Sitting of 27 June 1825

PETITION OF F. JONES COMPLAINING OF COUNTRY BANK NOTES NOT BEING PAID IN GOLD.
Mr. Humereverted to the petition which he had presented to the House on the 22nd instant, from a person named Jones, complaining that a bank at Bristol had refused to pay him in cash, on demand, the amount of their notes, which he presented for that purpose. He had since had an interview with the petitioner, and, after every requisite inquiry, he found that the statements contained in the petition were perfectly correct. The notes that had been presented were for 6l. and 45l. He held in his hand the very identical notes. He had been informed, that the refusal on the part of the bank, had arisen from an idea, that the bankers were not compellable to pay the amount of their notes in cash. A great misunderstanding prevailed with respect to provincial notes. In this case, the bank had offered to substitute Bank of England notes for its own, but had refused to pay them in gold, and this was the precise point which he wished to bring before the House. A country banker's refusal to give gold for his notes was, in his opinion, as bad as a refusal to pay a promissory note when due. In order to keep the currency of the country in a healthy state, care should be taken that the supply lid not exceed the demand, as whenever it did it had the effect of causing a rise in the prices of articles of every description. This was an evil which it was the duty of ministers to guard against as carefully as possible, and when it did take place, to remedy without delay. By the 37th of Geo. 3, c. 32, commonly called the Cash Suspension bill, it was provided (sect. 3), "that if any person, being liable for the payment of any such notes and draughts as might be issued in pursuance of that act, should object to
1382
pay the sum or sums of money thereon becoming due, in specie, within the space of three days after demand made thereon by the holder of such draughts or notes, it should be lawful for justices of the peace, magistrates of the session, &c., upon complaint to that effect being made to them, and they were thereby required to summon every such person against whom such complaint should have been preferred, and after examining parties and witnesses on oath, they were empowered, if the complaint should be established to their satisfaction, to award the sum due;" and such sum, with costs, in default of payment, might be levied by sale and distress on the goods, &c. of the party proceeded against. In a subsequent bill this valuable clause had been unfortunately omitted. Such being the case, he thought the House ought not to lose a moment's time in re-enacting it, so that it might become a part of the law of the land on this momentous subject. It was calculated that 99l. out of every 100l. in circulation in the country parts of England was issued in notes of the country bankers; and the consequence of this redundant issue of paper was, that out of London there was little or no gold to be got. He was sorry that he did not at that moment see the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) in his place; for he would only upon this topic beg to refer the right hon. Secretary to his own definition of a currency in that well-known act, usually called Mr. Peel's bill. It was quite clear to his (Mr. Hume's) mind, that the country bankers" paper which was afloat had nothing of that character which attached to "currency" in the sense that term was used in the act he spoke of. His reasons for again moving that this petition be brought up were, that it regarded a matter of extreme importance to the country at large, and that the petitioner had felt himself to be reflected on by some observations that, on a former night, had fallen from an hon. baronet.
Mr. Hart Davisobserved, that it was unnecessary for hint to say, that the firm in question was as respectable a firm as any in the country. He apprehended that the subject matter of the present case arose out of the circumstance of some intemperate warmth having been displayed by the party complaining, in demanding payment of his notes; which circumstance had occasioned the display of a little warmth of the same kind on the

1383
other side; and had induced the bankers to say, "Well, Sir, as we have the option of paying you in bank-notes or in gold, we will pay you in notes." But he understood that they had acceded, subsequently, to the application. This transaction complained of, happened on the 6th of June; but afterwards, a larger amount had been tendered to him in gold: yet the petitioner had sworn to a debt of 20l. as due from these bankers. There could be no doubt that those gentlemen felt themselves to have acted in error; for it was understood generally that all country bankers were liable to pay their notes in cash, although an impression to the contrary had found its way into some quarters.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he thought that the hon. member for Bristol had viewed this matter as if it had been a question merely between the bankers and the petitioner; but if he (lord F.) had rightly caught what had fallen from his hon. friend, the petition contained matter of very grave consideration on much more general principles. It stated a fact that he could not help considering to be a grievance of very great magnitude, and one which called for a speedy and effectual remedy. When Mr. Peel's bill was passed, it was understood that the country was about to return to a sound, good, and proper currency: that was, that every man might get gold in exchange for bank-notes if he pleased. But, whether through a mistake upon the part of the bankers, or a defect in the law, it now appeared that such was not the fact. It was said, that the petitioner had come before the House with a bad grace after having sought his remedy at law. But what, he asked, was the nature of the remedy which the law afforded? This Mr. Jones, the petitioner, it appeared, wished, either from necessity or caprice, it mattered not which, to obtain gold from a bank for their notes. That the bank was respectable he did not pretend to deny; but that formed no part of the argument. Well, Mr. Jones asked for gold for a certain sum in notes; the bankers refused him, and then he was to bring his action for debt. Now, he (lord F.) did not understand much about law and its quirks, but he had been told, that the action, should the party ever choose to to bring one, could not be tried for some eight or nine months; and that, at the expiration of that period the bankers might bring their writ of error, and so put off the payment of the demand for a year and a
1384
half longer. The legal remedy of Mr Jones, therefore, would appear to be this—that whereas, in the month of June 1825, he wanted some gold for particular purposes, and was refused when he applied to the bankers to give it him in exchange for their own paper; the law would enable him to obtain his remedy somewhere about the month of March or April 1827. But, it was not as it concerned Mr. Jones that they were to look at the question: they should consider him as pointing out a great public evil, with a view to its being remedied. It was said, that gold for the notes was to be obtained on application to the Bank of England; so it might; but, was a man who had 51. or 10l. in notes, to travel a hundred, or perhaps five hundred miles, in order to apply to the Bank of England? About thirty years before the Restriction act of 1797, 1l. notes were allowed to be issued. The inconvenience of issuing such notes was found, and an act was passed preventing the issue of any notes under 5l. This act was limited to two years; at the end of that time it was renewed for two years, and then it was made permanent. The Bank Restriction act rendered the issuing of one pound notes necessary; and therefore the prohibitory act was repealed; but even then much caution was used, in order to secure the public and protect the currency of the country. It was now shown that, notwithstanding Mr. Peel's act, gold was not to be obtained for notes, without going through a tedious and expensive process. The noble lord thanked the hon. gentleman for having introduced this petition; and expressed his hope that ministers would feel it incumbent upon them, even at that late period of the session, to bring in some measure that should give operation to that clause in the Cash Payments' Suspension act, which had been unfortunately omitted in the latter statute to which allusion had been made.
Mr. Hudson Gurneysaid, he considered that the noble lord (Folkestone) was somewhat incorrect in his statement of the facts of the case. It appeared, that these bankers had refused sovereigns, and tendered bank notes; first, for six pounds, and then for forty-five pounds of their own paper. Now, the amount was nothing. The proceeding was one of a very singular stupidity; but, the inconvenience accruing was not, as the noble lord stated, of a person having to go through a process of nine months, in

