Sitting of 22 June 1825

PETITION OF F. JONES, COMPLAINING OF COUNTRY BANK NOTES NOT BEING PAID IN GOLD.
Mr. Humesaid, he had a petition to present from Mr. Frederick Jones, of Bristol, on a subject of great importance—the laws respecting our currency. The House were aware that a great increase had taken place in the price of all the necessaries of life, and that it was held as a general principle by many political economists, that where such a great rise took place in all the articles of consumption, it was chiefly attributable to some change in the state of the currency. There were different opinions on this subject; but, as it appeared by the petition which he was about to present, that a large portion of the currency of the country was not immediately convertible into gold, it was very possible that that circumstance might have had a considerable effect in producing the rise to which he had alluded. After a brief history of Mr. Peel's bill, and of the subsequent measure by which country bankers were permitted to issue small notes, the hon. member proceeded to state the contents of the petition. It appeared that the petitioner, having occasion for some gold, presented six one pound notes at the Castle Bank at Bristol, for which he demanded gold; when he was told by the clerk, who tendered him Bank of England notes, that the gold was locked up, and that he could not comply with his request. When, again, he presented forty-five one pound notes of the same bank for payment in gold, gold was again refused; and Bank of England notes were again tendered. On applying to his attorney, he was informed that his only remedy was an action at
1272
law; that it, would be nine months before the suit could be brought to a conclusion; and that the operation of the verdict might then be further postponed by a writ of error. The petitioner therefore prayed for the enactment of a law, enabling persons holding country bank-notes to obtain a summary recovery of their value in gold; or, that the House would apply to the disgraceful and growing evil in question such other remedies as in their wisdom they might think calculated to meet it. With Mr. Peel's bill the House and the country were very well satisfied; but the subsequent measure respecting the country banks had materially endangered the benefits derived from it. What appeared to be wanted was, a bill which should place country banks on the same footing with respect to paying their notes in gold as the Bank of England. The advantage of such a bill would be two-fold. It would prevent inconvenience to those who, for any particular purpose, wished to obtain gold; and it would prevent the necessity of having recourse to legal proceedings for a remedy. Such a measure was well worthy of consideration; and in his opinion, the House ought not to separate before they passed a precautionary act, making country banknotes payable in cash. He knew it was the opinion of his lamented friend, Mr. Ricardo, that the currency of the country was in a good state, while country banks were compelled to pay in Bank of England notes, which Bank of England notes were payable in gold. But the inconvenience felt under the present system, by any man resident in the country, who, wanting twenty or a hundred sovereigns, was obliged to send up to the capital for them, seemed to require some remedy. He now begged leave to present the petition.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, that never in the course of his experience had he heard a more singular petition. Country banks were now placed on the same footing as the Bank of England, and if a country banker refused to pay on demand he was liable to an action. He thought, however, that in case of a great run, country bankers ought to be allowed time to get their specie from London. It might have happened that a house might have been so indiscreet as to refuse payment; but he knew there was not a respectable country banker in England who would refuse to pay notes in gold if demanded. He never knew a petition less necessary, less called

1273
for, or less worthy the attention of the House.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that country bankers were by law bound to pay their notes on demand, and this petitioner knew it, because he said in this petition, that after applying for legal advice, he found he had no remedy but an action at law. If any other act was to be passed, that could only give a remedy by an action at law. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had said, that perhaps time ought to be given to bankers to send to London in case of a run. Surely he could not mean seriously to say that a banker had a right to wait till he sent to London for cash. The banker was bound to pay every farthing at his own risk. If there was a run, he must do what he could to meet it. To pass an act, giving bankers a time, within which to pay what by law they were bound to pay instanter, would be injurious to every rank in the country, and grossly insulting to the legislature which passed such an act.
Mr. J. Smithin explanation, observed, that in point of fact, the law to which he alluded was an ancient law, by which it was enacted, that if a country banker did not pay in three days, he might be compelled to pay by a summary proceeding before a magistrate. He repeated, that no country banker did or could keep by him gold sufficient to satisfy all the notes he might have in circulation.
Mr. Hart Daviscould not help thinking there was some mistake which might be explained.
Mr. Humesaid, that when the petition was put into his hands, he had inquired why the individuals complained of had not been arrested, and he was informed that an interpretation had been given to the act which precluded them from immediate arrest.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, there could be no doubt that every banker who issued bank notes, payable on demand, was liable to pay them the same as he was before the bank restriction, and in the same manner as the Bank of England was bound to pay all its notes.
Sir J. Wrottesleyhoped that the hon. member for Aberdeen had inquired well into the character of the petitioner from whom he had received the petition; otherwise, as the contents of the petition had a tendency to affect the credit of a mercantile establishment in a very important point, by a recent decision, the parties in-
1274
jured would have a claim for damages upon all who assisted in circulating the obnoxious matter.
Mr. Humesaid, he had reason to believe that the petitioner was correct in his statements; for it had been delivered to him by persons in whom he could repose confidence. He did not know the parties against whom the petition complained, but had taken up the case upon a general principle, and upon the belief that the petitioner was deprived of his remedy at law.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, the petitioner might be some mischievous individual who wished to injure the name and character of the parties referred to. Unless the hon. member knew the individual, he ought to withdraw the petition rather than let it lie on the table.
Mr. Humeconsented to withdraw the petition until he had made further inquiries concerning the facts, and the parties concerned.

CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
Mr. Broughampostponed his motion for taking into consideration the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett against the governor of the Cape of Good Hope until the beginning of the next session. Upon consideration, he found it would be improper to open charges which could not be answered that session.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that the circumstances had been referred to the commissioners of inquiry sent out to the Cape of Good Hope. Leave of absence had also been forwarded to lord C. Somerset, that he might, if he thought fit, return to meet the charges made against him. But, whether his lordship came home or not, the commissioners would prosecute their inquiry at the Cape. Certain it was, that the office had not sufficient means of information to warrant the House to undertake the investigation at present. Neither would it be consistent with fairness and justice, since the government had sent out a leave of absence, to proceed, until it was seen whether or not lord C. Somerset would avail himself of it
Mr. Wilmot Hortontook that opportunity, in reply to a question put to him the other day, to state, that Edwards was an escaped felon from New South Wales, and was at the Cape, but had had no concern in these transactions.
Lord E. Somersetsaid, that feeling interested in the character and reputation of his noble relative, against whom such serious charges had been brought, he was naturally anxious to take the earliest opportunity to assure the House, that the noble lord, so far from shrinking from an inquiry into his conduct, was desirous of submitting his whole proceedings to the fullest and most complete investigation. A commission was now engaged in inquiries into all the measures of his noble relation, and it was the object of that noble lord to give every facility to the proceedings of that commission. The more the conduct of his noble relative was inquired into, the more satisfactory would that conduct appear to the world, and the more completely would he be rescued from those abuses and attacks to which he had been lately exposed. Anonymous publications had been circulated against his noble relation, and the utmost pains had been taken to diffuse such slander throughout the Cape. Some of these charges were of the most atrocious nature; but at the same time, their inconsistencies with each other destroyed the credibility of the whole of them. He conjured the House to suspend its judgment until the report of the commissioners had arrived, and until his noble relative should return to England, if he thought it necessary, to avail himself of the leave of absence which had been offered to him.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he had never read one line against lord C. Somerset, except the petition of Mr. Burnett, and a case relating to his professional duties at the bar. He was totally unprejudiced against lord Charles, but nevertheless he thought that the charges against him ought to be investigated. Of all men on earth lord Charles, if he were innocent, ought to be the most desirous for that investigation. One charge was, that the noble lord had fixed the criminality of a publication upon Mr. Burnett, whereas the real culprit was the notorious Oliver, the spy.

NEWSPAPERS BILL.
The report of this bill being brought up,
Mr. Humeentreated the chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to his proposal for reducing the duties on newspapers, which he might do without injury to the revenue. The doing away the restriction as to the size of the paper was good; so was the reduction of the stamp on sup-
1276
plements to two-pence, provided that they contained nothing but advertisements. What he proposed was, to reduce the stamp to two-pence on all newspapers. The reduction as it stood would do no good to those establishments who most needed it. The duty was increased 1d. in 1814, but the increase in the revenue did not correspond. The increase from 1806 to 1814 in newspaper revenue was 326,000 l. In the nine years following, with the addition of 1d. on the stamp, the increase was only 4,000 l. whereas it ought, if it had followed the proportion, to have produced 100,000 l. Philadelphia was ten times less than Liverpool in commercial consequence; yet six times as many papers circulated at Philadelphia as at Liverpool, and there was seventy times as many advertisements published, the price for insertion being about 6d. the price of the newspaper itself, 1½d. Reduce the duty on advertisements to 1s. and the stamp so that the paper might sell at 3d. and more newspapers would be circulated and more revenue collected. He would guarantee the right hon. gentleman against loss. So anxious was he, that he would almost become personally responsible, if, at the end of a year, any loss should accrue. He entreated the right hon. gentleman to make trial of it for one year, and concluded by moving to leave out the word "supplement," for the purpose of reducing the stamp on all newspapers to 2d.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if he were about to sell an estate, he should not for a moment object to the hon. member's guarantee; but where half a million of public revenue was at stake, he must excuse him if he looked for some greater security. Besides, the newspapers were satisfied with the benefits they were to derive from the proposed regulation. The hon. member objected, that lessening the duty on supplements would benefit only a few, and was an injustice to the other papers. To this he answered, that he lessened a particular duty upon those who were obliged to pay it, and this surely could be no hardship upon persons not subject to that duty. When he considered the variety of taxes they had dealt with during the session, and the number of reductions which had been made; he could not consent to any further reductions.
The Amendment was negatived, and the original resolutions agreed to.

