begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, a question upon a subject of much importance and deeply interesting to the people of Ireland. The House was aware that a great many Gentlemen had been, in consequence of their political sentiments, and the part they took in the Repeal movement during the last two or three years under the late Administration, removed from the commission of the peace in Ireland. A great many magistrates of opposite political opinions were likewise removed for countenancing Orange processions, although it was denied that they had over countenanced them at all. What he wished therefore to ask was—whether under all the circumstonces, and considering that in the present condition of Ireland a more humane and tolerant spirit had arisen and now prevailed amongst all parties, the Government would take any steps to have the gentlemen so dismissed restored to their commissions?

, in answer to the question, begged to state that the most serious attention of Her Majesty's Government had been given to the subject from the moment of their coming into office, and they had come to a determination upon it, the best way of stating which to the House would be by reading a short official correspondence which had taken place between himself (as Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant) and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was as follows:—

moved, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of correspondence between the Home Office and the magistrates of the Loughborough petty sessions, on the cases of Mary Ann Tyler, John Jarvis, and Catherine Stubbs, and of the report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the case of Catherine Stubbs.

did not intend to oppose the Motion, although it had not been usual to give copies of such correspondence. But in the present case, one of the magistrates having chosen to bring the case before his brother magistrates assembled at the Leicestershire sessions, and the report in the newspaper not giving a complete view of the case, he should accede to the Motion, in order that the whole matter might be fairly laid before the House. But he, of course, should wish it to be distinctly understood that it must not form a precedent.

moved the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of the Poor Removal Bill.

, having adverted to the various measures promised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in his speech upon the Corn Laws, as a compensation to the landed interest, said, that among these were proposals to take out of the public funds the remaining half of the expenses of prisoners, of prosecutions, the whole of the cost of the rural police of Ireland, of medical attendance on the poor, of the Perth prison, of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, and of the auditors of unions under the Poor Laws. Besides these, three other important Bills were announced: one of these had been introduced by the right hon. Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) regarding highways; another was the remnant this night to be read a third time; and the third a plan for advancing loans to landlords who wished to improve their estates. The first and the last had been dropped, and had disappeared. [Sir J. GRAHAM: The Loans Bill is not dropped. It has been recently discussed.] He should be glad to hear there was a chance of its passing. There had been upon the Table for the last three years a valuable report of Commissioners on local taxation, to which no attention had yet been paid. One of its most important recommendations was the consolidation of rates, twenty-four rates of which were levied for different purposes. Some of those had been consolidated in practice; but such consolidation, though most convenient, was illegal. There were many other points in the report deserving consideration, especially the publicity of all accounts; and it was notorious throughout the country that many charges were thrown upon the highway rate, in order to avoid the investigation of the auditors of the poor rates. The Committee of the House of Lords had produced an important report regarding the burdens upon land, which had yet attracted no notice: it touched upon required changes; and as many of the laws adverted to had been long condemned in public opinion, they only awaited speedy execution. It seemed to him that the present was the time for giving effect to such alterations as were justly expected by the landed interest; and he wished to be informed whether his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not appoint his Committee on the Law of Settlement this Session, although it might not be possible to do more than call for returns, which would facilitate further inquiry next year. Such had been the course pursued in 1837; and in the interval of the recess the Members appointed on the Committee advantageously directed their attention to various parts of the subject. He was of opinion that the investigation ought not to be confined to the question of settlement, for the question of rating was so intimately connected, that they could hardly be separated. At all events, it was desirable that the Session should not be allowed to expire without some distinct statement of opinion on the subject.

said, that almost the whole of the measures enumerated by his right hon. Friend had been introduced. The Highway Rates Bill had been given up by the right hon. Baronet with the full concurrence of the House. The Poor Removal Bill stood for a third reading this evening. The Drainage of Lands Advances Bill would be recommitted on Friday. The House had voted money for the maintenance of prisoners, for the expense of prosecutions, for medical relief, for the Perth prison, and for the schoolmasters of the Poor Law unions. The only measure not introduced was, that for the payment of the rural police of Ireland, for which a short Act was necessary, which the House would, he hoped, pass before the end of the Session. Of the ten measures promised by the late Government, nine had been or would be passed; and the tenth had been given up by the Government with the consent of the House. With regard to the question before the House, the Government were not able to pay much attention to it at this period of the Session; and the question of settlement might be advantageously considered in the recess by hon. Members. He differed, however, from his right hon. Friend in thinking that it would be advisable to appoint the Committee at this late period of the Session, for he doubted whether hon. Members could be got to attend it. The attention of the Government would be directed to the whole subject during the recess; and his noble Friend would be prepared next Session either to state the views of the Government, or to move for the appointment of a Select Committee.