1385
order to recover against the banker; but of just so much time as was necessary to exchange the notes for specie in London. The bankers knew, as the law now stood, they must pay in sovereigns if demanded; whilst it was quite obvious, that those sovereigns so paid by the bankers, must be procured from London.
The hon. member said, that, in his view, the circulation of the country was in a. more unsatisfactory state than he had ever before known it to be. The whole thing arose from the enormous blunder which had been committed in not re-adjusting the standard to existing circumstances, after twenty-five years of another currency, at the time of passing the right hon. gentleman's bill for returning to specie payments. That bill had, as every one ought to have foreseen, forcibly compressed all prices. Thence, of necessity, the ruin of the farmers, and the embarrassment of the landlords—no rents receivable—and thence that degree of distress amongst the whole of the agricultural part of the community, which rendered it imperative to take some measure to palliate the evil. Mr. Vansittart, the present lord Bexley, was then persuaded to bring in his bill, to enable the bankers to continue their issues of one pound notes.—Mr. Gurney stated, that he, at the time, as well as the noble lord (Folkestone) protested against the measure, and urged on the then chancellor of the Exchequer, that, if it were necessary to continue that species of circulation, it should be limited to the one pound notes of the Bank of England; as, in such case, the bankers would, as far as was in their power, circulate the coin of the realm in their respective districts: whereas, when issuing their own notes, it was perfectly clear, that in dose notes they would make the mass of their payments, and that the ordinary circulation of gold would be entirely confined to the neighbourhood of the metropolis.
Government, at that moment of pressure, had two points which they were resolved to drive; the one, to enhance the prices of agricultural produce; the other, to lower the rate of the interest of money, and, if possible, to divert investment to the relief of the landed interest. For these purposes, they urged the Bank to take every measure to increase the circulation. The Bank—as he thought most unwisely—first took on themselves the Dead-weight scheme; next, they ad
1386
vanced on mortgage; and lastly, and worst of all, they made advances on stock. But, the immediate object was gained—prices rose—interest fell—money became a drug. Thence, all the Bubbles, and Projects, and Joint-stock companies, and Poyais loans, and the frauds of the Share market-—creating an immense mass of floating paper engagements; which still went for so much money, and still swelled the prices of every thing.
Now, it was through the increase of prices, and through that increase alone, that the amount of the circulation of the country banks was, or could be, augmented. It was quite obvious, that, in such a state of things, the exchanges must turn; that gold, here confined to 3l. 17s. 10½d. per ounce, would be leaving the country; that the Bank of England would have no choice, but to pull in their paper; that embarrassment would soon begin. Prices would fall—and if, following on foreign drain, any domestic alarm, founded or unfounded, should arise: the country, entirely without specie, running on the country banks for sovereigns—all the country banks must necessarily come on the Bank of England. And here, gentlemen, when speaking of the issues of the country banks in conjunction with the question of currency, always seemed to suppose, that the amount of his notes in circulation, was the measure of the demand on the banker; whilst, in point of fact, the far greater part of the demands to which he was liable, in any moment of uneasiness, arose from persons hastily coming upon him for deposits, which they wished, on the instant, to realize. The Bank of England, therefore, if ever such a state of affairs should occur, must be driven to the dilemma, of either continuing to discount, at the hazard of stopping itself; or of refusing to discount, and stopping the whole country. And who, in a case like this, might be able to fulfil their engagements; or which of the hon. gentlemen whom he was addressing, might, for years following, be fortunate enough to obtain their rents—was, Mr. Gurney said, a great deal more than he would venture to prophesy.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he entirely concurred in all that bad fallen from his hon. friend (Mr. Gurney), and considered with him, that our circulation was in a most unsatisfactory, if not in a critical and alarming state. So much so, that if the least unforeseen difficulty should arise, or any

1387
want of confidence succeed to the present high state of public and private credit, a pressure might suddenly ensue, which would subject all the interests of the country to the most imminent confusion and peril. The least alarm in foreign affairs, or a bad harvest, would inevitably reduce government to the dilemma, either of sending down another Order in Council to the Bank to suspend cash payments, or of witnessing, without having any other means of averting it, a convulsion threatening the industry, commerce, and finances of the country, with indiscriminate ruin. All this had been brought about by another re-issue of paper, in consequence of the permission given to the country bankers to circulate one and two pound notes, of which they had availed themselves to the present extent; and it could not be denied that the Directors of the Bank had given all the assistance in their power to this mischievous system. Those small notes had banished all the gold, and with the depreciated silver currency, constituted the circulating medium in all parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with the exception of Middlesex and Lancashire. ["No no"! from Mr. J. Smith.] At least he (Mr. Ellice) could never meet with a sovereign in any part of the country he had visited, and suspected his information on this point was quite as good as that of his hon. friend. The gold which it had cost us so much sacrifice to import, to prepare for the restoration of cash payments in 1819, became in this way so much surplus means, or rather useless capital. The Bank complained of the overflowing hoards in their vaults—advanced it to government on dead weight—to landed proprietors on mortgage—which enabled both to reduce the rate of interest, and ultimately drove this surplus capital into continental and foreign loans, and all the bubbles of which they had heard so much, for a more speculative, and as it was supposed, beneficial employment. Whether it would be as easily got back to avert the crisis he feared was nearer at hand than was generally anticipated; or whether fresh and greater sacrifices in a dreadful reaction and depreciation of all property, would not be required, when specie was again wanted to replace the paper in circulation, he would leave to those to inform the House upon, who considered the measures of 1819 of such easy accomplishment. He was satisfied the Small-note bill, like the Corn laws, was devised
1388
to protect certain great interests from the pressure and loss which Mr. Peel's bill had inflicted on all other debtors, and to conciliate them to that measure; but, it was quite inconsistent with its principles, and necessarily led to the present state of things. He would venture a prediction, that the House would, at n distant day, be called upon to reconsider their former decision, and that the country would either be found unable, or not honest enough, to submit to all the consequences of the measure of 1819. He was glad, however, this petition had been brought accidentally under discussion, as the attention of Government, the Bank, and also all the public, should be on every occasion directed to this momentous subject. He repeated, some change could not be far distant, and he only hoped, if the country banks were suddenly again subjected to the same trial, which introduced the fatal paper system in 1797, they had more convertible means than foreign bonds, or shares in speculative undertakings, to produce Bank of England notes to meet any demands upon them; and that the Directors of the Bank of England would be prepared with better assets for conversion into specie to meet their engagements, than could be found in a moment of probable alarm, in Exchequer bills, Dead-weights; or Mortgages on landed estates.
Mr. John Smithsaid, he differed entirely from his hon. friend, and from the noble lord, who considered that 99l. out of every 1001. in the circulation of the country, consisted of 1l. notes of the country bankers. He really hardly knew how sufficiently to express the surprise with which he had listened to that, statement. In the first place, a very large proportion of the circulation of the country was in 5l. and five guinea notes; though less so, probably, in the vicinity of London than in other parts of the kingdom. He would venture to state—and circumstances had enabled him to form some opinion on the subject—that 5l. and five guinea notes therefore, and not 1l. notes, comprised a very large proportion of our circulation. The case set cut in this petition originated, he believed, as had been stated by the hon. member for Bristol, in a quarrel between the petitioner and the bankers at Bristol, who most unjustly, most illegally, and most imprudently, he must say, refused to give gold to the party in, exchange for the notes of the

