Lords Sitting of 23 June 1845

MINUTES.
Sat First.—The Earl of Abergavenny, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Real Property (Lord Chancellor).
2a. Small Debts (No. 2); Banking (Scotland); Infeftments (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland).
Reported.—Small Debts (No. 2); Museums of Art.
3a. and passed:—Small Debts (No. 2); Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Act Amendment.
Private.—1a. Eastern Union Railway Amendment; Lynn and Dereham Railway; Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood Branch); Cromford Canal; London and Brighton Railway (Horsham Branch); Londonderry and Enniskillen Railway; Londonderry and Coleraine Railway; North Wales Mineral Railway; Chester and Birkenhead Railway Extension; Cornwall Railway; Hartlepool Pier and Port; Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liverpool Junction (Ardwick and Guide Bridge Branches) Extension; Ulster Railway Extension; Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway; Manchester South Junction, and Altrincham Railway; Blessington Estates (Earl of Charleville); Follett's or Molyneux's Estate.
2a. Newcastle and Berwick Railway; Shaw's Waterworks; Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Guildford Junction Railway; Great North of England and Richmond Railway; York and North Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch); Clydesdale Junction Railway; Birmingham Blue Coat Charity School Estate; North Walsham School Estate (Lord Wodehouse's); Lancaster and Carlisle Railway.
Reported.—Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway; Earl of Onslow's Estate; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coal Turn; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Branch); Morden College Estate; Leeds and Thirsk Railway; Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction) Railway; Waterford and Kilkenny Railway; Sheffield and Rotherham Railway; Midland Railways (Nottingham to Lincoln); Midland Railways (Syston to Peterborough); Lynn and Ely Railway; Ely and Huntingdon Railway; Battersea Poor; Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway; Caledonian Railway.
3a. and passed;—Taunton Gas; York and North Midland Railway (Bridlington Branch); Hull and Selby Railway (Bridlington Branch); Whitby and Pickering Railway; Manchester and Leeds Railway (Burnley, Oldham, and Heywood Branches); Kendal and Windermere Railway; West of London and Westminster Cemetery.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Marquess of Londonderry, from Landowners and others of Monaghan, and several other places, against the Banking (Ireland) Bill.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from Necton, and numerous other places, against the Charitable Trusts Bill.—From Canons of Cathedral Church of Durham, for Exempting a certain Charity from the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Bill.—From Protestant Dissenters of Llantarnam, West Hackney, and Batley, against Increase of Grant to College of Maynooth—By the Bishop of Durham, and the Marquess of Normanby, from Windynook, and several other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance, especially on the Sabbath; and from Inhabitants of Fortwilliam, and a great number of other places, against the running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.—From Caithness, and Dunoon, against Repeal of the Laws which require the Subscription of Religious Tests from Professors and others bearing office in Scotch Universities.—From Commissioners of Supply, and others of the County of Ross, against the Banking (Scotland) Bill.—From Lauder, in favour of the Turnpike Roads (Scotland)
1016
Act Amendment Bill.—By Duke of Richmond, from Farmers of Town and Neighbourhood of Alton, complaining of Recent Alteration of Corn Laws, and praying for Relief.—From Landowners and others of Christian Malford, and several other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Brewers of Birmingham, praying that the Court of Requests may be so Extended as to enable them to Recover Debts not exceeding 20 l.—From Chetwynde, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, and in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop of Manchester.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL—THE BISHOP OF LONDON.
The Marquess of Normanbybegged to call the attention of the House to a point of order. It might be in the knowledge of some of their Lordships that a protest had been entered upon the Journals against the third reading of the Maynooth Bill, which had been signed, amongst the noble Lords, by the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London.) He understood it to be the invariable practice of the House that no noble Lord should sign a protest, unless he had been personally present and voted on the question. It was contrary to custom to refer to the terms in which a protest had been drawn; but he might nevertheless observe that this protest was couched in pretty strong terms, stating that the Maynooth Bill was contrary to the principles which had placed the reigning family on the Throne. The right rev. Prelate had signed this protest, but he had not been present at the third reading, and had voted by proxy. He (the Marquess of Normanby) was ready either to submit a Motion on the subject, or to leave it to the right rev. Prelate to move that his name be withdrawn.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he had taken part in the discussion on the Bill, and he was not aware that it was necessary for him to be actually present on the third reading to entitle him to sign the protest. As it was, it only remained for him to apologize to their Lordships for any trouble he might have put them to in consequence of his ignorance of the form, and to withdraw his name from the protest.
