The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY.

The Earl of Powis, after presenting a great number of
-petitions against the union of the sees of Bangor and St.
Asaph, moved the second reading of the bill which he
had introduced, to repeal so much of the act of 1836 as
provided for the union of those sees. The noble earl
having urged the unanimity of the vast number of peti-
tions presented to the House, and the universal feeling of
the clergy of North Wales in favour of his proposition,
proceeded to answer the objections he anticipated. It
might, he said, be called inconsistent to repeal part of an
Act so lately passed ; but then it would be worse than in-
consistent not to repeal it, if it were found to work a great
evil. But he had a precedent for his motion. Within a
short time after the original Act was passed, it was thought
desirable to repeal so much of it as related to the union of
the see of Sodor and Man with the see of Carlisle. Why,
then, should that which had been granted to the entreaties
of the inhabitants of the Isle of Man be refused to the en-
treaties of the clergy arid inhabitants of North Wales?
The great increase of the population in Wales, the extent
of the surface over which the bishop would have to exer-
cise his spiritual functions, and the natural difficulties of
the country, were all potent arguments against the pro-
posed union of the sees.

The Duke of WELLINGTON, on the part of the govern-
ment, opposed the bill. The arguments used by Lord
Powis, he said. might be very good against the Act of
1836, but now that the Act was in operation, and that the
orders in council consequent of it had been promulgated,
it would embarass the Government and her Majesty in
council, if a bill to repeal part of this Act were to be
passed into a law. His Grace continued :—" The orders
in council were made in 1838, six years ago, and the
orders having been duly registered as required by the Act,
my noble friend now comes for a repeal of the Act, which
is the foundation of all those measures. My noble friend
has argued the question as if nothing had been done, and
as if we had now to consider whether these sees should be
united or not; but if he comes forward to repeal the act
uniting the sees, on which are founded the other measures
under the order in council, he ought, at least, to have
provided all the means and machinery for which the orders
in council, under the authority of the Act of Parliar.ent,
have made provisions; but on these points my noble
friend and his bill are entirely silent. The Act, however,
and the orders in council, provide not only for the pecuni-
ary means, but also for the political situation of the new
Bishops of Ripon and Manchester. It provides that if
two new bishops are to be appointed, two of those who
had formerly seats in this House shall be withdrawn, and
unite the sees of Bristol and Gloucester, and secondly of
St. Asaph and Bangor, thus leaving the number of bishops
in the House the same as before the passing of the Act.
NZy noble friend should have adverted to this, and seen
that his measure would make an organic change in the
constitution of this House, and in the number of spiritual
peers. It makes the augmentation, but no provision in
which those bishops shall be called to take their seats in
the House ; no provision for rotation if the number
should not be greater than at present, nor for any con-
sequences of making one more bishop. Considering the
necessity of providing for these points, I intreat yaur
lordships to remember the difficulty in which you and her
Majesty in council will be placed if you give a second
reading to this bill. " The noble duke moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
The Bishop of BANGOR warmly supported the bill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY admitted that the
feelings of the clergy and laity of Wales were in favour of
this measure; but argued that the opinions of the commis-
sioners were against it, and against the expediency of
maintaining the sees separate. The most reverend prelate
opposed the bill.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S charged the Government
with want of regard to the grievances of the Welsh people.
He knew that representations made to the Government
previous to the recent disturbances in 'Wales had been
discharged, and the principality now felt the bitter effects
of that discharge. The Church in Wales was labouring
under the effects of that general disregard.
The Earl of WINCHELSEA warmly supported the bill.

The Bishop of LONDON opposed tile bill, on the ground
that, if carried, it would endanger the creation of the new
see of Manchester.

The Bishop of EXETER supported the bill, and argued,
that it was in committee on the bill that the inconveni-
ences mentioned by the Duke of Wellington, and the fu-
ture provision for the Bishop of Manchester would have
to be considered.