1389
firm. It seemed rather to be insinuated in the speech of his noble friend that such a practice was commonly resorted to among bankers; but he begged most explicitly to deny the imputation. In respect to what had been said about the state of the currency in the north of England, by the hon. member for Coventry, he could assure the House that in nearly the largest county in the kingdom, and where the greatest amount of wages was paid of any (Lancashire ), the whole of those wages was paid in specie. If the hon. member for Hythe (Mr. S. J. Loyd) had been in his place, he could have communicated some very important information to the House on this subject; having, in the course of his life, transmitted very large sums in specie for that purpose to those districts. Another part of the hon. member for Coventry's speech he had heard with astonishment. He himself was one of those who felt no fears at all about the condition of the currency. He wished to know how it should happen that the greatest commercial country in the world—whose trade and commerce were sought after by all Europe—could be in want of a sufficient currency? There could be no doubt of our having such a sufficiency, as long as our commerce should exist; or of our retaining it, until some such calamity should befal us as the wit or powers of man should prove to be unavailing to oppose with success. He had yet a word or two to offer upon some other remarks that had fallen in the course of this discussion. In point of fact, if a man came to him, as a banker, and thought proper at once to ask him for his balance, he could refuse to pay him. But his credit—that upon which alone he existed—that upon which was the foundation of his whole subsistence—what, in such a case, would become of that? It would be gone; for who world trust him a second time? But the present was a case totally different; it arose out of a refusal to comply with a legal r quest. The refusal was occasioned entirely by the intemperate manner, as it had been termed, in which it was put; but that refusal was very soon afterwards retracted. This was, however, a delicate subject; and really when he heard hon. gentlemen throw out such imputations as they had done, especially at a time when. from the great amount of our exports lately, the exchanges, though not absolutely against us, were, if any thing, a little on the wrong side, he could
1390
not but deprecate the unnecessary introduction of so many extraneous and grave topics. He solemnly protested that he did not believe there were three country bankers in the kingdom who would refuse to give gold for their own notes. It was not quite clear whether, under any circumstances, it would be possible for us to divest our circulation altogether, of all paper currency of a small amount. It might be possible; but he did not think it was. He took very little personal interest in any such question; for he knew full well, that of all the modes of banking which could be adopted by country bankers, that of circulating one pound bank notes was the least profitable and the most troublesome. Indeed, he knew no man of respectability or eminence in the banking line, who had not contracted to a great extent his issues of this kind; for it was the last which a man of sense would willingly resort to. Upon the whole, he did hope, that the House would not alter the law with respect to the currency. As it now stood, it was very much the same as it was anterior to the year 1797, with the exception of 1l. notes. In regard to all payments, it was the same. On such a subject the House, he trusted, would deliberate very maturely indeed, before they effected any such change as had been suggested.
Mr. Abercrombythought this was not a question that properly involved all those extrinsic considerations into which hon. gentlemen had so largely entered. The main question here was, indeed, very important; and if the facts were such as were stated in the petition, undoubtedly they were very deserving of the attention of government. It was the case, as he understood it, of an individual meeting difficulty or obstructions in obtaining gold for certain notes which he tendered to those who had issued them; and it would seem, that that difficulty had arisen solely from some misunderstanding or quarrel between the parties, but that subsequently gold was offered to the petitioner for his notes. Now, if the bankers refused to pay in gold when asked for it, they might have occasioned a good deal of inconvenience and injury, no doubt, to the individual; and such a practice, were it to grow into one, would be highly injurious, and inconvenient to the country. If the existing law was defective as to that clause of the 37th of Geo. 3rd which his hon. friend had pointed out, the country banker, to be sure, could be little apprehensive of