Lord Campbellwished to know whether it was an universal custom of the House that a protest should not be signed by a noble Lord unless he were present when the question was put?
The Lord Chancellorsaid there could be no doubt at all about the practice.
Leave given to withdraw name from the Protest, his Lordship not having been present on the Question being put for the third reading of said Bill, but having voted by proxy.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquess of Londonderryasked the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the second reading of the Landlord and Tenants Bill, which stood for to-morrow, and whether they intended to press the clauses, the compulsory clauses especially, in their present shape?
Lord Stanleyreplied, that the Government could not, consistently with what they felt they owed to the public service, consent to postpone the second reading. If the Bill should be read a second time, it was then his intention to move that it be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships, by which the details and clauses would be fully and impartially considered.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
The Marquess of Lansdownewished to ask noble Earl opposite three questions with reference to a subject of great importance, that of accidents on railways. First, whether, in the case of any accident occurring on a railway, the state of the law or the practice of the Board of Trade required a report of it to be made to the Railway Department? second, whether an inquiry was immediately instituted by order of the Board? thirdly, whether, if such inquiry were instituted, there would be any objection to report the result of such inquiries, as they occurred, to that House or the public?
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, in answer to the first question, as to whether railway companies were bound by law or practice to make reports of any accident occurring; that by the Act of 1840, and he thought by a subsequent Act, railway companies were bound to report to the Board of Trade any accident attended with loss of life within forty-eight hours after its occurrence. With respect to other accidents, not attended with loss of life, they were also bound to make a report, though not within so short a period; and, to the best of his knowledge and belief, such reports were invariably made. He was not aware of any instance in which such a report had not been made; if it was neglected, undoubtedly the full penalty would be put in force against the company. With respect to the course of proceeding adopted by the Department on receiving these reports, their practice was according to the circumstances of the case. Unless
1018
the case was a very serious one, and the circumstances were of an aggravated complexion, the usual practice was to wait for the report of the coroner's inquest. If the circumstances were unsatisfactory, they had invariably pursued the course of sending down the Inspector General to view the place which had been the scene of the accident, inquire into the circumstances, and report to the Board. The result of this inspection was usually a communication from the Board to the railway company, setting forth the case, and suggesting any alterations that might appear requisite. There, he was sorry to say, the authority of the Board stopped short; they had no absolute authority to require alterations, though the responsibility cast upon the Company by the Board of Trade was often sufficiently strong to bring them about. Upon all such unfortunate occasions immediate attention was shown, and an inspector was immediately sent to decide whether the railway stood in want of repair. As to the reports made upon those accidents, of course there would be no objection to lay them on the Table of the House; and they might, if necessary, be embodied in an annual Report on the subject of railways. If the noble Marquess wished to have the reports as to the recent accidents laid on the Table, there would be no objection.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to know whether any Report had been made to the Board of Trade as to an accident caused in the neighbourhood of Bridgewater by the luggage trucks getting off the rails?
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, no such Report had been received, nor had the Board been made acquainted with the accident.