The Bishop of SALISBURY adduced his own personal
experience as an instance of the mischief and disappoint-
ment attending the unions of sees. He had, he said, the
misfortune of having cast upon him the duty of two dio-
ceses ; most unwillingly he had been induced by the
example of those, to whose judgement and experience he
felt great deference was due, and by a supposed state of
necessity in the Church, for which he had been told no
other remedy could be found, to undertake the care of
another diocese in addition to that which properly belonged
to him. Now, he could assert, that the union he was
concerned with had given satisfaction to no man, and least
of all to himself. The burden of it distracted his attention
from the duties of his own peculiar diocese : it over-
weighed his spirits, and it broke his health. lie bad
earnestly desired to be relieved from that burden, but for
that relief he had petitioned in vain. The clergymen of
his own diocese might well complain that a portion of
their care and superntendence which were due to them had
been diverted from them ; and those of the other diocese
deeply felt, he knew, that they were deprived of the care
and oversight of a bishop residing amongst themselves.
The right reverend prelate assured the government that,
by rejecting this measure, they would greatly shock the
feelings, disappoint the hopes, and shake the confidence of
those who were the firmest friends of the Church.
Greatly would the Church rejoice—exclaimed the right
rev. prelate—to see a government strong not only in finan-
cial resources, not only in its success in both Houses of
Parliament, but strong also in those higher attributes
which attached to the Government the affections of the
people. Greatly would the Church rejoice to see an ad-
ministration strong in that faith which can trust for a
Messing on all religious questions ; strong in that hope
?Wax can animate to meet difficulties ; and strong in
that enlarged charity for the souls of men, which would
tiiike them see it to be a statesman's duty to bring reli-
gion home to the doors of the people, and that the offi-
eienoy of the Church of Christ was the only sure founda-
tion alike of social order and eternal peace.
The, garl of HARROWBY likewise supported the bill.
Theix,Lprdships then divided—
For the second reading 49
for tbeePsake of Wellington's amendment 37
Majority against the Government —l2
The bi'3l was read a second time.

HOUSE OF
CO7
ONS.—TUESDAY.
4/7
Mr. Bowrawicic moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the operation
Sirof the Anatomy Act, but the
motion MS resisted ,
* division. J. Graham, and refused on
Mr. WARD then brought on his annual
committee of the whole liouse on the motion for a
temporalities of the
Irish Church.
Lord ELIOT observed upon the vagueness of this pro-
posal for a committee, by which the bon mover had
evaded the making, f any specific proposal whatever upon
the important subject of this motion. He quoted the
declarations of many distinguished advocates of the Ro-
sman Catholics against tlig ,disturbance of the Protestant

Church in Ireland. The Protestant Clergy in that coun-
try were not open to the censures which they bad justly
incurred in earlier times : they were now pious and dili-
gent ministers of religion. The Homan Catholics now
professed to repudiate all State provisions for themselves ;
and the present object, therefore, was not to endow the
Roman Catholic religion, but to take away the property
of the Protestant Church for the purpose of applying it
to secular uses.

Mr. SHAW said the question seemed now to be no
longer whether the Irish Protestant Church should have
a little more or a little ►ess, but whether its whole pro-
perty should be transferred to another Church, or carried
away from Church purpcses altogether. The general
state of the Church of Ireland might challenge compari-
son with that of any establishment in the world. The
income of the Church, as stated by Mr. Ward, was the
gross income : its net income was only about £550,000.
He rejoiced that this motion had been met with manly
resistance by the government, and felt assured that the
people would sanction no other principle.
The debate was then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