1391
this demand for gold in exchange for his paper, being, in many instances at least, made upon him; because, a large proportion of those who held the notes of his bank would rather be subjected to the inconvenience of retaining them, than sustain actions against the bankers, which might be prolonged to the extent that had been suggested. But, such a practice in country banks would amount to a diminution of the salutary facilities for the con. vertibility of paper into specie; and would have a direct tendency to increase the issue of notes. Now, the standard at which the currency stood in 1797, was that to which it ought to have been restored, but to which it was not restored by the act of 1820. The only question was, whether the omission that had been committed in that act should not be amended before the House separated? As the currency stood in 1797, so it continued till 1816. The act of 1822, which went to authorize the issue of the 1l. notes, did not contain the provision of the act of 1797, already omitted in the intervening measure. But, if no good reason could be assigned why that provision should not be now supplied, and the last act of 1822 so far amended, the public good really seemed to require that that amendment should be now effected. It was immediate convertibility, and that alone, which constituted our security under the present system of our currency. With respect to 1l. notes, that was the only part of the arrangement to which, when this great question was settled (as he had hoped, finally ), he objected. If good ground could be shown, however, even for that measure now, he would not object to it. But, he did not apprehend there could be; and he earnestly recommended the measure he spoke of to the consideration of the House.
Mr. Secretary Peelperfectly coincided in the remark with which the hon. member for Calne had prefaced his speech, that this was not a question properly involving the numerous extrinsic considerations which had been gone into by the hon. gentleman who preceded him. At the time, he apprehended that the House was about to be drawn into a debate of the most delicate kind, without sufficient information, inquiry, or reflection—more particularly as there was not one person connected with the Bank of England then present. One gentleman so connected had, indeed, subsequently come in; to
1392
whom he had just been very imperfectly describing what had been said on the subject. It did seem to him unnecessary to enter into the discussion is which had been commenced. The transaction, as he understood it, was simply this—a country banker had been applied to on one occasion, for six sovereigns in exchange of 6l. in notes; and on another, for 45l. The banker refused in the first instance, to give the party gold; but that banker himself afterwards came forward, as the House had heard, saying that his refusal had arisen solely out of the intemperate manner in which the gold had been demanded. The banker admitted, that if the application were to come over again, he must pay the party in gold. This was the whole transaction—He was very sorry that the hon. member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) thought the circulation to be in so bad a state, and prophesied so darkly of its future condition. But, he was happy, also, to hear the hon. gentleman postpone the fulfilment of its present predictions to a time much later than the evil anticipated, according to his own view, ever ought to happen. At lest, he (Mr. Peel) could not help imagining, that the circulation was in a much more satisfactory state than it would have been, had the hon. gentleman's proposition for a committee to arrange and adjust the settlement of all contracts, or the other measures in respect of the currency suggested by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Western) been entertained by the House. As for the question of the currency, he deemed it to be one of the most serious moment, and he therefore was one of those who would pause for some time before he approached it. The right hon. gentleman then stated the substance of his own act, which, he observed, did not repeal all the restrictions under which the issues of the bank had been previously placed. As to the policy of entertaining a measure on this subject, it certainly appeared to him that it would be invidious to introduce one, on a matter where so many interests were concerned; particularly as it was stated by his hon. friend behind him, that the banker acknowledged he was wrong in refusing to pay in gold.
Mr. Abercrombywished to know whether the right hon. gentleman meant to say, that he entertained a doubt as to the proviso of the act of 1797 having been repealed; and if not, whether he thought that it ought to be repealed; and whether

1393
a summary process ought not to be afforded to the holders of those notes?
Mr. Peelsaid, the learned gentleman had asked him this question rather on the sudden; namely, whether, if a person asked a banker to pay in gold, he ought not to have a summary process to compel him to pay in a week, for instance, or two or three days? Now, that was a question which he was not competent to answer. What he had all along contended for was, that there was a liability, under the existing state of the law, to pay in gold. If the banker did not so pay, the law would compel him. But, if he were asked, at what period, after demand, the banker was obliged to pay in gold, he must at once say, that, he was not prepared to answer the question.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that if the complaint of the petitioner were received, the House would be bound to receive the petition of every tradesman who chose to make application to that House, because he could not, on the moment, procure gold for a bank-note, or for any legal written instrument, promising to pay a certain sum of money on a certain day. His learned friend had called on the House to enact a summary measure immediately. But, did he not know that any such measure would alter the whole of the law between debtor and creditor? And, would he cell on the House to change that most important portion of the law before they separated this session? This was one of the most monstrous propositions he had, ever heard; and especially so, as it came from a member of the legal profession. He did not think that the House ought to receive this petition, which appeared to him to contain very doubtful allegations. They ought, at all events, to have it very attentively read, before they received it.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that the learned gentleman certainly had a right to draw the attention of the House to the doubts which he entertained, even though his opinions might not be correct on this subject. For his own part, lie had not the shadow of a doubt on his mind, that, as the law at present stood, the country banker was as much liable to pay his one pound bank-notes in gold, as the Bank of England was to pay its notes of any amount in specie. With this feeling, he thought that an attempt to legislate on that which was at present so clear, would only have the effect of creating doubts
1394
which did not now exist; and which doubts would be fraught with very great evil. It was asked, under what law those parties might be compelled to pay in gold? He would answer, under that general law of the land which made gold a legal tender. No right was given to the banker to pay through any medium, except that which was the sole legal tender, if payment in that way were demanded. The creditor of the bank was empowered to demand gold, and to insist that his note should be paid in that metal. It had been said, that a protection was taken away, by the withdrawal of a clause which existed in the Bank Restriction act, Now, he would state to the House the object of that clause, in order that the subject should be properly understood. It had been the desire of all those who were anxious for the restoration of a metallic currency, to get back, as nearly as possible, to that state of society from which circumstances had compelled the legislature to depart. That was the principle on which the Bank Suspension act was removed. When that measure was taken, the legislature had to consider, whether it was or was not better, for the convenience of the country, that the ordinary small circulation should be continued. It was understood that it would be better. But when that small circulation was first enacted, it was enacted under the Bank Suspension law; and in order that it might be satisfactory, it was placed under, a new sanction and a new liability. And why? Because the general sanction of the law, which compelled the banker to pay in gold, was suspended. Under this state of things, it was necessary to protect the holders of notes under the new system by a further enactment; that enactment being the clause which had been referred to. But, the law suspending cash payments was done away with—the machinery of that part of the Bank system no longer prevailed, and the old law was in full force and effect. By that law it was settled, that every description of bill or note, purporting to represent a sum of money, should be paid in gold. That law being completely revived, there was no species of bank circulation that required, or could have, a better sanction or protection. The same law applied to all paper issues, whether of the Bank of England or of private bankers; and any attempt to discriminate between them would only produce dissatisfaction and confusion. He had