SMALL DEBTS BILL. (No. 2).
Lord Brougham, the Small Debts Bill was read 2a.
Lord Broughamthen moved the suspension of the Standing Orders, Nos. 26, and 155. Standing Orders considered and dispensed with. House in Committee. Bill reported without amendment.
The Duke of Richmondobjected to the clause giving to gaolers the power of taking the affidavits of a prisoner seeking for release. He disapproved of allowing the gaoler to administer the oath, and wished that this office should be assigned to the visiting justices. The gaoler was often

1019
required to be absent at the assize town, and was, besides, an inferior officer.
Lord Broughamremarked that the Clerk of the Papers in the Queen's Bench, as well as other officers, very inferior in place to the gaoler, administered oaths. A prisoner had no means of drawing any of the visiting justices to the prison to take his oath. The gaoler never could be absent, except when at the assize town, which very seldom happened, for they were generally held in the same town. He would have no objection to insert the words "or the visiting justices."
Lord Portmanthought it desirable to confine the administration of oaths to the visiting justices.
The Earl of Wicklowthought the clause introduced an objectionable novelty, unnecessary for its purpose.
Lord Campbellhad no objection to allow the governor of the gaol to exercise this function. The governors of gaols were extremely respectable men; he knew many instances in which they had been officers in the Army or Navy, and were above all exception.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, unless the provision of the clause were adopted, the persons whose case it was intended to meet would be left without remedy, for there were no means of procuring the attendance of Masters Extraordinary, who might administer the oaths.
Lord Broughamadded, that oaths might be administered by gaolers with as much solemnity as in that House. During the judicial proceedings of that House oaths were often administered in a corner, in a whisper, and in a manner not likely to make any serious impression on the minds of the witnesses.
The Duke of Richmondsuggested that the wording should be amended, so as to make the oath administerable by the visiting or other justices, or if their attendance could not be procured within a certain number of hours, by the gaoler.
The Earl of Radnorentirely concurred with his noble and learned Friend as to the lamentable carelessness and levity with which oaths were often administered in the judiciary proceedings of England, and hoped that a remedy would speedily be acquired, now that their Lordships' attention had been called to the subject.
Lord Broughamhad no objection to the noble Duke's suggestion, and would make the oath administerable by the visiting or
1020
other justices, or if their attendance could not be procured within twelve hours, by the gaoler.
Amendments made. Bill read 3a, and passed.

TURNPIKE ROADS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the third reading of this Bill.
Bill read 3a.
Lord Polwarthapproved of the principle of the Bill, which went to abolish public houses at toll-gates; but he thought that in thinly populated districts some provision should be made for the wants of travellers. Though he gave his assent to this measure on principle, he still thought some consideration should be had for those who had invested large sums in those toll-houses. He should therefore propose a clause, for the purpose of exempting from this Act all such districts as were thinly inhabited, and two miles from any town, village, or public house.
The Duke of Roxburghshould vote for the passing of the Bill as it now stood. It was true that considerable sums of money were laid out on these houses; but the law only recognised a revenue drawn from the tolls, and from no other source. When it was seen how these houses were erected in the most populous districts, and in the suburbs of towns and villages—when it was mentioned what evils were brought upon travellers from this system—and above all, when it was borne in mind how the present houses tended to demoralize the people, he trusted their Lordships would not assent to any qualification whatever of the principle of this measure.
The Duke of Montrosesaid, he had presented a number of petitions against this Bill. He supported the clause of his noble Friend (Lord Polwarth), as he knew that the carrier was frequently obliged to cross moors of an extent of nine or ten miles without meeting with a single public house or place of refreshment.
Lord Campbellmust oppose this clause, which, if inserted, would render the Bill not worth a farthing. Enormous mischief had been done by allowing these toll houses to be converted into public houses. All the petitions which had been presented proceeded on the principle that large sums had been advanced for making and repair-

