Star.
London, England, 1826-04-15 00:00:00

SCOTCII BANKING SYSTEM.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented Petitions front several
Parishes in the county of Forfar, against any alteration in the Scotch
Banking System —Laid on the table.
Lord GW Y DYR presented similar Petitions fram several Pa-
rishes of Perthshire, which were disposed of in the same manner.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN moved the Order of the Day
for the second reading of the Mil for compelling Bankers to pay
their Notes on preientation in specie, at the place from whence such
Notes were issued. The Marquis said, in moving the second
reading of the Bill, he should not detain their Lordships any length
of time, as the intentions of the Bill were pretty generally known.
It Will requisite that a check should be placed upon the excess of
issue in paper, and for the security of the poorer classes it was
necessary that the Banks should be compelled to pay at the place
from whence they issued their notes. He saw no reason why par.
ticular counties were to be excluded from the operations of the Bill.
He sincerely hoped that their Lordships would concur in a measure
which would gradually do away with one of the greatest evils which
had ever afflicted this country. With regard to the Issues of
country bankers, he knew one instance of a country banker who
actually entered into an arrangement with a certain Paymaster for
the circulation of his notes, paying hint a per tentage upon them,
in proportion to the miles in which they were circulated. II bankers
were allowed to issue notes not payable at the place from which
they were issued, it would be giving such persons undue preference
over those banks who really did pay in specie. In Ireland, in
consequence of this system, the notes of one bank had been at par,
whilst those of another were at a discount. lie was aware that
some Noble Friends near him thought the Scotch banks had good
grounds of exemption, but he saw no reason for excepting Scot-
land. It was impossible the system should be different in the two
countries. He was conhdeut that when the subject was inquired
into in a Committee, the expediency of the measure, as far as re-
garded Scotland, would be acknowledged. He should now pro.
pose the second reading of the BM, reserving the question of eaten.
sion to Scotland for the Committee. It was his opinion, that no
respectable bankers would attempt to issue paper but from places
at which it was made payable.
Lord FARNHAM mold see no objection to the measure if it
was prospective; but if it required the calling in of all the notes at
present out, it would be imposing a serious injury upon the persons
who had issued them. The purchase of new stamps, Sec. was no
inconsiderable expence. He had no doubt, however, but when
they went into a Committee, means would be adopted to carry the
Bill amicably into effect.
Lord ROSSLYN objected to the Bill, upon the ground that a
total destruction of credit would follow its adoption. He could
not pretend to say what its effects would be in Ireland, but in
Scotland be oral certain the greatest inconveniences and difficulties
would be experienced.
Lord MELVILLE thought they would pause before they passed
any measures In this country which would involve Scotland and
Ireland. Upon the present occasion he should suggest to the Noble
Framer of the Bill that it would be much better to postpone its
operation until the Report of the Committee bad been received.
Latsi LAUDERDALE contended, that in remedying one evil
their Lordships should take care that they did net fall into a greater
His lordship saw no reason for extendiug the measure either to
Ireland or Scotland. In Scotland. he was convinced, if the Bill
passed, the whole system of banking would be undermined, and
he dreaded the consequences to that country.
Lord LIMERICK hoped that all the lenity which might be
shown to Scoelandwould be extended to Ireland.

Lord CALE DON hOped the Noble Marquis, baying brought
i• his bill, would 'persevere in It. indeed he saw no reason why
their Lordships should not proceed, notwithstanding the Committee.
Lord CLIFDEN was of the same opinion.
Lord LIVERPOOL said, he should vote for the second reading
of the Bill; but he thought that the greatest consideration was re-
quired upon a subj•:ct of such deep interest to Scotland and Ireland.
It was certainly highly requisite that their Lordships should guard
themselves, whilst correcting one evil, from falling into another ;
and he should therefore suggest that a longer space of time be al-
lowed than was originally intended. Perhaps the Noble Marquis
opposite would not object to the Committee being axed for Toes-
day week.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he should avail himself of
the suggestion of the Noble Marquis.
The Bill was then read a second time, and the Committee axed
for Tuesday week.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN gave notice, that he should on
Monday next present a Petition to their Lordships front the Roman
Catholics in Ireland.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a Petition from several persons
concerned in the manufacture of earthenware in Staffordshire and
the County Palatinate of Durham, in favour of the Potters' Regu.
Wiwi Bill.—Laid on the table.

The Hon. Manua begged leave to postpone the second reading
of the Pill, in consequence of an objection raised by the Hen. Pre-
sident of the-Board of Trade against the principle of the Bill.
Mr. CA LCRAFT and Mr. Alderman THOMPSON objected
to the Bill in tots.

Mr. LITTLETON said that the opposition to the Bill arose
from interested motives of individuals.

The second reading of the Bill was postponed until this day week.

lIIRMINoHAM AND LIVRRPOnL CANAL SILL.