1395
thought it necessary thus to give a short statement of the case, which, in his opinion, had been greatly perplexed by his hon. friend the member for Newport, and his hon. friend the member for Coventry. They had strayed very much from the real question, for the purpose, as it appeared, of harping back on the opinions which they had given four or five years ago on the subject of the currency, and of censuring government for not taking the advice which they had then given. The hon. member for Coventry had said, that difficulties would, in consequence of the present system, be entailed on the country, the inconvenience of which must be so severely felt by parliament, as to induce them, as the only remedy, to renew the Bank Restriction act of 1797. Now he, for one, would say, that his imagination could not form the idea of any difficulty to which he would not sooner submit, rather than depart from the system that was now happily in operation [hear, hear!].
Mr. Baringsaid, that the holders of notes certainly had not now the advantage of that summary process which they formerly enjoyed. He was aware that they might compel payment in gold, under the law as it at present stood; but if he were obliged to resort to a long legal process, he might lose twenty or thirty times the amount of that for which he contended. If they admitted the existence of those 1l. and 2l. notes, why not revive the summary process for the recovery of the amount in gold? He said this, more on account of the principle involved in the question, than with reference to any practical advantage that would accrue from the continuance of the old system. There was, however, in point of principle, a difficulty connected with the present state of the law; and therefore he thought that some degree of advantage would be derived from the summary process. His hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) talked of the impropriety of interfering with the law between debtor and creditor; but, when they gave to bankers the privilege of issuing to the bearer one pound notes, it was nothing more than their duty to see that he had a summary process to compel the bankers to pay in gold. The state of their dealings in specie must greatly fluctuate; Day, it must be liable to be thrown into convulsions, if the country was not more saturated with gold than it was at present, The quantity was now too small, and it
1396
could not bear the occasional contraction and expansion to which it might be exposed. For instance, the country might be called upon to expend three, four, or five millions upon grain; and this sacrifice could not be made with ease, when the whole of the sum must come out of the coffers of the Bank of England, or from the circulating medium now of the metropolis. There might nom be no prospect of danger; but we ought not to place ourselves in a situation to be alarmed at the least threat of it. If any measure was brought forward next session for facilitating the circulation, and giving better security to the holders of one-pound notes, he should give it his warmest support. With respect to the alterations in the currency, he had always asserted that that measure was fraught with great injustice between debtor and creditor. Gentlemen on the other side had boasted, that throughout the alterations they had never consented to any compromise between contracting parties, suitable to the alterations in the currency. Viewing these measures as pregnant with injustice, he could not give them any credit for the course which was pursued; and he could not sit down without expressing a hope, that, under no circumstances, would the currency be again tampered with.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he concurred entirely in the last sentiment; uttered by the hon. member with respect to the mischief of tampering with the currency. Nothing could be more unjust to parties who had formed contracts, than the unsettling the standard of value by which they had regulated such contracts; and no change of circumstances would induce him again to resort to the system so recently abandoned. He was also of opinion, that the question before the House, though it. might be fit matter for consideration, was not one of such importance and urgency, as to render it necessary, in the present state of the session, to dime; the attention of the House to the investigation of a subject of so extensive a nature When the Bank resumed its payments in specie, it was found highly desirable, for public convenience, to continue, in some degree, the issue of small notes. The question was not now, whether those ins les should be allowed; but the hon. member for Aberdeen argued the necessity of giving a special remedy to the holders of those notes. He ought, however, to recollect, that the power to issue small notes, under

1397
proper authority, had long existed, and did now exist, in Scotland, and never was assisted there by any special power granted to the holder of those notes. When the restriction on the payment of cash by the Bank of England took place, it was necessary that there should be a power of levying, by summary process, the amount of the notes on the goods of the issuer, if he refused to pay in gold or Bank of England notes. But, the moment the power was restored to the Bank of England, by a compulsory law, calling on them to pay their engagements on demand, it appeared to him, necessarily and naturally, that the summary process which accompanied the former state of things should terminate. If a summary process were applicable to 1l. notes, why not to 5l. notes? An hon. member had said that, as the law now stood, a poor man could not compel the payment of a note in specie, under, perhaps, an expense of 40l. or 50l. But, was the holder of 5l. notes in a better situation? In the county of Lancaster there were no 1l. notes; but there was an issue of bills of exchange and other securities of a like description, far under 5l., to a very large amount: and there they could only appeal to the ordinary law of the land, if they wanted redress. That law was perfectly clear. It was this—that there was no satisfactory mode of satisfying the holder of a note, except through the medium of the legal coin of the realm. If the tender were made in silver, it could only be to the amount of 20s. If in any other circulation of the country, it must be the legal gold coin of the realm. They were in this situation—that no country bank, no bank of England, no person either in England or Scotland, could issue any note, without being liable to pay it on demand, or according to the terms in which it was drawn up. This, he thought, was as good a state of security as any country could afford or boast of. As to the amount of notes, that was another question—the amount of the note had nothing to do with the payment in specie. He considered it right and proper that bankers should be liable in their persons and property for the amount of their notes. As the law now stood, a debt of this nature must be sited for, like any other debt, under the ordinary law. But, as had already been said, a banker, when applied to, would use his best endeavour to pay in the coin of the realm; because the character of his establishment would depend
1398
upon his promptitude. He wished this matter not to be misunderstood through the country. He wished it to be distinctly known, that there was no individual, no corporation, no party whatever, carrying on the business of a banker, from the Bank of England down to the smallest country bank, that was not liable to pay at sight, in the coin of the realm, the amount of every note issued by him or them: and that there was no other mode whatever of legally discharging those obligations. He recollected when the bill which had been so often adverted to was brought in, gentlemen who saw more difficulty in reverting to cash payments than he did, attempted to introduce a clause, that the payment of country notes in Bank of England notes should be deemed satisfactory. He, however, resisted that clause; and it, was then distinctly understood—though now it seemed to have been forgotten—that there was no legal tender for debts contracted in any shape, except in silver coin, to the amount of 20s., and above that sum in the gold coin of the country.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowcontended, that the renewal of the summary process would be an evil, instead of a benefit.
Mr. J. Smithwas favourable to the summary process, and wished government to turn their attention to the subject.
Mr. Canningsaid, the 1l. note was precisely that which, if paid at all, must be paid in cash. The 5l. note might be paid in five one-pound notes; and it might be proper to prevent the larger note from being exchanged for the smaller: but, as there was no note for less than 1l., it must be paid in cash, if paid at all.
Mr. Humemaintained, that the present state of the paper currency subjected the country to great inconvenience, and said, that if his majesty's government did not take some steps to place the holders of notes in a better situation, he should feel it his duty to submit a motion on the subject early in the next session.
Mr. Canningobserved, that he had already expressed some doubt as to the expediency of the minor currency. He thought, however, it would be batter to suffer the present system, in respect to those notes, to come to an end, as it probably would ere long, than to aid its continuance by any specific enactment.
Mr. Maberlysaid, if he conceived that the allegations in the petition were true, he would willingly refer it to a committee.