1021
ing the turnpike gates, and that those who had made this outlay could not expect an adequate return, unless the tolls were increased by the profits of the toll keeper as the owner of a public house. But was this a fair source of revenue? It might as well be said that if these houses yielded a profit as brothels, they ought not to be interfered with; and he was informed that many of them merited that description. Was it to be endured that the morals of the people should be undermined for the sake of enabling parties to obtain their interest more regularly? Where there was a demand for public houses it would be supplied in the ordinary way. At all events, he was sure there ought to be an express prohibition, instead of a legislative sanction, of a practice which had done so much injury.
The Duke of Buccleuchentirely approved of the principle of this measure; but thought, at the same time, something was to be said for the petitioners against it. He hoped the day was not far distant when all licenses to toll houses would be withdrawn; but, at the same time, he thought some consideration should be shown to those who had invested large sums of money on the faith of the law. He could not concur in the sweeping condemnation pronounced on these houses by the noble Lord (Lord Campbell). He admitted there was much immorality in them as to drunkenness; but as to the other vice, the announcement was new to him, and its commission was certainly not the rule. He thought the proposal as to two miles much too near, and to say what were "thinly - inhabited districts" would be found very difficult. There were, however, many remote parts of the country, the traffic of which was not sufficient to maintain an inn, and where it was most desirable (particularly when snow storms came on) there should be some place of refreshment. He thought more evil was done by the indiscriminate manner of granting licenses than by those toll gate public houses.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaggested "four or five miles distant from any public house," as an Amendment to the clause of the noble Baron (Lord Polwarth).
Lord Kinnairdshould vote against the clause. The trustees let these houses to the highest bidder, and had, therefore, no control over the holders.
Lord Ellenborough: Would it not be
1022
better to allow the licensing of the present houses, and no more, except in cases where public houses were more than five miles distant?
Lord Beaumont: That would extend the operation of the proviso of the noble Baron (Lord Polwarth).
The Duke of RichmondThe case stood thus—certain gentlemen (amongst others himself) chose to expend money on these toll gates, and, to get a return as quickly as possible, the public house system was attempted to be justified. 'Twas nonsense to say a Scotchman could not walk more than two miles without whisky. These houses were open every Sunday, and horrible scenes of riot and drunkenness took place in them. He found he must postpone this Bill to Friday, as he was informed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that the Commons might object to it, as containing a money clause. The Bill was one of great importance, and he, for one, must say he could not understand why there should be one law for England, and another for Scotland.
Further debate adjourned to Friday.

BANKING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Earl of Riponmoved the second reading of this Bill, and said it would be unnecessary to trouble their Lordships at any length. He would, however, give a brief explanation of the grounds of this measure. Their Lordships were aware that in the course of the last Session two Acts had been passed for the regulation of the banking system of England—one relating to the Bank of England, the other to Joint Stock Banks—and he believed it had been admitted that the principles upon which these two laws had been founded were wise, just, and consistent with the public interests; and he had reason to think that the anticipations which had been formed of the results of those measures had been realized. These circumstances naturally led to the consideration whether it was not advisable to propose to Parliament the adoption of some measure with a view of regulating the currency—not so much the currency as the banking system—of Scotland; not with the intention of assimilating one with he other, because the system which prevailed in Scotland, and which had existed there many years, had not produced any serious mischief or inconvenience. At the same time it would be a great advantage, as re-

1023
garded the general banking system of the country, if there was some approach to a rational assimilation, as far as circumstances admitted, between the systems in each part of the country. Upon this principle the present measure was founded, and he would state shortly the nature of the measure. It was proposed not to deprive the banks of Scotland of that privilege which they had not abused, as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, namely, of issuing notes below 5l.; it was not intended to interfere with that; it was not desirable to push an abstract principle to excess; but it was thought expedient to impose something in the shape of a limitation of the amount of issue by the banks in England. The effect of the Bill would be to give a species of monopoly to about nineteen banks of Scotland for the issue of notes. But in order to prevent an excess of issue occurring in that part of the country, it was proposed to limit the issue of notes by these nineteen banks. The principle was this:—an average statement was taken of the issues of all the banks, collectively as well as separately and individually, for thirteen months, between the 1st of May, 1844, and the 1st of May, 1845; and it was proposed that the average of the total issue in these thirteen months should be the maximum amount of the issues of each and of all the banks, as far as depended upon securities. But it was proposed by this Bill, in order to enable the Scotch bankers to give still further accommodation, should it be necessary, to allow them, in addition to issue any amount of notes they pleased in proportion to the quantity of coin which, within a period of four consecutive weeks, might be in the coffers of each bank. Each bank, therefore, could not only issue notes to the amount of its average paper issue for the year which the Bill took as the standard of future issues, but might also make an additional issue of notes in proportion to the quantity of bullion in its possession at a given period. He might be allowed to explain to their Lordships the practical effect of this measure upon the amount of currency in Scotland. It appeared that the average circulation in notes of Scotch banks might be taken at 3,063,000 l., and that would be the maximum amount to which they could continue to issue upon securities; but there was no doubt that considerable inconveni-
1024
ence might arise at particular times if they possessed no facility for extending their issues beyond that amount; for circumstances might occur which would render an increased issue not only not detrimental, but a positive advantage to the public interests. It was therefore provided that they might make a further issue based upon the quantity of coin in their possession. It appeared, that the average amount of bullion held by the banks in Scotland might generally be taken at one-fifth—though in some cases it was one-fourth, and in others, he believed, even as high as one-third—of their total issues; so that if the issue they could make upon securities was 3,063,000 l., and taking the average amount of bullion on hand at one-fifth of that amount, they could make a further issue to the extent of 600,000 l.; and their total issues would, in that case, amount to 3,663,000 l. Now, this amount of 3,663,000 l., which they might issue without obtaining any further stock of bullion, was, in fact, much larger than had been issued during any month of the year upon which the average was based. It appeared that the largest amount issued by the Scotch banks in any one month of the year ending April, 1845, was 3,486,000 l., in the four weeks ending September 7; and under this measure the banks, without obtaining additional gold, would be permitted to issue to the amount of 3,663,000 l. He considered, therefore, that there was no reason to apprehend that any inconvenience would arise from the operation of this Bill; but that, on the contrary, it would be productive of great advantage. It must also be recollected that one of the main securities these Scotch banks had had against danger to themselves was the power and the solvency of the Bank of England; for whenever any difficulties occurred to the Scotch banks they must draw the supplies necessary to meet them from the Bank of England. That being the case, and there never having been manifested on the part of the people of Scotland any desire for a gold circulation, Scotland had never been exposed to those evils which had been experienced in this country by the circulation being excessive, and, as had been the case, the gold in the coffers of the banks being reduced to almost nothing. It was considered by the Government most desirable that the banking establishments of Scot-