The adjourned debate on the Church Temporalities of
Ireland was resumed. After one or two members had
spoken,
Sir J. GRAHAM remarked that the thin attendance
and the apathy of the few members who did attend were
a justification of the praise given to the mover as a man
who manifestly outstripped the spirit of the age. The
subject of the Roman Catholic oath was irrelevant to this
debate; and he would only observe upon that oath, that
he considered its construction to be matter for each mem-
ber's individual conscience. With respect to the imme-
diate matter of discussion—the Irish church, the govern-
ment had endeavoured to, purify it, but, in its purified
state, were resolved to uphold it with their utmost
strength. It was asked, would you, if there was no Irish
Protestant church in existence, create now such a church
as this ? That, question was not an applicable one in the
case of a nations ancient institutions. He would not say
that the union precluded all changes in the temporalities
of the chtirch; but his opinion WAS, that such changes
should be made, not with a view to weaken, but to con-
firm the establishment. On this ground it was that he
had been a party to the removal of sinecures and other
abuses ; but he would not be a party to reductions which
should carry away the church property to uses not con-
nected with the church. As to Sir C. Napier's threat of
mischief from hostile steamers, it was an injustice to the
loyalty of the Irish Roman Catholics; a sure way of nul-
lifying any danger in the Channel would be to place the
gallant admiral himself in command there. The assumed
analogy between the unions with Ireland and with Scot-
land was an inaccurate one ; for the religion established
in Scotland was not only that of the majority of the Scotch
people, but had been that of the Scotch legislature ;
whereas the religion of the majority in Ireland was one in
which the Irish legislature did not participate. The go-
vernment had been reminded in this debate that they had
promised to remove all substantial grievances and to effect
all safe improvement in Ireland. He believed the now
pending measure respecting the registration of Irish
electors to be a measure of this beneficial character.
He had the same impression with respect to the
pending Municipal Bill, which, mutatit mutandis, was
that of England. Then as to the facilitation of a Roman
Catholic endowment ; on that subject a bill was prepared,
would be forthwith introduced, and was intended to be
passed in the present session. Moreover, it was the de-
sign of government to increase the vote for religious edu-
cation in Ireland. All these were legitimate boons. But
this proposal to take away the property of the Irish
church, whether for the endowment of the Roman Catho-
lics or for secular purposes, was one which, its his:opi-
nion, justice, honour, and policy alike forbade, and which
the government was determined firmly to resist.
Lord JOHN Ro SSELL pointed to the present excitement
of Ireland, and the flourishing exchequer of the Repealers,
as strong reasons for the present motion. From the
speech of Mr. Shaw it might have been supposed that he
was speaking of a Protestant church in the midst of a
Protestant people; but even if all its abuses were ad-
mitted to be in a course of extinction, still there remained
the argument that the whole state provision for religion I
was in the hands of only one-tenth of the people. He was
surprised at the high ground of adherence to the Union
Act now taken by Sir J. Graham, who had been a party
to a bill taking away £300,000 from the Irish church.
Sir R. Peel had used more moderate language as to the
extent in which the Union Act should be considered as
obligatory at the present day. He would next inquire,
whether the Protestant church now answered the proper
purposes of an establishment so completely that no change
could fitly be made in it? His own view of an establish-
ment was, that it should give the means of instruction to
the people. As the state punished the people's offences,
it was bound to teach them how to avoid offending. For
the diseases of the body, the patient suffering pain would
seek relief of his own accord ; but the diseases of his im-
mortal part being usually unfelt by him, the remedy was
not spontaneously sought, and consequently those were
the cases in which the state was especially bound to inter-
po e for his preservation. Besides, where the religious
teacher was dependent wholly on his congregation he had
an inducement to flatter their vices; and to that cause
might be traced the guilty support which was given to
slavery by religious teachers in the United States. Poli •
tically, too, it was inexpedient that the teachers of religion
should have an interest to side with the people against the
state. How important an object was it, therefore, to en-
gage the Roman Catholic clergy on the side of the state,
by some provision which should make them in some de-
gree independent of their flocks! There were 217 Irish
parishes without a single Protestant; and what duties
connected with the state could the pastors of such pa-
rishes have to perform ? The church might be called the
eyes of the social body ; but you would scarce think it ex-
pedient, for the sake of having six eyes, to give up the
arms and the legs. It was no argument to say that dif-
ferent supporters of this motion had different plans ; that
was equally the case' among those who made the first