1399
What did the petitioner complain of? He complained of what he called "a great, a disgraceful, and a growing evil?" Now, be would ask, was this really a great evil? Was it not a mere isolated case, which no gentleman had heard of before? He really wondered that his hon. friend should recommend such a course as he had done; since, if it were carried into effect, it would annihilate the whole of the paper of the country to which he belonged. He would ask whether the prosperity of Scotland had not arisen from its paper circulation? And yet the hon. member started up, and without any foundation but this isolated case, proposed a course which would overturn the whole paper currency of that country. If the hon. gentleman proceeded in his object, he would do more injury to the country than ever he had done good in that House.
Mr. Humesaid, he had no objection to seeing the country deluged with paper to the heart's content of his hon. friend. What he wished for was, that it should be convertible into specie; and for that purpose be thought a summary process was necessary.
The petition was ordered to be printed. It purported to be the petition of Frederick Jones, of St. Philip and St. Jacob out parish, Bristol, complaining that bank notes are not paid in gold; and it set forth, "That on the 6th of June, 1825, the petitioner went to the banking shop of Rickets, Thorne, and Courtney, in the city of Bristol, presented to a clerk there six of the 1l. notes of the said Rickets, and partners, and demanded gold in payment of them; that the said clerk told the petitioner, that the gold was locked up, and that he could not get at it; and that be further told the petitioner that the bank did not 'pretend to pay its notes in gold,' though the notes aforesaid, held and presented by the petitioner, contained the words following, to wit; 'Bristol Castle Bank, High-street, and Wine-street. I promise to pay John Sayce, esq., or bearer, one pound, on demand, value received; Bristol, the 28th day of January, 1825. For Rickets, Thorne, and Courtney, (signed) JOHN COURTNEY; that at last this clerk tendered some gold, some silver, and some of the paper of this bank, which the petitioner did not take, because the clerk told him that be might have sovereigns the next day; that the petitioner again went on the 7th of the said month of June, to the shop of the
1400
said bankers, and there presented for payment notes of the said bank to the amount of 45l.; that he there then made a demand of gold in payment of these last said notes, that the cashier, and that the said Courtney refused to make him pay meat in gold; that the said Courtney tendered the petitioner Bank of England notes in payment of the said 45l., and that these Bank of England notes the petitioner refused to take; that after applying for legal advice, the petitioner finds that he has no remedy but an action at law, which he has resorted to, and directed the parties to be arrested; that he cannot, he is informed, obtain judgment in a shorter space of time than about nine months, that the defendants may withhold the money for about a year beyond that period, by means of a writ of error; that in the meanwhile he has to run all the risk as to the ultimate ability of the defendants to pay; and that after paying his own extra costs incurred by the action, he may have, in consequence of sonic new law, bank notes to receive in payment, which bank notes may, if worth any thing at all, not be worth at that time one half of forty-five sovereigns; therefore the petitioner, seeing that the present laws authorize the issuing of a paper-money, which is, in fact, not payable in gold, seeing that this paper-money is daily falling in value, seeing that this has been and is most injurious to the petitioner, and has caused great wrong to him to be done, prays that the House will pass a law to insure summary recovery of' debts of this sort, and also to cause the parties issuing such dishonoured paper, to pay, in case of such refusals as aforesaid, double the amount of the sum, the payment of which shall Le so refused, or that the House will be pleased to apply to this great and disgraceful and growing evil such other remedy as to the wisdom and the justice, and the good faith of the House, may seem most meet."

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
Mr. Wallacehaving moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, said he would briefly state the ground on which the present measure was founded. The statement made on a former night by his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), though it had not been substantiated in all its particulars by the evidence, yet was so far borne out, as to the general extent, and nature of the combinations that existed, and the effect of

1401
those combinations, that it was clear that some further intervention of parliament was absolutely necessary. It appeared to him that the only practical view that could be taken of this subject was to examine the actual state of those combinations; to see if any alteration had taken place in the conduct of the parties, in consequence of the repeal of those laws which it was asserted had given rise to the combinations that formerly existed; and also to inquire whether the character of those combinations was, in any degree, softened or mitigated. All those points had been duly considered, and it did appear that the character of those combinations was, in some degree, altered—that they were greater in extent, but more open in then proceedings, than they used to be. No less than thirteen cases of absolute combination were stated to the committee, and of these seven had grown up since the passing of the late act. With respect to the constitutional character of those, combinations, they had found it much the same as heretofore. The parties met regularly and constantly, with presidents, secretaries, and committees. They attempted to take from the masters all resources, by restraining them from taking apprentices. They were all under the superintendance of committees, which committees appeared to be composed of leading members in the trade over the great body of which they presided. The manner in which they issued their orders and the promptitude with which those orders were obeyed, sufficiently showed their influence. He knew that in the estimation of many gentlemen, those combinations were considered as light and unimportant. He confessed that he was of a different opinion. It appeared that the intervention of journeymen had for its object to settle when they would work, whom the master should employ, what they should receive, how many, if any apprentices should be allowed; in short, to take all power out of the hands of the master. Beyond this, they had, in some cases, pointed out individuals to be assassinated. He declared that lie had not overstated the case. In Ireland seventy or eighty persons had been wounded. Of these thirty or forty had their skulls fractured; and two had been actually murdered in open day, without the possibility of bringing the murderers to justice. In Scotland, a still more organized system prevailed; and here he
1402
begged to call the attention of the House to the oath taken by the persons engaged in Scotland in those combinations, It ran thus—"I, A. B. do voluntarily swear in the awful presence of Almighty God, and before these witnesses, that I will execute with zeal and alacrity, as far as in me lies, every task or injunction which the majority of my brethren shall impose upon me in furtherance of our common welfare; as the chastisement of nobs, the assassination of oppressive and tyrannical masters, or the demolition of shops that shall be deemed incorrigible; and also that I will cheerfully contribute to the support of such of my brethren as shall lose their work in consequence of their exertions against tyranny, or renounce it in resistance to a reduction of wages, &c." Now, was it fit that such a state of things should remain? Could any thing be more dreadful than a combination in which vast numbers of persons were bound together by such a tie? The right hon. gentleman then detailed the evidence of John Kean, an artisan of Glasgow, who in his confession declared, that the object of the workmen in their combinations was to keep up their wages. That there were two committeemen in the general association at Glasgow, whose duty it was to report to the select committee; and that these committee-men were changed every two months. He proceeded to describe the organization of these committees, and stated, that it appeared by the same confession, that it had been resolved to take the lives of four of the workmen, Wright, Dunlop, Lindsay, and Ewing, as soon as possible. This committee, it appeared, met every Saturday night between eight and nine o'clock. The confession to which he now alluded, had been made by a man who had been convicted of shooting a workman of the name of Graham, who had gone contrary to the wishes of the committee. He believed that the same motives were common to all the committees, and that they all pursued the same course. The evil which resulted from it was incalculable. The most innocent persons might be led, step by step to become participators in acts of the most atrocious description. To ensure success to the designs of such committees, numbers were most of all necessary. To gain these, every inducement was put in practice. First of all, persuasion was tried; then money was offered; then warnings; then threats and intimidation; and if these were insufficient, then murder, or an