1025
land should, like those of England, be placed on the safest footing practicable, and it was with this view and on this principle that the present Bill had been proposed, and was now recommended to their Lordships' consideration. There were several clauses providing for the due execution of the Act, with which he would not then trouble their Lordships, as the period for considering them would be when the Bill was in Committee. He had stated, he hoped, with sufficient explicitness the grounds on which he proposed the measure, and he would now move that it be read a second time.
The Question having been put,
The Earl of Radnorthought the Bill a most unnecessary and gratuitous interference with the Banks of Scotland. 'Let well enough alone,' was a maxim as applicable to public as to private matters; and as the system of banking in Scotland had gone on in the most satisfactory manner, and given perfect satisfaction and security to the public, he did not see why it should be interfered with. The framers of the Bill ought to have stated the grounds upon which it had been brought forward, and explained the grievance it was intended to remedy. No application had ever been made, either by the banks themselves, or by the people of Scotland, for any such measure; and the proposed interference was looked upon generally as most annoying and uncalled for. It was true, the measure had not met with so much opposition in the other House as had been anticipated; but the reason of that was, that the interference was found to be not of so bad a character as it was reported it would be. The interference was thought by many to effect so little change in the working of the system as to be scarcely worth opposing. But why interfere at all with a system of which no one complained, and which had received the highest testimony in its favour? There had been no extraordinary cases of failure to justify such a step. On the contrary, the Scotch banks had been at all times remarkable for their stability. In 1842 there had been two failures, it was true; but at those periods, when the whole of the United Kingdom was suffering from pecuniary difficulties, the Scotch banks had remained firm, and no cases of failure had occurred. From the year 1808 to 1820, 113 banks had failed in England, but not one in Scotland. In 1826, a Com-
1026
mittee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into the practice of issuing 1l. notes in Scotland, and that Committee having investigated and considered the whole system of banking in Scotland, bore in their Report the strongest testimony in its favour. Subsequent Committees had also deprecated all legislative interference with that system.
The Earl of Ripon: That was only in reference to the issue of 1l. notes.
The Earl of Radnor: That was the subject of the inquiry; but the recommendation of the Committee referred to the system generally. The Bill gave no additional security to the public; on the contrary, if it had any effect at all, it would be to tempt the banks to make imprudent issues; for the gold, which the noble Earl admitted they now thought it necessary to keep in their coffers, in amount equal to one-fifth of their whole paper circulation, they would by this Bill be encouraged to make the basis of further issues. If the banks were now so prudent, as it was admitted they were, to keep this large amount of gold by them to meet any sudden demand, why interfere at all, especially when the effect of that interference would naturally be to induce them to depart from that prudent line which they had of themselves adopted? What did the Government fear? Did they suppose the paper circulation of Scotland, if left unchecked, would become too large? Why, it had been proved before a Committee of the House of Commons, that, notwithstanding the population, the commerce, and the wealth of this country, had gone on increasing to a great extent, the paper currency had diminished, and was still diminishing. The increase in the number of the branch banks gave such great facilities for making deposits, that money was not kept in hand as it used to be, and the result was, that the paper currency had decreased. Another objection to the measure was, that its tendency was to encourage monopoly. In the first place, it gave to each bank a monopoly for its own purposes, and as no new bank was to be established, the system would become in the end one of monopoly; and surely this was not the time to establish monopoly. Another result of the measure would be, that the attempt would be made to get rid of notes altogether and substitute gold. The noble Earl concluded by moving, as an