Lord CLIVE moved the Order of the Day for the re-committal
of the Liverpool and Birmingham Canal Bill.
Mr. CA LCRAFT opposed the motion. He had in his pocket
a Petition which bad been signed only two hours ago by a Lady
wbo had already petitioned against the Bill. lie alluded to Mrs.
Johnson, through whose property the Canal was intended to pass;
she had been represented to the House as an elderly widow lady,
and possessing only a small landed property ; he could assure the
House that she was not old, but on the contrary was in the prime
of life. and was possessed at once of personal attractions and a
landed property of 400 acres. It was of no consequence, however,
whether the case was that of a widow, wife, or maid, the fact was
still the same, the invasion of property without consent.

Mr. LITtLETON wouldpay every compliment to the gallant
behaviour of the Hon. Member fur Wateham' and at the same
time wished to know where this Lady was to be found? He knew
that she must be in or near London from the circumstance of her
having signtd the Petition which the lion. Member had alluded to.
He (Mr. Calcratt) was her representative, as her prockain amis he
thought it would be better to have her brought .before the Com-
mittee by a writ of Habeas Corpus, and examined as to her dissent
or approval of the Bill. He was sure that she was not averse to
the Canal, and he trusted that the House would allow the re com-
mittal lathe Bill.

Mr. W. PEEL could assure the Hon. Member for Wareham
that it was not the intention of the Promotersof the Bill to deprive
any person of land without their assent.
Mr. LAWLEY would vote against the re-committal of the Bill,
and felt convinced of the Petitioner's claims upon the attention of
the House.

Sir G. CHETW YND thought it very bard, after the repeated
assertions of Mrs. Johnson's aversion to the Canal passing through
her property, that she should be put to the immense ripener of
being heard by Counsel *fore the Cnifintittee on the Bill, for the
purpose of repeating what %hells,' already said.
The SPEA KEIL then put the questiim.
Mr. S. RICE rose to present two Petitions from individuals of
the names of Bourne and liekher, complaining of the intruded line
of the Canal; which would materially injure their property by
passing ohroughit.

11t7LIT1;LhTON explained, that the Cinal was not intended
to interfere with Mr. Lieldeslaints.

Sir J. WROTTESLET could assure the Hon. Member of the
same fact, and hoped, after these assertions, the House would drop
the subject of the Bill, and decide upon the question of the rr-
comm!ttal, when those Hon. Members who opposed the
might there state their objections.
Mr. CA LV ERT opposed the re-committal.
Mr. CA LCR AFT stated, that there had been gross irregula-
rities in the Proceedings of the last Committee. They bad altered
the line of the Canal, and made it pass over property without ask-
ing the consent of the proprietot it of such.land. He would ask the
Noble Lord whether he had signed the Report of the Committee
(as Chairman of it) under the impression that every person bad
assented to the route of the Canal? In fact, his Frtetirttlie
Baronet (Sir G. Chetwynd), who was present at the ei.:me Com-
mittee, assured him of that being the case. Here was a gross
piece of irregularity, and he should move that the Bill should be
' referred to a Committee of Standing Olders, and not to the same
Committee who had proceeded in so injudicious a manlier.
A Mamma under the Gallery thought it would be better the the
Bill to be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.
_

Lord CLIVE said the mistake had been on the tide of the op.
posing partied. lie (Lord Clive) had prepared a clause which he
intended to have brought forward in the Committee, the basis
which was to prevent the Canal passing through the property of any
individual, unless th4y gave their assent.

After a few observations from Mr LAWLZT and Mr. CA LCLA re
against the motion, and Mr. Ltrri.rron and Mr. W. PliEt. in favour
of it, the Bill was ordered to be re-committed on Tuesday next.
A !Message from the Lords requested that leave might be givers
to Massey Dawson, Esq. and other Members of the House, to at-
tend and give evidence before :a Committee of Privileges of the
!louse of Lords; and to John Gladstone, Esq. to attend and give
evidence before the Committee on the Manchester and Liverpool
Railway Bill.
The following Petitions were presented, read, and ordered to be
laid on the table :—I-From Chester, for the better regulation of
the Water Works of that city, by Lord BRI.CRAVIE for th.:
Abolition of Slavery, from Loughborough, by Mr. L. Kans. and
from Keelseymoor, Aberdeenshire, by Mr. Huge; and troth East
Retford and Ashbourne, by Mr. C. PELHAM; for the repeal of the
Corn Laws, front Preston, by Mr. Hive, and from W,Kcester, by
Colonel Davies; against any'alteration in the Banking System. tit
Scotland, from a place in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, by Mr.
Misuse, and from several other parishes oflketland, by Captain
Coogan ; against the repeal of the Usury Lawsafrorn Anglesea, br
the Earl of Ussonsat ; from the Moisten of Southampton, praying
for a reduction of Duty on their Stock in hand, by Mr. C. I'LLHAM.