said, to attack the present Government on the measures alluded to, was, in his opinion, unjust, because the Government had it not in their power, so near to the close of the Session, to bring forward measures of political consequence. As to the measures propounded by the late Government to the House as great measures of compensation and relief, he could say, that the disappointment was great on the part of those whose expectations had been raised by their promises. As to the Highway Rate Bill, it was an exceedingly doubtful matter throughout the country whether it would be a benefit or not. As to the proposed payment of medical men, it was so trifling, that it was not necessary to offer any observations with regard to it: it was a boon—a very small and trifling boon; still one that it was proper should be granted. As to the Poor Law Bill, the greatest attention had been excited, and the greatest disappointment felt. For himself, he had great reason to doubt whether or not it would confer any benefit on the poor. He believed that unless there was a clause of the nature that he meant to propose, the poor man would rather be a sufferer than a gainer by the present measure. This too, he must say, that if disappointment were felt, that feeling could not be entertained with respect to the party with whom he acted; for in the early part of the Session he had proposed that the whole of these matters should be referred to a Select Committee. He believed that even now, if the Government desired to have a more extended and more efficient law, the House would concur in that desire, and devote its time to the completion of an object so valuable. Let them remember that the first laws on their Statute-book were those of Cecil and Walsingham, and that their system of Poor Law could be traced to Sir Matthew Hale; but then a Poor Law Commission was not a part of that system, and bastardy clauses formed no portion of that plan. If they looked back to the recommendations of Sir Mathew Hale, and if they adopted them, he believed they would find but little difficulty in their legislation. As this Bill had passed through Committee, he believed the poor man would be injured by it; the agricultural interest also considered itself likely rather to be injured than benefited by the measure. He could tell the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, that it would be an injury to his constituents. [Sir J. GRAHAM: I have not heard that from them.] Then it was the more proper that he should acquaint the right hon. Baronet with a fact of which he appeared to be ignorant. He then proceeded to show how the Bill would practically affect the inhabitants of Fordington, a suburb of Dorchester. It might be said to inflict an injury, and not to confer a benefit, upon a poor man, to declare that, when his time for labour had passed, he should be irremovable—it might not be a benefit to the poor man in his old age to pass his last years and expend his last breath within the walls of a union workhouse, in a manufacturing, instead of allowing him to return to his native country parish, where, he might find grandchildren kindly to entertain him. He thought it would be but fair to give the poor man an option; but not only was he to be deprived of it, but the magistrate also. The poor man, in his old days, might hope that his native air would restore his health; whilst by this Bill he would be deprived of all chance of returning to the village in which he was born, and must expire in the workhouse of a manufacturing town. The answer which had been given to his proposition was, that, according to the Bill as it stood, this object might be effected if the poor man wished it, for he had only to go to some other parish, and from that other parish he could be removed. But let the House mark the consequences of that step on the part of the poor man. In the first place, it was very unjust to that other parish that it should have the expense of his removal. But, what was of much more importance, was the manner in which it would operate upon the poor man. If, being chargeable, he went into another parish, he was liable to be treated as a vagrant. That was the law. And was this the boon which they offered to the poor man, that in order to effect his object he must submit to become liable to the punishment awarded to vagrants and vagabonds? If it were the intention that the poor man should have an option, let it appear in the Statute-book. If it were not the intention, let the Government say so. He would then vote against the Bill, because he thought that, instead of a benefit to the poor, it would prove a cruelty. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) said the other night that the only difference between the system at present in existence and the system of irremovability which he had now for the first time introduced into an enactment, was simply that the right of irremovability was not to be conveyed to a man's children. That was one difference undoubtedly, but it was not the only one. There was another and a more essential difference, inasmuch as the poor man would be, in fact, a sort of prisoner under this system of irremovability; for if he quitted the place in which he had resided for five years only for a short time during that period, he had no power of returning. That was the main difference as affecting himself, his comforts, and his interests, between the new system they were about to set up, and that which had so long prevailed in this country. That was perfectly clear, if there were any difference at all between irremovabily and settlement. He deeply regretted that in a Session of Parliament when so much had been said, and properly said, in reference to the poor, so little should have been done for them; that, in short, it was doubtful whether anything had been done for their real and substantial benefit. He concurred in what had been said by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith); and he hoped that this question would be seriously considered by the Government, and that they would be prepared with a measure relative to settlement early in the next Session. For much as he might estimate the utility of a Select Committee, he considered that it would be of greater advantage if such a Committee had a Bill before them, which Bill might be the subject of their honest and friendly criticism; and unless it was under these circumstances that a Select Committee were appointed in the next Session, he should hardly hope for any good from the measure. If the Government would direct their careful and zealous attention to the subject, he was satisfied they would find that some portions of the new Poor Law had been tried a sufficient length of time to prove that they had not answered the expectations originally formed of them; and he thought that one of these was the existence of three Commissioners. Let the Government have the boldness to take the matter more immediately into their own hands, and then the law would be administered more satisfactorily to the country. As it appeared that at present the Secretary of State for the Home Department had no responsibility in these matters, and no direct or immediate knowledge of these subjects, he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would connect the administration of the Poor Law immediately with his own office, taking, of course, such aid as might be requisite for that purpose. If he did that, the right hon. Gentleman would elicit a sense of satisfaction that would pervade all ranks and orders in the country. At the proper period, he (Mr. Bankes) would offer the clause to which he had adverted; and he hoped the Government would perceive that, so far from its militating against the principle of their Bill, it was, in fact, no more than a fair explanation of its clauses; that it carried out what were the benevolent intentions comprehended in this small enactment; and that, at all events, it could do no harm.