movements towards the reform of Parliament ; but all had
agreed in the fitness of such a reform, and finally in the
manner of effecting it. The dangers of war were now
treated lightly ; but experience bad shown that such dan-
gers, when they actually arrived, had brought concession
with them. True, the Irish people were yet loyal ; but
when they should see that you imposed upon them what
no other nation in Europe submits to, the warmest loyalty
might cool. While you refused to apply to Ireland the
rule which you apply to England and to Scotland the dis-
content of Ireland was a justifiable one. Proceed, then,
into committee, and there consider what terms the wor-
thy bishops and clergy of Roman Catholic Ireland will
agree to. Until you have done that, you have no right to
say you have done justice to Ireland.
Sir R. PEEL said, that having in the last, and again in
the present session stated his opinions upon the subject,
he regretted to be under the necessity of repeating them
now; but he should not shrink from such a repetition in
the official position which he held. Lord J. Russell had
not stated the principle which he would adopt in the pro-
posed committee • but he had said that which would lead
to a conclusion that the Roman Catholic religion must be-
come the established one in Ireland ; for he had treated
the discontent in that country as justifiable, unless the
same rule were applied to it which was applied to Scotland
and to England. Sir R. Peel reminded the house of the
extreme opinions professed on former occasions by Mr.
Ward, and cautioned them against going into this com-
mittee, unless prepared to carry those opinions into ef-
fect. He admitted that he had treated the Act of Union
as not absolutely binding under all circumstances and at
all hazards, but he had also stated that its spirit was not
to be departed from without a strong necessity. He
quoted a speech of Mr. Plunket, the authorised advocate
of the Roman Catholics in their suit for emancipation, in
which speech Mr. Plunket had expressly pledged himself
that emancipation was not to involve any hostile attempt
upon the church establishment, and had insisted upon the
distinction in principle between the Irish and Scottish
unions. He had himself, when he introduced the Relief
Bill of 1829, relied on the understanding that the inte-
grity of the Irish church was to be preserved; no other
intention or impression had been entertained by Mr. Pitt
at the time of the union ; and it was most dangerous that
these great compacts and mutual understandings should
be lightly rescinded. He did not believe that the reli-
gious animosities of Ireland were generated by the exist-
ence of the Church establishment, or would be removed
by its extinction. Very recently, on the Dissenters' Cha-
pels Bill, he had found much greater animosity between
different sects of Dissenters than between Dissenters and
the Established Church. But if a change in the Church
of Ireland were necessary for the removal of religious
animosity, what sort of a change was it to be? Ina church
establishment there ought to be a control by the state
over the church ; but the Roman Catholics refused to
permit the state's intervention at all. They would not
accept a public provision for themselves ; and so they
claimed that a public provision should not be allowed to
the Protestants, but that the fund should be transferred
to secular purposes. Surely that was no very reasonable
demand. Again, how was equality to be arranged with
respect to the seats of bishops in the House of Lords ?
and was there to be also an equal or a proportional divi-
sion of the churches of Ireland between the two sects ?
When Lord Althorp introduced the bill for the:abolition
of ten bishoprics, it was hailed by the Reformers with de-
light; yet now, only ten years after that large reform,
harsher language was used than when the whole was un-
reformed. His refusal to enter into this committee was
not because he wished to avoid any useful correction of
non-residence, or of any other still remaining abuse, for
in such corrections he was ready to persevere; but he op-
posed the motion because he was satisfied that the Church
ought to be maintained, and that to go into committee
would be only to countenance delusion.
Mr. SHELL desired to know what course was to be
taken respecting Maynooth, about which nothing had
been said. Surely the government would not be so dis-
ingenuous as to offer an endowment to the clergy which
they knew the clergy would refuse, and to withhold an
endowment from Maynooth which they knew that May-
nooth would accept? Yet the government had been
wholly silent on this important' point. In Sir R. Peel's
administration of 1834 a bill was brought in taking 25 per
cent. from the church, and giving it to the landlords.
That was no ecclesiastical purpose. (Mr. SHAW said it
was an allowance.) The right lion. gentleman called it
an allowance; he would call it a confiscation; but call it
by whatever name, it would smell as sweet to the land-
lord, and as offensive to the parson. He blamed Sir J.
Graham for having thrown out an intimation that to
touch theirish Church would be to endanger all other
Irish property • that was the excitement of an unfair pre-
judice—of a false alarm—it was the invocation of the
ghost of Cromwell to mount guard upon the ministerial
camp. He drew a parallel between the Canadian clergy
reserves and the Irish Protestant Church. There was no