NAVIGATION LAWS—BRITISH SHIPPING BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading,
Mr. Robertsonbegged to call the attention of the House to the great decrease of shipping in this country, and its increase in other countries, from which the right hon. gentleman near him had lately removed the operation of our old Navigation Laws. From papers which were before the House, it appeared that the increase of foreign shipping engaged in the Baltic trade with us, since the removal of those restraints which formerly existed upon it, was no less than 150,000 tons; and the decrease of British shipping trading to the ports of those vessels was 28,000 tons. The whole foreign commerce that was carried on by this country, and which, during the prevalence of our old navigation laws, was confined almost exclusively to British bottoms, was now transacted, the major part of it at least, in foreign vessels. The proportion between the two descriptions of shipping might be very shortly stated thus—the foreign trade of Great Britain employed of British shipping 660,000 tons; of foreign ditto, 680,000. He did, therefore, earnestly exhort the House to consider well the inevitable consequences to which the measures lately pursued by ministers must tend. Twelve years ago only, what would have been thought of a statement that such was the condition of our trade? How would gentlemen have been alarmed, if it had been stated that our foreign commerce was carried on by vessels of other nations than our own? It was true that our coasting trade was very flourishing, and, including that of Ireland, employed a tonnage of near 1,000,000 tons. The trade with the United States, however, like our foreign commerce, exhibited the same alarming appearances; for it employed British shipping to the amount of 42,000 tons only; but shipping of the United States to the amount of 126,000 tons. He must call such a condition of things most alarming. Let it be remembered that America possessed about an equal share with ourselves of the trade with the continent; and that a very large coasting trade was carried on in her own vessels upon her own coasts. The natural tendency of that trade to increase, presented to his mind the prospect of additional changes to our own trade hereafter. If the right hon. gentleman who had so warmly advocated the fatal alterations in
1278
our commercial policy, had wished to devise a project the most hostile to the future welfare of our trade, he could not have hit upon one more entirely calculated to effect such a purpose than that which he had been pursuing. He had been forcibly impressed with this truth the other night, on hearing the speech made by the right hon. gentleman in relation to the Customs' bounties bill. For what appeared from that speech? Why, that we imported from the Baltic, flax, hemp, and timber; and the two first we empowered our manufacturers to convert into canvass and cordage. We allowed them a bounty on the exportation of that cordage and canvass to foreign ports, where they would be used for the rigging and equipment of foreign ships. But, upon the same manufactures, if employed for the use of our own shipping, we actually levied a certain duty. The same inconsistency was observable in respect of the timber trade. The government had imposed a heavy duty upon the importation of the timber of which our ships were built; while in our own ports, to foreign vessels built with timber that had paid no such duties, they gave equal advantages and an equal footing with our own; thereby putting British vessels in a worse situation than the others. He would ask, whether there was any possibility of our being able to compete with them under these circumstances? The fatal effects of the new order of things might not, perhaps, be much felt for some years to come; but, supposing this increase in foreign shipping and decrease in our own to continue, and the trade of the United States with. France, for example, to go on enlarging itself, what was to become of us in the event of a war? Our greatness depended on the greatness of our navy; and in the decay of its strength was involved the failure of our own. In the same spirit the right hon. gentleman had said, on a former evening, that if our seamen chose to enter into such combinations as some of them had engaged in recently, we must employ foreigners; and that if the shipwrights persevered in similar connexions, it would be necessary for our merchants to take up foreign shipping. From propositions like these, fraught with so much danger, he earnestly entreated the House to withhold its sanction.
The bill was read a third time.