merely rose for the purpose of assurring the hon. Gentleman that he was fully sensible of the importance of the general subjects to which he had adverted; and, without at present expressing any opinion upon, them, he might state that they would receive the most anxious, patient, and attentive consideration from the Government. He hoped that when this question was referred to a Select Committee, in the next Session of Parliament, the Government would be prepared to state their views, and to furnish all the documentary evidence they might think it necessary to lay before the Committee.

thought the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) afforded strong reason for not proceeding further with the Bill. That right hon. Gentleman told them that he was not now prepared to give his opinion on the subject. The fact was, and they need only look to the Table of the House for proof, that that House had become the executive department for carrying on the Poor Law. That certainly ought not to be the case. If the administration of the law had been committed to persons who were incapable of administering it properly, and if every Paper moved for exposed their weakness and incapacity, ought not the Government to see the necessity of undertaking the control of such an important branch of public affairs? Instead of dealing with the question by piecemeal, he thought that, in justice to all parties, they might postpone this measure until the whole subject could be taken into consideration.

said, that for the first time in the history of the Poor Law in this country, they were going to separate settlement and removal. He was sure hon. Gentlemen must be nearly all agreed that at the present moment the way in which it was attempted to deal with the law of removal was most imperfect and unwise. What motive the Government could have for pushing on the Bill in its present imperfect shape, he could not understand. It was most desirable for the character of a Government just entering on office, that their first measure, affecting the material well-being and physical condition of the people, should be a carefully weighed and well-digested plan. The present Bill, however, would, he contended, disturb the poor as well as the Poor-law officers and the magistrates, who would have to decide between them, and would throw the whole country into confusion, to the great disgrace of the new Administration. The question of settlement, removal, and rating should, in his opinion, he deferred for another Session, and should then be considered together.

considered it most desirable that the administration of the Poor Law should be placed under the immediate control of the Home Department. Under the present system, that law was administered most oppressively towards the poor, and in a manner which subjected the ratepayers to much unnecessary expense. If the Bill was passed in its present shape, gross injustice would be done to many parishes, and he believed it would be the source of great litigation.

considered it most advisable that this Bill should be postponed till the next Session. It was a measure that required great consideration, and if adopted in its present form, it would operate most perniciously with respect to 2,000 or 3,000 parishes. He did not see any great objection to a measure of this kind, if it was introduced simultaneously with a measure for amending the law of settlement. He considered that great benefit would, on the whole, result from the establishment of union settlements. Such a system would afford advantages for carrying out a plan of emigration on a large scale; and if two or three unions combined, it might be worth their while to fit out ships for the conveyance of emigrants at their own expense—an arrangement which would, no doubt, materially promote the comfort of the emigrants.

considered that the postponement of the Bill would occasion great inconvenience, for measures would be taken in many places to induce poor persons to remove, in order that they might not become chargeable on the parishes in which they now resided. He believed it was a measure that would do some good, though not all the good necessary, unless the proposition of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire met with the sanction of the House.