1027

Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Kinnairdalso protested against any legislative interference with the existing system of banking in Scotland. He objected to the measure as tending to limit the circulation of Scotland. In fact, the noble Earl himself admitted that it would do so to the extent of 400,000 l. The limit, exclusive of the issues on bullion, was 3,063,000 l.; but the noble Earl had shown that ill the four weeks ending December 7, the total circulation was between 3,400,000 l. and 3,500,000 l., and this increased circulation of notes during certain periods of the year was most beneficial to the highland and rural districts. He feared that this slight interference (slight it was admitted to be) would, by limiting the circulation to that extent, be most injurious to the country. He could see no grounds for the introduction of this measure whatever, and could only suppose that it had been brought forward because, as it was found necessary to interfere in some degree with the Irish banks, it was thought by the Government that it might be as well to connect the Scotch banking system with the Irish measure.
The Earl of Dalhousiethought the absence of the great majority of noble Lords Connected with Scotland, was of itself a proof that the measure was not, considered calculated to operate injuriously on the country. The noble Earl had stated that the system of banking in Scotland worked well, that it gave sufficient accommodation, and at the same time sufficient security to the public, and that the people were attached to it. The opinion which the Government entertained of that system was best shown by the measure itself, which neither interfered with the practice of issuing the 1l. notes, nor with the mode of conducting the business of the several banks, while the averages had been taken upon the twelve months, including those periods during which the issues had been the greatest, without requiring any security. The banks might, after the passing of this Bill, continue to issue up to the full amount of their average issues without security; all that was required was that any excess should be based upon gold or silver in hand. The noble Earl had spoken as though there was no doubt at any time of the solvency and sufficiency of the system: but within
1028
his (the Earl of Dalhousie's) recollection there had been periods of extreme difficulty amongst the banks in Scotland; and if, in general, the difficulties at times of pecuniary pressure were not so great in Scotland as in England, the reason was that the Scotch banks had the opportunity of coming upon the Bank of England, and thereby increasing the force of the demand for gold upon it. It was with the view of enabling each part of the Empire to meet its own difficulties that the measure was brought forward. He denied that there was any reason for saying that the Bill would operate as a temptation to the Scotch banks to make improvident issues. All the Bill did in this respect was to enable them to increase their issues on the one-fifth of gold, in proportion to their circulation, or whatever it might be which it was said they usually kept on hand, and which they might now made the basis of further issues.
The Earl of Radnor: The banks now thought it prudent to hold the one-fifth of gold in reserve; but under the Bill, if they wished to increase their circulation, they might do so, to the full extent of that amount, without any additional security whatever.
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion; Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.
The following Protest against the Second Reading of the Banking (Scotland) Bill was entered on the Journals.

"I. Because this Bill, proceeding on the assumption and staling in the preamble that it is expedient to regulate the issue of bank notes in Scotland, alleges no ground or reason for that expediency, neither that the issue has heretofore been excessive, nor that it has been made on inadequate security, nor that it has been attended with loss or inconvenience to the people of Scotland, nor that the people of Scotland complain of it or desire such regulation.

"II. Because I hold it inexpedient to regulate such issue, inasmuch as,

"1. It is an unnecessary legislative interference with private concerns, and such interference is contrary to all sound principle of legislation.

