any Bank now existing in Ireland, and which was not a Bank of Issue on the 6th day of May, 1844, to invest in the Government Three and a Quarter per Cent. Stock any sum what soever, and transfer the same to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, or such other persons as the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury, by warrant under their hands and seals, shall direct, to accept of such Transfer: and, thereupon, the said Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, or such other persons, shall issue a Certificate ferred, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for such Bank to issue their own Promissory Notes payable to bearer on demand, to the amount of such Stock so transferred: Provided always, that there shall not be a sum less than 50,000l. of such Stock so transferred at any one time." to such Bank of the amount of Stock so trans Mr. O'Connell rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion for the insertion of the clause, and in doing so he thought he might as well take advantage of the opportunity to address the few words to the House which he wished for the present to offer on the subject of that Bill. The right hon. Baronet had observed that he thought the two alterations which had been made in the Bill would give satisfaction. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that belief. There would still remain several branches, to the number of twenty or thirty, in every one of which it would be necessary to maintain a supply of specie on which no notes could be issued. He would ask the House to compare Scotland with Ireland in that respect. In Scotland, all the gold that a bank possessed could be represented by notes, while in Ireland the contrary was the fact. It was true that in Scotland they had no branch banks; but the difference between the countries would act most injuriously for Ireland. In Scotland the banks would have the advantage of being able to issue a note for every sovereign in their possession; whereas in Ireland, the banks would be allowed to issue notes for only one-fourth of the gold which they would be obliged to keep by them. The difference would be at once felt to be an advantage to the Scotch banks, which the Irish banks could not enjoy. Then again, with respect to the averages. Something would certainly be gained by the alteration as to the time for taking the averages, to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded; but he would ask, ought they to adhere strictly to the averages of former years? Would they read the Report of Lord Devon's Commission? They would find that 4,500,000 of the inhabitants of Ireland were in a state of distress-that they were ill-fed, ill-clothed, badly lodged-and having bad beds; that their food was potatoes, their drink, water, their houses in ruins; and that a blanket was to them a luxury; that they were, in a word, the most miserable population in Europe. These were not his words; but they were the words of Lord Devon's Report. The right hon. Baronet did not desire that Ireland should remain so. He would go further, and admit, of course, that the right hon. Baronet had a strong desire to alter that state of things; but if he recollected that the prosperity of the country was very much aided by banking facilities-instead of restricting-he ought to endeavour to increase the currency. He should recollect that any advance of the currency, was an advance of the interests of the country, and on both these grounds he ought to have treated Ireland in a far different manner from that insured by the present Bill. Nobody owed money to Ireland. On the contrary, five or six millions of the value of the produce of Ireland was annually transported from the country to pay the rents of absentees; and, therefore, the dearer they made the medium in which they had to pay that amount, the heavier would the debt become upon the country. Instead of being anxious to restrict the circulation, they ought, if they wished to improve the condition of the country, to extend the circulation as far as the public safety would allow. All that the people of Ireland were anxious for, was to get rid of the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland. They did not understand when a number of partners in a bank, up to six, might issue notes within fifty miles of Dublin, why there should be a different system adopted when the partners were extended to 300, or 400, or 500. In the one instance there was a possibility of loss through the Bank, in the other there was none. They had a monopoly against banks from which there could not by possibility be any loss; while they ceased to have a monopoly against that kind of banking which might and which actually did create very severe losses. It was then too late to enter further into any opposition to the Bill; and he had to apologize to the House for trespassing upon their time, but he wished to put upon record his humble opinion on the subject. He was old enough to remember the former currency Bill, which had been called after the right hon. Baronet; and he recollected that that Bill had created more mischief in the country than had been effected by the French Revolution in France. It caused more social injury, it ruined more families, and brought more destruction on individuals, than any revolution that ever occurred. That ruin had gone by-but what were they now doing? They were limiting the currency. In fact, the very restriction of the 30s. notes