conceived that the measure was one of humanity towards the poor, and that it would not inflict those heavy burdens on parishes which some supposed, though it did not go to the extent he wished.

said, that the hon. Member for Salford thought that this measure would do some good between this time and next year; but the hon. Member must know that at present, owing to the prosperity of trade, which was likely to increase in succeeding years, there would be no removals of families from the manufacturing to the agricultural districts. He feared, if the measure were now passed, that, in some districts, the poor would be dogged from parish to parish in order to ascertain their settlement. He was in favour of the principle of the Bill, having no wish to see the poor working people returned from the manufacturing to the agricultural districts; but he desired the measure to be postponed for the present, as nothing was more injurious than ill-considered legislation.

supported the Bill, because he thought that it would be of immediate benefit to the poor, and nothing better could be done till the next Session of Parliament. He should be ready then to support a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the whole subject, with a view permanently to improve the laws. When the Poor Law Commission was first appointed, he thought that it was only to be a temporary board, instituted for the purpose of establishing the system of the new law throughout the country. The mode in which that system had been established, was, from want of experience, harsh and crude, and it had been found necessary to make alterations in each succeeding Session of Parliament. It was said that that the present was only partial legislation; but as humanity had called for alterations in the law in each succeeding year, he did not object to temporary, rather than partial, legislation; in the hope that next year it would introduce general and permanent improvement.

brought up the following Clause to be added to the Bill:—

"Provided always, and be it Enacted, That if any person upon examination by the Justices to whom application may be made for an order for his or her removal to a place of previous settlement, shall signify to the said Justices his or her consent thereto, then it shall be lawful to remove such person to the place of his or her previous settlement, although such person may have resided for the five years last preceding in the parish from which such person is so removed. And it is hereby declared, that nothing in this Act contained shall have the effect of restraining Magistrates from acting and adjudicating in respect of Orders of Removal, where such removal shall be applied for, and adjudicated upon with consent of the person who is the subject of such order."

The general opinion was, that if this clause were not introduced, the poor would have no such option; and without it the Bill would be an injury rather than a benefit.

reminded the House that when an Amendment of a similar kind, with respect to widows, was moved by the hon. Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell), the hon. Member for Birmingham urged the expediency of adopting a clause such as that now proposed; and he (Sir G. Grey) then stated that to the principle of such a clause he entertained no objection, and that his objection was founded on its being calculated to open a door to collusion, and on the apprehension (as the result of his best consideration of the subject, and communition with persons of great practical knowledge, whose opinions were entitled to much weight), that improper means would be taken to obtain or extort the consent of parties to the orders of removal, and that the effect would be to deprive the poor of the benefit apparently offered them. If the House thought the clause was so framed as to exclude the possibility of such evils, he had no objection to make; but his own opinion still was, that it would subject the parties to them.

considered that if overseers induced a pauper to deprive himself of a right the Bill gave him, he would be a willing person, and therefore could not complain. There was much more fear of collusion as the Bill now stood, because an overseer giving a man a sovereign to make himself removable by residing for a week in the next parish, would not only get rid of the man, but would saddle the next parish with the expense of his removal, and the risk of an appeal. The proposed clause, too, would bring the question under the control of the magistrates, who might investigate whether there was collusion, or whether it was his real interest to go back to his own parish.

did not see how an overseer, since his accounts would be accurately looked into, would have any funds with which to bribe paupers to consent to orders of removal. The House should not lay too much stress on getting rid of removals; they often took place when there was a superabundance of labour at a particular spot, and in such cases the poor man ought to have the option of being removed to a place where, perhaps, he could obtain employment. The clause seemed to propose a fair and desirable provision.

did not think overseers would be very likely to bribe paupers, or purchase their consent to be removed, if, as he understood, such overseers must not only do it out of their own pockets, but would by the Bill be made liable to penalties.

was convinced that this was not the way to alter the Poor Law. A Committee was promised next Session to take the whole subject into consideration; and after all, seeing that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) really said nothing in favour of the Bill, he (Mr. Escott) doubted much whether the right hon. Gentleman was at this moment in favour of it. He was afraid that it was nothing more than a point of honour with him to carry out a measure which had been left by the late Government. He highly disapproved of such a mode of legislation. The whole operation and effect of the Bill was a matter of the greatest doubt. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, had stated that much difficulty existed as to what was the right construction of an important clause of the Bill—that which referred to the period of residence; and he believed there was not a Member in the House who would venture to construe that and some other clauses. Now, were they to throw such a measure as that before the magistrates and Poor Law guardians of the country? What could they expect the decisions of magistrates to be when no one in that House was prepared to say how the clauses of the Bill ought to be construed?

was under the apprehension that if this clause passed, it would go far to defeat the whole object of the Bill.

proposed the following Clause:—

"Provided always, and he it Enacted, That the five years' residence hereinbefore mentioned, shall be construed to mean a residence of not less than one half of every year of the five during which such person shall have exercised some industrious calling within the said parish or Union."