1403
attempt to murder, was resorted to. All these various means had been practised. The shipwrights in the neighbourhood of London had left their work, and withdrawn from the employment of certain masters. The shipwrights of Bristol had gone a little further, and had resorted to threats. The coopers of London had made all the workmen who would not obey the rules they laid down, uncomfortable. It was difficult to say exactly what they meant by "uncomfortable;" but, the consequence was, that all the workmen who had been made uncomfortable became members of the association. The weavers of Yorkshire had proceeded as far as threats; and the workmen in Scotland had gone even greater lengths. An instance occurred a few days ago of a man who had struck, with others, and who had received a small sum from the society; afterwards, conceiving that he had permission to return to work, he had done so, and was called to account by the society, and punished for his offence. In Scotland there had been more than one attempt to murder; and in Ireland some men had actually been murdered. For these reasons it was, that he wished to see the law relating to combinations made stronger. He was no friend to the principle of the laws which had been repealed; he did not wish to see them re-enacted; but he wished that the common law, as it had stood before, should be again brought into force. This, he believed, would be quite sufficient for the purpose. By that law sufficient powers were given to the workmen for the preservation of their own interests; they were permitted to meet for the purpose of obtaining an increase of their wages; but if they went beyond this, and attempted to mix up any intimidation of others in their scheme, it was going too far. The object of the present bill was, to keep up this distinction and every thing beside was left to the operation of the common law. He thought the bill of last year went too far; because it gave the men an opportunity of controlling their masters in their trade, and opened to them the power of exercising a compulsion which was unjust and impolitic. The attachment which some workmen had to their masters was very strong; their affection to their families must of course be much stronger; and yet the influence which these societies exercised over them was found to be stronger than either; and induced the work-
1404
man in many instances to neglect both, and in preference to obey the orders of the societies. The principle of the bill now before the House was to make all associations illegal, excepting those for the purpose of settling such amount of wages as would be a fair remuneration to the workmen. He knew it had been objected that this was not enough; he thought it was safer to point out the description of association which was legal, than to specify all which were illegal, in doing which there was great danger either of putting in too much or of leaving out something which might be necessary. The bill of last year was the same in principle as this, but it went a little further; and this, he apprehended, was the cause of the inconvenience now universally felt. The present bill gave a summary jurisdiction to magistrates; it did away with the necessity of a previous information, and permitted a conviction upon the evidence of one witness only. These were the principal Features of the bill. He was aware it would disappoint many persons; for there sere some who, listening to their prejudices, thought that the utmost vengeance of parliament ought to be called down upon these combinations, and that rigour and severity were the best tests of power. For his part, he thought the best test of the power of government was shown in its clemency and moderation. He felt all the disadvantages which such a measure must bring with it; but he felt also that, great those disadvantages were, it was better to endure them than to submit to the tyranny of the workmen.
Mr. Robertsondeclared, that the repeat of the combination laws would, in his view, be attended with the most mischievous consequences to the workmen themselves.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman had given the workmen any thing rather than fair play. None of the abuses of which the master; complained so loudly were at all proved in the evidence before the House; and at least the existing system had this ad vantage over the state of law which was gene by, namely, that there were no more uses of illegal oaths, no more secret societies. No doubt there had been faults on both sides; but the masters were at least as much to blame as the mechanics; a he denied that any proof of violent conduct, to any material extent, had been given. In the

1405
complaints of the master paper-makers, the masters were decidedly in the wrong. So with the coopers. There had been no violence; and the House could not legislate to prevent petty feuds and differences. The journeymen shipwrights had offered to meet the masters half-way; the latter had refused; and, he repeated, that the men were entitled to as full a hearing—and their petitions had not had it—as their employers. And after all, what occasioned these existing combinations, with which the House was called upon to deal so vigorously?—The cornlaws—the combination of the land-owners, which had raised every necessary of life within the last three years from 30 to 60 per cent in price. It was a little hard to allow the corn grower to bring his commodity as he chose into the market, and to shut out all competition, that he might obtain his own price for it; and then to punish the workman, who was compelled to buy this artificially-raised commodity of the landholders, for making what efforts he could to get the best possible price for his own. For, if the masters were to be protected by the bill of the right hon. gentleman, the men had a right to protection too. And, had they this? They had not. If the masters combined to give their men only half a sufficient rate of wages, and had strength enough to starve them into taking it, there was nothing in the bill to prevent them from doing so. And, how could this danger be met by to the workmen, except by counter-combination; for which, short of carrying them to the extent of violence, he still thought they ought to have the fullest permission? Besides this, he objected to the discretion which the bill proposed to lodge in magistrates; and thought it would open the door to every kind of injustice and abuse.
The House then went into the committee.
Mr. Calcraftobjected, generally, that sufficient investigation had not been given to the subject. It was, further, a fault in his opinion, that in the preamble of the bill, there was no declaration of the opinion of the House against combinations altogether, whether of masters or workmen. Art act of legislation had passed in the last session. That act, he would admit, had been introduced with the best intentions, but it had not produced the effects expected from it, and therefore they were now called upon to consider the measure
1406
before them. He hoped that as the subject was again under consideration, the committee would carefully watch every clause as it went on, so as effectually to guard against the mischiefs which had resulted from the last act.
On the reading of the clause which made it penal to induce any man to leave his work by threat, or intimidation, or insult, Mr. Hume objected to the wording of the clause as being too vague. The word, "insult" might be construed a thousand ways, and that which might be considered as an insult to one man, would not be so understood as applying to another.
Mr. Mansfieldobjected to it, and observed that as he had heard the workmen object to it in strong terms, and as he had not heard any defence of it on the part of the masters, he should oppose it. If it were to be carried, he did hope that the power of enforcing it would not be left to the discretion of a magistrate, but that all offences under that clause would be left to the decision of a jury.
Mr. Hobhouseopposed the clause as being too undefined. It was the more objectionable, as the decisions upon it were to be left to the discretion of a magistrate, and not to a jury. He could not concur in the remarks which had been made upon the committee of last session. That committee had proceeded in the most deliberate manner. It was unfair to say, that they had come to a hasty conclusion on the subject of their inquiries.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the bill of last year was not calculated to give such full effect to those resolutions as was intended by the present measure. He bad no intention of acting harshly towards the operative mechanics. If any hon. member would point out any clause of this bill which operated with unnecessary severity upon any class, he would oppose it. The object of the bill was, to protect the weak against the strong—to afford to the man who chose to give his labour for a certain value, that protection against the combination of large bodies to which every man was entitled.
After some further conversation,
the committee divided: For the clause 90. Against it 18.
Sir F. Burdettobjected to this bill, first, because sufficient time had not been allowed for a trial of the bill which it was intended to amend and repeal; secondly, because its language was vague and indefinite; and thirdly, because it deprived

1407
the people of the trial by jury, and left them to the arbitrary discretion of a single magistrate. He maintained that the last clause was as vague as vague could be; and observed that "jus vagum" was, in the opinion of every wise lawyer, the ne plus ultra of tyranny.
Mr. Denmanmoved, that in place of conviction before two magistrates, it should be by the verdict of a jury.
The committee divided: For the original clause 78; Against it 53: Majority 25. The House then resumed.