express mention of the temporalities of the Church in the
Irish Act of Union ; while in the Canadian constitution
the reserves had been expressly guirded ; yet, under the
popular pressure of necessity the sanctity of the reserves
was given up by Lord Sydenham. What he now asked

was, not a subversion of the Church, but only a reduction
of her revenue, a modification of her establishment. If
the state and the church must be connected, he did but
ask that, as in the state, so in the church, mere sinecures
should be retrenched. Why should the Archbishop of
Armagh be paid more than the Chancellor of Ireland?
Why a bishop more than a judge ? He did not ask to
suppress the bishopric, but only to place it on a level with'
the judgeship. After few observations on the supposed
intentions of the government respecting Malt education,
he animadverted on the delay of the Irish Registration
Bill. That delay he attributed to the fear of government,
lest, by increasing the power of the people, they should
accelerate the destruct:on of the Church:- As in Canada
the government had found it expedient to act in confor-,
rnity with the wishes of the people, so let theni act in Ire-
land, and not disastrously throw away this-great occasion
of rendering an invaluable service tcrtheir country.
Sir R. INGLIS would maint lin the Protestant Church,
not merely because it was the establishment, but because
it was the truth. Mr. Sheil's argument was, that he
wanted not her life, but only her money—an argument
less usual in Parliament than on the road.