He maintained, that if they passed the Bill in its present shape, they would open the door to the denial of the poor man's right to relief or irremovability in almost every case that might arise. There was not a case in which it might not be attempted to be proved that a man had slept out of the parish in which he resided for a few nights; and therefore he proposed that they should consider the term "residence" in the largest possible sense. If this was not done, they would have 99 out of every 100 cases disputed. He proposed, that the residence should be what every one understood to be industrial.

said, one obvious effect of the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman was, that a person might have a residence of only two years and a half in a parish out of the five; and still that would not remove the doubt which the hon. Gentleman thought at present existed. This showed the impossibility of settling any minute question of this kind which might arise by legislation. In regard to the latter part of the proposed clause, he understood it to be intended to have the effect of giving the benefit of the Act to none who had not an industrial residence in the sense understood by the hon. Gentleman. But why should the man who had lived perhaps upon a dividend arising from some fund in which he had an interest, and which might perhaps fail him, be excluded from the benefits of the Act? He would be required to prove that he had exercised in the parish some industrious calling during the whole period required by the Act for obtaining a settlement. Now, he believed, such a clause as this would give rise to much dispute and litigation, and would be attended practically with no good effects.

moved a clause, showing the expense of the maintenance, relief, or burial, of persons exempted from the liability to be removed upon the common fund of the union. He had the strongest objection to the destruction of the ancient parochial system. They had, in the Poor Law Amendment Act, a machinery for carrying the principle of this clause into execution; for, according to that Act, whilst each parish in the union discharged the expenses of its own poor, there were certain expenses for objects of general advantage to the whole union which were defrayed out of a common fund, to which each parish contributed rateably. By this means, the objections which had been urged to what were called close parishes would be obviated, and any disposition to treat harshly those who became chargeable by a five years' residence would be checked.

moved, that the House go into Committee on this Bill, and observed, that the measure had been introduced to the House by the late Government, at an early period of the Session; and a perfect understanding had been felt, that, though late, the Bill would be carried through Parliament. It had been stated by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the late Government, that he intended to assimilate the system of banking in the two countries. The Bill before the House had resulted from this determination; and the present Government, considering the measure called for, and calculated to effect much benefit, had promoted its enactment into a law.

objected to the Bill, and when originally brought forward had stated his objections, upon the ground that the measure was not called for, and in its operation would create a monopoly. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli) had spoken a few evenings since upon the principle of action and reaction; but really the Government made strange havoc of their free-trade legislation; for occasionally they followed that principle, and then they retraced their steps. He wished the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had been present to mark the mode by which sometimes the Government supported free trade and then abandoned it. Free trade could be adjudged right in some things, and why not in all? He objected to the Bill, and should also oppose it, upon the fact of the utter absurdity of the want of principle characterizing such legislation.

stated, that the late Government, having found the necessity of legislating upon the principle of banking, had proceeded to do so, and the last Bill on the subject was that then before the House. No complaint could be made that either the House or the banking interest were taken by surprise with respect to the measure, because the existence of the Bill was well known; the bankers themselves had been apprised of the intentions of the Government respecting it; and even the Scotch Members themselves had inquired when the measure would be brought forward. He had had deputation upon deputation from Scotland upon the subject of this Bill; and Scottish Members could not now plead surprise in regard to it, or a want of notice. The right hon. Gentleman then recited the principal provisions of the Bill, and contended that they could not possibly have any injurious effect on the operations of banking in Scotland.