would, in itself, go to limit the currency. He would venture to say, from his knowledge of Ireland, that by enhancing the currency, they would diminish the price of every article produced in the country, and they would bring great dissatisfaction in the minds of those who had, at present, the least desire to be dissatisfied with the Government. He would not trespass further on the House, but would conclude by giving his support to the Amendment. because he was anxious to protest against the policy of this banking measure for Ireland. He did so, however, not for the reason assigned by the hon. and learned Member for Cork. viz., because it would produce misery by lowering the price of all sorts of commodities. If that were its effect, he would not certainly oppose it. He opposed it because it was an encroachment upon what he believed to be true policy on this subject-perfect freedom in banking. The right hon. Baronet had pointed to Ireland, and said that all the evils which he attributed to free trade in banking had occurred in that country. The case, he said, fully bore out his opinions. But let them observe, that the case of Ireland had coexisted with a restrictive system in England, which had doubtless affected it disadvantageously. Let Government look to the state of Scotland, the only instance in which free trade had been approximated to-and what had been its results? Why, fewer monetary disturbances had occurred there than any where else. All the right hon. Baronet's Sir R. Peel believed that the permanent rules were framed on an experience of a benefit of Ireland depended much more period of restriction. He had never obon the stability of the banking system, than served what had happened under perfect. upon any amount of circulation. The free trade, because it had not been comhon. Gentleman alluded to the poverty of pletely tried. He had, undoubtedly, more Ireland; now, he (Sir R. Peel) had seen knowledge on the subject than any man the same state of things in Ireland when in England; but that circumstance was there was most extensive paper circulation, precisely his disadvantage. If he were to upon which there was no restriction. forget all he knew about the matter, and Shortly afterwards he had seen every one brought his original and vigorous underof those evils to which the hon. and learned standing to the subject, free and unencumGentleman had alluded; and when the bered with the erroneous views he had time arrived, as was always the case with contracted from the working of a state of a too abundant issue of paper, there was restriction, he would have established free the greatest and most wide-spread misery trade as the true remedy for the evils in the west and south of Ireland, and which the working of the currency and when almost every bank failed. He be-banking laws present. A great philosolieved that upwards of fifty failed, and were unable to discharge their obligations. They had no wish to reclaim the notes; but there should be a security that they should be at once convertible into coin. He believed that the restrictions that were proposed in this Bill would not operate to prevent a sufficient circulation of notes in sound security. He believed that, after a short time, when people got confidence in the banks, it would happen, as in Scotland, where there was little disposition to change the notes. Mr. Trelawny said, he should be thought presumptuous in following such an authority on such a subject; but he only did so pher had said the first step in education was to unlearn; and some of them ought to begin by forgetting all they knew on banking, and the result would have been the production of a better Bill. One reason for non-interference in such matters was, the extremely complicated character of the phenomena with which legislation had to deal. What legislator had ever succeeded in producing the effects he anticipated from a banking law? And did not this show the wisdom of not meddling with what was so difficult to understand? He could not conceive why there should be any greater necessity for laws to insure the presence of gold than mutton in the country. What would result from perfect free trade? Great companies would be formed, whose interest would compel them to keep sufficient gold in their coffers to meet the paper brought to them for payment. There would naturally be such companies, and their competition would keep down banking profits to meet the interests of shopkeepers and others. For this is the true object of banking. It is economy of gold. It is to render it unnecessary to every shopkeeper to keep at great quantity of gold in his shop. The banker takes it and trades with it, paying a per centage to the depositor, to the mutual convenience of both parties. And why this could not happen under free trade no one had ever shown. He did not know he had any other remark to offer; but he had felt it to be his duty to protest against this Bill. Mr. Ross did not think that four banks for the issue of notes was sufficient; and this would be particularly felt in the pro vince of Ulster. Mr. Hawes considered that it would be highly beneficial if there was a great extension of joint-stock banks in Ireland. He did not conceive that this would necessarily be attended with an increase of paper circulation. He did not believe, however, that this measure would be attended with any serious consequences to Ireland; but still it might interfere with the formation of secure joint-stock banks. If he (Mr. Hawes) interfered with the system of banking in Ireland at all, he would endeavour, as much as possible, to assimilate it to the Scotch system of banking. