the usual course of
business, should apply for discounts ? If an artificial interference
were necessary, a direct issue of Exchequer Bills would be in-
finitely less objectionable, because if it were true, as it was
asserted, that it was not money which was wanted, but confi-
dence, Exchequer Bills would go far to restore it without
being wholly converted into currency, whereas the whole of
these issues upon goods must be turned into currency at a