said, that he could not admit to the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), that the public or the House had had ample notice of the intention to proceed with the measure. He must remind the House that the second reading of the measure had taken place at half-past eleven at night long since, when the attention of the country and the House was absorbed by the consideration of the great free-trade measures proposed by the late Government: no fair opportunity was then afforded for the practical discussion of the principle involved in it. He (Mr. Newdegate) knew that a great number of Members, previously to that second reading, had gone away, believing that the Bill would not be proceeded with. This alone was a sufficient reason to justify the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in abstaining from going on with the measure, when there were not six Scotch Members in the House. The system of banking in Scotland was secure, and comprehensive, and worked so well in every respect, that a measure of this kind was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. There had been no insecurity in banking in that country; on the contrary, the Scotch system was so good that it was equally extraordinary and unfortunate that the system of banking in England was not more nearly assimilated to it. He objected to the Bill altogether, because the intention of it was to undermine the Scotch banking system; to cripple and limit the security upon which it was based, and so confine the accommodation it afforded as by degrees to bring it into discredit. That clause which enacted that no body of persons who could not subscribe—or who might not choose to subscribe—so large a sum as 100,000l. could form themselves into a public company for banking purposes, was quite uncalled for and mischievous. There was nothing whatever in Scotch banking that rendered such restriction necessary or proper. It was most extraordinary to hear the late Chancellor of the Exchequer quoting the disasters which occurred in England in 1825–6 under the system of 1819, and then arguing for the alteration of the Scotch system to that of England, when the instances he had himself adduced told so greatly in favour of the Scotch system, which had weakened the storm in 1825, and against the English, which had wrecked the hopes and property of so many thousands. And what was the remedy adopted in England in 1826? Why, to increase the number of partners and the capital of local banks; and this Bill was to do exactly the reverse for Scotland. But there was an under current in all this, a determination to limit the means of accommodation which the people of Scotland had so long enjoyed; to lay the same iron hand upon the legitimate use of their resources, which pressed so heavily upon the productive classes of England. How was it that agriculture had advanced so rapidly in Scotland, but by the means of the accommodation afforded to her farmers by her banking system: the advocates of the English system knew, that it was so, and were jealous of the comparison. This Bill tended to monopoly, and was therefore favoured by the chartered banks of Scotland, who would gain by it; and was supported by a free-trade Government, because it gave them the power of limiting the banking establishments. Was ever anything more inconsistent, more glaringly unjust, than that immediately upon having determined to expose our productive classes to the competition of the world, you should be creating a monopoly in banking, and limiting the resources upon which the industrious classes could obtain accommodation? Could not the Government be content with the fall of prices competition would produce, without superadding the depression consequent upon limited issue and scarcity of money? He much regretted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted this measure. It was not the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill; and, perhaps, he might be permitted to remind the present Government that if they intended to form a sort of joint-stock company with the late Ministry, it was time they looked to the amount of their liabilities. With the permission of the House he would read an extract from a very able letter, written as a warning to the Scotch Members and nation on this subject, published in 1845:—

"I know that your spirit and the spirit of all the northern clans would be up in arms instantly if Sir Robert were to attempt, by force, to carry his new order of things beyond the Tweed. But I must confess that I am a little fearful lest by tickling the vanity of the Scots, and baiting his hook with the promise of some temporary advantage—perhaps leaving their small notes nominally untouched until that good faith upon which they are based has been secretly undermined, and then (according to the system pursued in England) taking advantage of some partial discredit thus created as a pretext for enforcing his dogma.

"That the advance of credit for forming the circulating medium of the country is a privilege and an advantage to which none are entitled; or it may be that some of the principal Scotch banks may be dealt with in the same manner as the Bank of England has been treated, first relieved from all control over the currency, as being a power quite unfit for them to exercise—then deprived of their independent character—then made the tools of an arbitrary and ambitious Prime Minister, who, having thus got them under his own control, may then insist upon the whole credit circulation of Scotland baing brought nominally under the control of those favoured banks, but really under his own; I am, I repeat, fearful lest he should thus accomplish, by cunning and stratagem, that interference with your circulation which he could not accomplish by force."