Mr. WARD said two or three words in reply, and the
house then divided, when the motion was lost by a majo.
City of 274 to 179.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY.

Lord CLARENDON elicited from Lord Aberdeen some
interesting information upon the respective relations of
France and Spain and Morocco. The quarrel of the lat-
ter power with Spain he considered as in a fair way of ar-
rangement, both parties having accepted the mediation of
Great Britain, and he had reason to believe that, in spite
of the skirmish which had taken place, no serious inter-
:uption to the existing good understanding between France
and Morocco was to be apprehended.
Lord MONTEAGLE then rose, and in a very long speech
endeavoured to make out the proposition that protecting
duties are injurious to all classes. but most especially
to those whom they profess to protect.
The motion was opposed, on the part of the govern-
naent, by Lord Dalhousie, who gave place to Lord Clad
rendon. Lord Colchester, the Duke of Richmond, Lord
Wicklow, the Marquises of Lansdowne and Wiochilsea
followed ; and after a short reply by Lord Monteagle,
their lordships proceeded to a division, uegativing the mo-
tion by a majority of 109.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
On the motion, in the House of Commons, for the se-
cond reading of the Bank Charter Bill.
Mr. HAWES proposed a resolution' that no evidence
had been laid before the House to justify the interference
of the legislature with the circulation of the banks of
issue. He maintained, that in order to warrant such an
interposition there ought to have been proof of some de-
preciation in our paper currency ; but that no such proof
had here been given. He contended that prices had never
been proved to rise and fall with the increase and contrac-
tion of the circulation ; and he produced a table of prices
to verify his argument. He asserted that if 'the present
small-note circulation were withdrawn, its place would be
supplied, and much more injuriously, by a paper credit in
the shape of small b lls of exchange. In past seasons of
pressure, as in 1825 and 1839, assistance had been given
to credit by the Bank in a way which had been approved
by the highest authorities ; but, under the proposed plan
of contraction, if like seasons should recur, such assistance
could not again be .afforded. The present corn-laws
would be a disturbing,cause to your currency, but that
would give him an additional argument for demanding
their repeal. He feared that the references which the
Bank would have to make to the government would in-
troduce an evil not hitherto known in the city—the mix-
ture of party politics with banking affairs.
Mr. HASTIE seconded the motion.
Mr. GOULBURN considered the speech of Mr. Hawes
as an objection to the whole plan. It would ha
,e been
more manly to mole that the bill should be read a second
time on that day six months than to let the bill pass with
this kind of slur upon it. One of the main articles whose
cheapness Mr. Hawes had relied on, to show that prices
were not raised by excessive issues of paper, was sugar ;
but the cheapness of sugar was owing to the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the maritime supremacy of England dur-
ing the war. Did Mr. Hawes forget the difficulty which
from time to time had occurred in maintaining the con-
vertibility of paper, which he admitted to be indispensa-
ble ? Did he forget Mr. Huskisson's declaration, in 1825,
that the country was reduced almost to a commerce of
barter ? To guard against the recurrence of such evils it
was necessary to introduce a measure like the present;
and he considered the evidence taken before the Banking
Committees had supplied the house with amply materials
for judging of this bill. He restated the principle of
the measure as before explained by Sir R. Peel, and
called upon the house to sustain it.
Sir W. CLAY and Mr. HUME spoke against the motion
of Mr. Hawes, and Mr. WODEHOUSE in favour of it.
Mr. C. BULLER thought that Mr. Hume, to be consis-
tent with his speech, ought to have voted for Mr. Hawes's
motion. According to Sir R. Peel, this would be a cure
for all the evils of our complicated commercial state; but
he could not regard it in that point of view. He was not
prepared to agree that the American disasters arose mainly
from excessive issues ; he imputed them rather to wild
speculation. Nothing could be more absurd than the old
policy of parliament in restraining the number of partners
in banking concerns ; the reversal of that policy by the
legalization of joint-stock banks had worked well in point
of security for the public, whatever, losset might have
been sustained by the shareholders. Th'e most objec-
tionable part of the present plan appeared to him to be
the suppression of the issues of country banks. It was
not a sound principle to limit speculation, by excluding a
particular form of credit : worse forms were sure to be
substituted. One would suppose to hear in these discus-
sions that all the great speculations had been effected with
bank-nbtes ; but the fact was that the amount of bills of
exchange in circulation during the year 1829 was upwards
of £132,000,000 sterling, while the amount of bank. notes
was only £25,000,000 or £26,000,000. The clearing-
house daily settled about £3,000,000, with cash to the
amount of only about £200,000. In fact, the evil lay
much deeper than legislation could go—it had its roots in
the cupidity and folly of mankind. Suppose you succeed
in extinguishing the notes, the result would be only a
complicated system of credits in each neighbourhood,
resting not on the solvency of the one bank, but of its
many customers respectively. He questioned the accuracy
of Sir R. Peel's list of bankers who had failed, and argued
that but a small proportion of them were issuers of notes.
It had been said that the banker was induced to make
advances by the facility of issuing his own notes, when,
but for the notes, be would have lacked the means ; but
this was an error, for if his regular circulation was
£lO,OOO, and he issued £20,000 beyond that amount to
a borrower, a few days only would elapse before the sur-
plus £20,000 would be returned upon him. He objected,
then, to this bill—first, because it was delusive; secondly,
because he thought it would introduce objectionable forms
of credit; thirdly, because it sacrificed private interests
without a clear ground of public necessity. It was obvi-
ous that the object of Sir R. Peel was to put an end to all
issues except by the Bank of England. The bill proposed
to fix, as the maximum of each banker's future circulation,
the average of his circulation during the last two years.
But why should the average between the highest and the
lowest point in time past be fixed as the highest in time to
come ? In Lancashire there was no circulation but of
bank-notes, yet the bankruptcies in that county we:e just
as numerous as in counties where country notes were cir-
culated. He complimented the government upon their
adoption of the opinions of the Political Economy Club ;
this very measure was the invention of Mr. Jones Loyd ;
but, on banking, the club was much divided. How much
better would it be if the government would adopt those
opinions in which the club were unanimous—for instance,
their views on the subject of the corn laws !
Sir It. PEEL commented upon the inconsistencies of the
speakers who had preceded him. The arguments of most
of them went substantially, though not professedly, to the
rejection of the metallic principle. He exposed the futility
of any reference to the prices of particular articles as a test
of the value of the currency. He appealed to the example
furnished by America while the control of a central bank
subsisted there, and to the warning held out by the con-
sequences which had followed the removal of that control.
He quoted the opinions of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Web-
ster, that convertibility was not, by itself alone, a sufficient
security against overissue. In each of the commercial
crisises of this country there had been an overissue of
most injurious magnitude. He knew perfectly well that
the Bank of England, under the worst of those circum.
stances, could have maintained the convertibility of its
notes ; but how frightful was the cost of that mainte-
nance ! The present measure proceeded upon the princi-
ple of a wholesome precautionary distrust of -the Bank.
With respect to country paper, it was said that the want
of accommodation would be seriously felt. But he bad
shown that an issue of only £1,300,000 supplied the whole
of that great circle round London of which the radius was
65 miles. And if country banks should not be prepared
to give accommodation, would the Bank of England refuse
to make proper advances ? In some of the greatest ma-
nufacturing districts more than five-sixths of the notes in
circulation were those of the Bank of England ; such was
the case at Gloucester; so at Manchester, where the cir-
culation was of such vast extent ; so at Liverpool. It was
said that the noteholders of joint-stock banks had sus-
tained no loss. Perhaps not, after four or five years of
pressure upon every individual shareholder; but many of
those banks were founded in fraud, and had failed under
the most disgraceful circumstances : and he did feel that
it was justifiable and necessary to protect the poor man,
who had no opportunity of receiving their notes, the retail
dealer, the servant, arid the labourer. He trusted that no
further opposition would be offered to this bill, even by a
small minority. Four times in the last twenty years events
had occurred in the monetary affairs of this country which
proved the necessity of the present pre?aution ; and,
though that precaution could not control illegitimate spe-
culation, the government felt it their duty to interpose as
far as it was in their power, a check to those mischiefs
which it was possible to restrain.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP and two
other members, Me. Hawes's motion was rejected by a
majority of 185 to 30.