PARTNERSHIPS SOCIETIES (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading,
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that the bill had been brought in without due consideration. Its preamble recited that to be true which was manifestly false; and declared that to be law which the decision of the House of Lords, in a recent case, had declared not to be law. If this bill should pass, it would hold up this House to absolute ridicule. The bill set forth, that, by the law of Scotland, partnerships, or commercial associations of individuals, might sue and be sued in respect of debts, bonds, &c.: but, so far from this being the case, decisions of the courts of session in Scotland had repeatedly held, that such partnerships could neither sue nor be sued.
The Lord Advocatecontended, that, by the law of Scotland, as it had existed for upwards of a hundred years, partnerships might sue and be sued. Authority, too, was given by the same law to record bills of exchange, in further extension of the principle that partnerships might sue and be sued. The records of parliament would show innumerable instances of appeals carried on in the names of such joint partnerships. He would further observe, that this was not a declaratory but a prospective bill. The measure was one of the utmost importance to the commercial interests of Scotland; and he might say, that they would be excessively alarmed if they heard that the question had been made matter of doubt.
Mr. T. Wilsonsupported the bill, and was so convinced of its beneficial tendency, that he should be glad to see a similar measure introduced into our own commercial law.
Mr. Scarlettwould be sorry to see any such thing introduced into the law of England. It would lead in its operation to a great deal of fraud; for if all partners in a partnership were able to sue or to be sued, what would be the condition of a defendant, who having been proceeded against by all of them, should have judgment in his favour? What would he do, in very many cases, for his costs? How would he be able to recover them? It was to be hoped, therefore, that no such measure would be engrafted upon the law of England. As to the bill itself, it was clearly declaratory.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the learned lord had intimated, that in Scotland the bill was absolutely necessary; a learned friend of his had just declared, that he should be
1280
sorry to have it introduced into the law of England, because it would be productive of fraud; and that observation had been cheered by the Attorney-general. Now if, as he himself believed, this would be a beneficial measure for one part of the empire, why would it not be also for another? This was another instance in which lawyers had shown that they were not the best judges of what laws would be most beneficial for merchants. In Ireland an old law existed, authorizing individuals to form partnerships with a limited responsibility; but in England the matter remained in a state of doubt and difficulty, which he had no doubt the lawyers considered to be the perfection of all law; because hon. and learned gentlemen had never taken any objection to it. Against the present bill, however, he was disposed to vote, seeing that it did not apply to all parts of the united kingdom.
The Attorney Generalsaid, it had been considered by those who introduced this bill, that they were proceeding upon what was law, and had been considered to be law in Scotland for a hundred years and upwards. At the suggestion of some commercial men, he himself had lately entertained some thoughts of proposing a similar measure in respect to England; but when he came to look more carefully at its necessary operation in this country, and to consider how wide a difference the very existence of such a court as the court of Chancery made between the two kingdoms in respect of the expediency of such a law (which court Scotland did not possess), he was convinced that it was not advisable to introduce any such measure into the law of England. The present bill did not establish any new principle; but was only brought in for the purpose of removing any doubts about that which was already law in Scotland.
The bill was read a third time and passed.

RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.
The Marquis of Hastingsrose to move the second reading of the bill he had introduced to explain the clause of the act of the 13th of Geo. 3rd, relating to interest payable in the East-Indies. He observed, that as the learned judges were now present, as well as several noble lords who were not in their places when he introduced the bill, he should recapitulate the arguments which he had addressed to the House on that occasion. His bill was intended to define the true scope and meaning of the limitation of interest contained in the clause. The opinion which the law officers of the Crown had given was now before their lordships, and they would find, that that opinion was contrary to the understood meaning of the clause in India, and to the practice which had always been followed there. The bill he introduced, therefore, declared in express terms, that the clause in the 13th Geo. 3rd did not extend to persons within the territories of an independent sovereign. The law officers of the Crown, whose opinions were asked on this clause, had been under the necessity of extracting some meaning or other from it; but they had fallen into an error in conceiving that it extended beyond the British dominions in India. If they had looked into former statutes, they would have found that, in the greater part of those statutes, the words "East-Indies" were exclusively applied to the possessions of the East-India company. The noble marquis then reiterated what he had before stated respecting the practice of the Indian government, and repeated his argument, that offences committed in an independent state could not be prosecuted in any of the three presidencies, since the courts of those presidencies did not even take cognizance of offences committed within the jurisdiction of each other. In the paper on the table, their lordships would find a reference to the 37th of the late king; but that act threw no light on the clause in question; and it would, indeed, have been very extraordinary if twenty years had been suffered to elapse without this

1271
clause being understood. The clause was framed to meet a substantive evil. It was supposed that public functionaries lent money to native princes at exorbitant interest, and the object was, to prohibit such persons from engaging in pecuniary transactions of that kind. The noble marquis said, he would move the second reading, and then put a question to the learned judges, whether the bill he had introduced did truly set forth the intent and meaning of the clause in the 13th of Geo. 3rd.
The bill was read a second time, and the judges withdrew.