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the solvency of the banks would be better secured by not giving them the power proposed to be conferred by this clause, and he must, therefore, oppose it. Sir R. Peel was fearful that if they gave too great facilities for a paper currency, they would in the end generate a tendency to get rid of a metallic currency. Let the House look at the manner in which the enormous transactions at Liverpool and Manchester were conducted; there the only bank notes in circulation were those of the Bank of England, representing sovereigns; and if these notes were abolished to-morrow, sovereigns would be used in their stead, without much inconvenience. Clause brought up and read a first time. The House divided on the Question that the Clause be read a second time— Ayes 24; Noes 77: Majority 53. Mr. S. O'Brien moved as a second Resolution, that "And be it Enacted, That in the event of the said Bank stopping payment, or becoming Bankrupt, that such Stock shall be held in trust for the persons, creditors of the said Bank, Notes of the said Bank, at the time of such who shall be holders of the said Promissory stoppage of payment or failure: Provided always, that the said Bank shall be entitled to receive the half-yearly Dividends payable on the said Stock, until stoppage of payment or bankruptcy; Provided also, that the said Bank shall make Returns of their Issues of Notes as the several Banks of Issue in Ireland shall be bound to make such Returns under this Act, and that in case the issue of such Bank shall exceed, at any one time, the amount of such Stock so transferred, that such Bank shall be liable to the same penalties as the several Banks of Issue shall be liable to for their excess of Issue under the provisions of this Act; Provided also, that in case of their withdrawal of their Notes to an tion, then, on proving the same to the satisamount of 50,000l. or upwards, from circulafaction of the said Commissioners, or the said persons so to be appointed, an equal amount of such stock shall be re-transferred to the said Bank." Clause read a first time. On the Question that it be read a second time, The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he could no more agree to that than to the former clause of which it was a consequence. Motion negatived. Bill passed. COLLEGES (IRELAND).] Sir James Graham moved that the Report on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill be brought up. Mr. Bernal Osborne postponed the Resolution of which he had given notice, until the Motion for the third reading of the Bill, in order to afford the right hon. the Recorder of Dublin an opportunity of being present on the occasion. Sir James Graham postponed the statement he had intended to give that evening with reference to this Bill, until the Motion for going into Committee upon it. That Motion would be made on Thursday next, immediately after the Enclosure Bill was disposed of. The alterations h contemplated were of considerable importance. Mr. Hume objected to postponing the measure in any way. He was of opinion that the reason which had been urged for the postponement of the Bill, was a good ground for proceeding with the Committee | man thought that further time was reon Thursday next. quired, of course he (Mr. Sheil) could not expect an answer on that occasion; but he would take that opportunity of asking whether the Government had taken advantage of the delay which had occurred to communicate to the Roman Catholic bishops the alterations which they proposed, and whether they had received the assent of the Catholic bishops to those alterations? Mr. Sheil said, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had taken for his motto, "religio mihi nulla est." He appeared to think that the object of the measure was to provide secular education for the students at those Colleges; but the Government had stated that they did not look upon it in that light, and that they were anxious to give facilities for religious instruction. When the measure was at first proposed, he (Mr. Sheil) expressed a fear that on this, as on former occasions, a great mistake had been committed in not consulting the Catholic hierarchy-that was an error in policy, it was a signal error, and the consequences of it would be, he feared, most pernicious. After the introduction of the measure, a synod of the bishops took place, and a memorial was agreed to which condemned the Bill in very important particulars, but they gave the Government credit for good motives, and they referred in proof of those motives to the Maynooth Bill. Since that memorial was agreed to, the Government had been called upon to state how far they acceded to the views which had been put forward on that occasion; and the Government undertook a new consideration of some of the details, the effect of which was to produce certain alterations in the measure. The right hon. Baronet had been asked two questions on Friday by him (Mr. Sheil) with reference to this Bill. One was, whether he would consent to the appointment of Roman Catholic and Protestant chaplains, who were to be paid by the State, to attend those Colleges; and the other was, whether it was intended to propose any alteration with respect to the power of the Crown in appointing the professors. The right hon. Gentleman did not