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.
Mr. Denmanin his place, charged Mr. Kenrick, one of his majesty's justices of Great Session in Wales, a justice of the peace for Surrey, and recorder of Dover, " that he preferred before a neighbouring magistrate a charge of felony against a poor man named John Franks, without any sufficient proof of the same; on which charge the said John Franks was committed to prison, where he remained till he was discharged at the .sessions by the verdict of a jury, acquitting him instantly on the same evidence which had been adduced by Mr. Kenrick as the ground of his commitment:—That, during the imprisonment of the said John Franks, Mr. Kenrick made repeated offers to procure a lenient sentence to be passed upon him, provided he would plead guilty to the charge; and applied to the clerk of the Peace, and the chairman of sessions, to permit him to withdraw the prosecution, alleging Franks's good characteras a reason for wishing to do so:—That shortly afterwards, in answer to some public animadversion on his own conduct, he wrote and published a libellous letter against the said John Franks, calumniating his character, and imputing to him crimes of which he was not guilty."
A copy of the charge was ordered to be communicated to Mr. Kenrick, and Mr. Denman gave notice, that he would move to-morrow for the attendance of Henry Peters, esq. Mr. H. Drummond, Edward Arnold, John Franks, and Esther Franks, as witnesses, in Franks's case, against Mr. Kenrick.

JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading,
Earl Grosvenortook that opportunity of making some observations on sinecure offices. The office of lord justice general of Scotland, though of that description; was still maintained. With respect to the sale of offices in courts of law, he was glad that practice was to be put an end to. He also objected to the unnecessary increase of salaries. The learned lord who approved of the bills on the table must surely wish that they had been introduced ten years ago. He understood, however, that it was not intended to extend the inquiry to the court of Chancery.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the object of the regulations was, that wherever there was business, the duties should be performed by efficient officers. As to the office filled by his noble and learned friend, the salary derived from it was before the House, and there was no man who knew the duties which attached to that office would think the reward sufficient. The situation of the lord chancellor was different from that of the chiefs of the other courts; for no sale of offices was allowed in Chancery. With respect to the puisne judges, with a knowledge of the labours they had to perform, could any one think them too highly remunerated by 5,000l. a-year?
The Lord Chancellorcomplained of the misrepresentations and calumnies which had gone forth respecting the emoluments of his office, although the amount of its profits had been already given in accounts before the House of Commons. Perhaps it was thought that this mode of calumnious misrepresentation was the way to

1379
get him out of office: they were mistaken who thought so; he would not yield to such aspersions, nor shrink from asserting what he owed to himself. Had he been treated with common justice, he should not now, perhaps, have remained lord chancellor; but he would not be driven from his office by calumnious attack. Let him only be treated with common justice, and in five minutes his office should be at any body's disposal. From the accounts which had been furnished to him of his emoluments as lord chancellor, by those who best knew the amount, apart from his income as Speaker of the House of Lords, he was happy to say, that the lord chief justice of the court of King's-bench had received a larger income from his office. He quoted from the average accounts of the last three years; and he would further say, that in no one year, since he had been made lord chancellor, had he received the same amount of profit which he enjoyed while at the bar. Strange, then, it was, that he should be attacked, as he had been, by mis-statements and misrepresentation of every kind. Had he remained at the bar, and kept the situation he held there, he solemnly declared he should not be one-shilling a poorer man than he was at that moment, notwithstanding his office. His noble friend (earl Grosvenor) should not have blamed him for not bringing this subject before the House earlier. It had often been brought forward: and it was thought that the emoluments arising from the sale of offices should not be interfered with; because, had they been abolished, the chief justices must have received a compensation in some other way. When the salary of the puisne judges had been augmented from time to time, no augmentation had taken place in that of the chiefs, because they were considered as deriving part of their emoluments from this source. It could not for a moment be supposed that, having entered on the laborious duties of their office under the conviction that its emoluments were to be secured to them by law, they could be turned adrift without any regard to their rights. The noble earl entirely misunderstood the question with regard to sinecure offices. Bills had repeatedly been sent up from the other House for abolishing them; and they had been resisted, because the persons who brought them here did not understand the question. It was insinuated that because the deputy did all the drudgery of the office, therefore the principal
1380
was of no use. The doctrine was founded on a mistake: the presence of the principal might not always be required, but it was applied on proper occasions; and if his responsibility was not always interposed, the consequences might be extremely injurious to the suitors and the public. He the (lord Chancellor) would pledge himself to be as active as any noble lord in correcting abuses, but he would perform his duty with a due regard to the rights of others. The reason why, in the present bill, there was no clause, regulating offices in the court of Chancery was, that a commission was now sitting on the state of that court. Much misrepresentation had gone abroad concerning his conduct, since he had presided over it; but whatever he might suffer from such calumny and misstatement, he enjoyed the consolation, that he had been incorrupt in his office, and he could form no better wish for his country than that his successor should be penetrated with an equal desire to execute his duties with fidelity. The feelings and fate of an individual were in themselves of small importance to the public, and he the (lord chancellor) might be sacrificed to the insults which he was daily receiving; but he begged noble lords to reflect that he might not be the only sacrifice. If the object was, as it appeared to be, to pull down the reputation, and to throw discredit on the motives and conduct of men in high official situations—if every man who occupied an eminent station in the church or the state was to become the object of slander and calumny—then their lordships might rest convinced that their privileges as peers could not long be respected.
The bill was then read a third time.

RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.
The Marquis of Hastingsmoved, that the opinion of the judges be heard on the construction of the act for regulating the interest of money in India.
Lord Chief Justice Bestaccordingly delivered the opinion of the judges in favour of the bill on the noble marquis. The act for restricting the interest of money to 12 per cent was, he said, to be interpreted according to its letter, as it was a penal statute; and by its literal interpretation it was only to be enforced in the dominions of the company. It could not be construed as extended to Foreign states in alliance with the British power. It could not regulate the transactions of borrowers

1381
or lenders in the dominions of the native princes where British jurisdiction did not extend. If borrowers there suffered from the oppressive acts of those with whom they had money dealings, they might apply for protection to their own government, and not to that of the company. In this construction of the law, he was supported by decisions of the Supreme Court of Bengal.
The bill was read a second time.