That warning, verified by the introduction of this measure, was indeed worthy the attention of Scotchmen. He would conclude by expressing his satisfaction that the hon. Member for Montrose, and other Scottish representatives, had showed by their conduct on this question that the warning he had quoted had not been disregarded.

opposed the Motion. The Bill would have the effect of enhancing the value of money, and cheapening the price of commodities; such being the result of a similar measure in England. He had also to complain of being taken by surprise with respect to this Bill. It had been brought in last February, but a delay had been permitted to take place till the latter end of July; and the Scotch Members were very generally under the impression that it would not be brought on at all this Session.

denied that hon. Members had any right to complain of having been taken by surprise in the case of this Bill. The Bill was originally brought in last year, but withdrawn on the express understanding that it was to be introduced again this Session. It was entered on the books for a very early day after the opening of the Session, but was postponed till a later period, solely that there might be as ample an opportunity as possible for discussion on the subject. Immediately after the accession to office of the present Ministers, he notified to the House that this measure was one of those with which the Government were resolved to proceed; and he named a remote day for bringing it forward. He was induced, however, to depart from the day that he had fixed, and to postpone the measure for a week longer, in order to receive a deputation from the bankers of Scotland on the subject; and surely, after all this, it was not open for hon. Members to complain that due notice had not been given of the intentions of the Government. He considered the principle of the measure a sound and just one, and was willing to undertake the responsibility of adopting it.

thought the Bill altogether uncalled for.

protested strenuously against the Bill, and hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him time to get up a county meeting against it. He would undertake to procure numerous petitions from every parish in Stirlingshire. The present system of banking in Scotland was found to work admirably; and the measure which was now under consideration was not at all required. It would be injurious to the country to which he had the honour to belong.

objected to the consideration of a measure like that before the House when there was so thin an attendance of hon. Members. He contended that the Bill came, if not by surprise, at least under circumstances which prevented them, as a legislative body, from considering it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Bill had been introduced last year, but that it had not been proceeded with, because there had not been time to consider its provisions adequately. He asked whether that objection did not still exist, and whether the House or the country had had sufficient time to deliberate upon it. His principal objection was, that the attention of the House and the country had been lulled asleep; and, without using expressions offensive either to the present Government, or to the Members of the late Government who took an interest in the Bill, he was sorry to be compelled to say that he had heard out of doors, and with some reason too, that at the close of the Session it was the practice to smuggle Bills through Parliament, as they were now about to do this. The Bill had been ordered to be printed so far back as the 24th of April; and nevertheless it was a remarkable fact that its provisions were not taken into consideration until the 30th of July. Almost every Scotch Member in the House had declared himself an antagonist to the Bill. The hon. Members for Stirling and Montrose had protested against it on the ground that the Bill, although purporting to extend only over a page and a half, really contained fifty clauses of another Act of Parliament, not recited but included in the Bill now applicable to joint-stock banks in England. He would ask whether hon. Members who were about to vote, could stand up and declare that they had read and understood those fifty clauses, and that they applied to Scotland? ["Divide!"] Hon. Members might call "Divide;" but he begged to inform them that the business of legislation ought not to be carried on in a manner so rapid and inconsiderate; and if it were done so in this case, he charged hon. Gentlemen, but more particularly English Members, who were not so well acquainted with the probable tendency of the Bill, with neglect of duty if they permitted themselves to be parties to it. The principle of the Bill was of a most startling and extraordinary nature, and was directed to prevent the formation in Scotland of any joint-stock bank, except under certain restrictions; and those restrictions were of such a nature, that although the Bill had been in operation in England for two years, only one joint-stock bank had been established under it. The Bill, he declared, if passed, would sanction monopoly; and though the right hon. Baronet, lately Her Majesty's principal adviser, had observed that he would retire from the administration of public affairs "hated by every monopolist," the party who then acted with him were about to inflict upon Scotland a measure the direct tendency of which was to foster and encourage that very system which their leader had so significantly denounced.

said, it was stated that the House had been taken by surprise with reference to this measure; and that it was another instance of the evil which the legal profession complained of from hasty legislation. Now, what was the history of what was called hasty legislation? A Bill was brought in in 1844, for the regulation of banks in England; and it was stated at the time that it was the intention in the then ensuing Session to introduce a measure carrying the same principles into the system of banking in other parts of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, in 1845, a Bill was introduced for improving the system of banking both in Ireland and Scotland. This identical Bill was introduced at the end of the Session, in the month of July; but on representations being made on the part of the inhabitants of Scotland that they had not sufficient time to consider it, it was postponed until the next Session. The Bill was again introduced in the beginning of the present Session, on the 21st of February. It excited great attention in Scotland, and deputations attended on the then First Lord of the Treasury, consisting not only of bankers, but of noblemen and landholders, and a large proportion of the representatives of Scotland. If the people of Scotland thought the Bill would be prejudicial to them, the Table would be covered with petitions against it; and he (Sir George Clerk) conceived it would be only a waste of time to add a single word on this clause of this Bill.