"2. It will in this case be productive of inconvenience both to the bankers, whose concerns it is intended to regulate, and to the people in general; and,

1029

"3. Is quite uncalled for, and altogether deprecated by the people, of Scotland.

"III. Because the Act of last Session (7 and 8 Victoria, c. 32) having given a monopoly of all the banking business of the United Kingdom to the then existing banking establishments, this Bill confirms that monopoly as far as Scotland is concerned, and thus unjustly places the people of that country at the mercy of a combination of bankers, the necessary consequence of which must be, that the bankers will be freed from one strong incentive to pay due attention to the concerns of their customers, and that their customers will be deprived of that security for the faithful discharge of their bankers' duties.

"IV. Because the Bill proceeds on the supposition that an increase in the number of banks leads to too large an issue of bank notes, whereas I conceive (and in that opinion am borne out by the testimony of eminent Scotch bankers) that the amount of bank notes in circulation is regulated by the wants of the community, and, when convertible into coin at the option of the holder, can never be in excess; and that the increase of banks located in different places, and the great extension of branches in remote agricultural districts, by multiplying the opportunities and extending the facilities of making deposits, tends to diminish the amount of notes in circulation.

"V. Because, though it has happened accordingly, that the amount of notesin circulation in Scotland has, notwithstanding the increase of the population, of commercial transactions, and of general wealth, been considerably diminished in the last twenty years; it is not to be expected but that, in the progress of events, a larger supply may at some time be wanted, and such an increased supply is absolutely prohibited by this Bill, except on terms very disadvantageous to the issuers.

"VI. Because bankers, being forbidden by this Bill to enlarge their issues of notes beyond the average of the year ending May 1, 1845, except to the extent of the coin held in their coffers, it will happen that, in the event of any misconduct on the part of any bank, or dissatisfaction on the part of its customers, if those customers resort to another bank, which they consider either more safe or more accommodating that bank can transact their business only by increasing its issues against gold, whereby banking accommodation of every description in Scotland will be obstructed and rendered more expensive.

"VII. Because I apprehend that the provisions of this Bill, enabling the banker to increase the issue of his notes permanently beyond the average of the year ending the 1st of May, 1845, to the extent of coin retained in his hands, are illusory, and will be useless, for it is difficult to understand with what view a banker should issue any notes under such restrictions, inasmuch as he would entail on himself trouble and expense, and could derive no profit from the transaction.

1030

"VIII. Because the immediate effect of this Bill is to hamper the business of banking, and its unavoidable effect to concentrate in fewer hands all the banking affairs of Scotland, and constantly to bring them nearer and nearer within the compass of a close monopoly.

"IX. Because, if the banking business of Scotland is confined to fewer hands, the public will be deprived of the benefit of free competition, which is constantly stimulating the ingenuity of rival bankers to devise new expedients for facilitating banking operations, in the hope of retaining or extending their business, to the great advantage of the public.

"X. Because, in the case of banking, as in every other business, monopoly is injurious both to the public and, in the long run, to the persons to whom it is conceded; and it is in evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons that the great competition existing amongst the banking establishments of Scotland, while it has restrained within moderate bounds the profits of the banking business, has, by raising the rate of interest given on deposits, and lowering the rate of interest charged on loans, greatly benefited the community.

"XI. Because the substitution of bank notes for coin is one of the most ingenious and useful improvements of modern times, and, provided the notes are at all times convertible into coin, at the option of the holder, is attended with no risk, affords great convenience for commercial transactions, and is productive both of saving to the public and of advantage to individuals; and to check it, which is the object of this Bill, is to take a retrograde step in the path of civilization.

"XII. Because, if there is, as some apprehend, anything dangerous or unsound in the banking arrangements of Scotland, it proceeds, not from the amount of paper currency, which this Bill is intended to limit and control; but from the extent of credit, which it affects only in a circuitous and mischievous manner.

"XIII. Because the banking system of Scotland, hitherto wholly free and uncontrolled by any legislative regulation, has worked most beneficially for the people of that country, and has given them entire satisfaction, and I therefore can see no call of necessity, expediency, or prudence for the present attempt to regulate it by law.

"RADNOR.
"June 24, 1845."