then answer those questions; but the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was prepared to answer the question, and he only postponed it as he believed it would be a more appropriate time to answer it when the Bill should be before the House on Monday (yesterday). He (Mr. Sheil) accordingly came down to the House on that evening with the full conviction that the right hon. Baronet would be prepared to afford information as to whether the Government intended to introduce any alteration with respect to those two important particulars. If the right hon. Gentle Mr. Colquhoun did not see the necessity of calling in to their aid in such a measure the opinions of any hierarchy, much less a hierarchy who had not concealed or disguised their open and avowed approval of political agitation in Ireland, and who gave powerful and efficient assistance to that agitation, as the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell) could testify-a hierarchy who were pledged to an agitation, the effect of which would be to destroy the integrity of the Empire. [Mr. O'Connell; No.] They were the active supporters of that agitation. [An hon. Member: Dr. Murray was not one.] If hon. Members allowed him to proceed, they would have an opportunity of replying to him; but he would remind them that he was not then on the floor of Conciliation Hall-he was speaking to an assembly of Gentlemen; and whether he differed from them in opinion or not, he was confident they would not attempt to put him down in any other way than by replying to him. Whatever was the opinion of the Irish hierarchy with respect to this subject, he hoped the House would decide it, as it was their duty, on principles of sound policy alone. If Ministers, when they had introduced a system of secular education like this on their own responsibility, departed from it in consequence of what had taken place, he should regret it; for such a course would be calculated to raise an opposition to the Bill more formidable than any which it had yet experienced; for hon. Members near him had stated that the Catholic hierarchy were not the advocates of Repeal agitation; but if he asked the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell) whether such was the case, he would no doubt answer in the affirmative. Was the hon. Member near him aware that a Catholic archbishop could deprive a priest of his functions, if he disapproved of the course which he took? If such were the case, how, then, could the hon. Member say that the Ro. man Catholic bishops in Ireland were not favourable to agitation? Mr. O'Connell: I don't mean to agitate the question of Repeal on this occasion; and I will, therefere, only say that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is a very bad theologian-an exceedingly bad theologian-and being so very bad, it would be well worth his while to inquire a little into the facts before he makes statements on such subjects as that of which he has just been speaking. No Catholic bishop in Ireland could deprive a priest of his functions after a formal induction, or a triennial possession. The hon. Member for Montrose has spoken of the interference of the Catholic bishops, as if they wished to interfere with a system of education for Protestants, but they have done no such thing. I should be happy to hear of Protestant bishops interfering to secure religious education of Protestant childrenof Presbyterian clergymen interfering to secure the religious education of Presbyterian children; and I claim the same right for the Catholics; namely, that the Catholic bishops shall be permitted to take care of the religious education of the Catholic children. I thank the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) for the admirable description which he gave of this measure when he called it "a gigantic scheme of godless education;" and as regards the alleged success of the system on the Continent, so far am I from assenting to that allegation, that I think nothing can be more unsuccessful than the efforts of those who seek to exclude from education religion, which should be the basis of it. I believe that religion ought to be the basis of education; and I came over from Ireland for no other purpose than humbly to represent the necessity of making religion the basis of education, to establish it not only as a part, but an essential part of it. I sincerely hope and desire that the discussion of this subject will be carried on with good temper and good feeling, and that we shall not imitate the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Colquhoun) in adopting such a tone, and making unfounded assertions of others who are ab like to know what business he could have in Conciliation Hall, or any conciliation assembly. I must again express a hope that the discussion of this measure will be conducted with perfect courtesy and good humour, and I can pledge myself that such will be the case so far as I am concerned. Sir J. Graham agreed with the last observation of the hon. and learned Member. He hoped they would discuss the Bill with perfect good temper. It was far from the intention of the Government to interfere with the Roman Catholic religion. The hon. Member for Newcastle said that it would be unworthy of the House to commit the sole discussion of this Bill to any body of prelates, however respectable. To that feeling he subscribed; but, at the same time, he must observe that the Irish Protestants had ample provision made for them in Trinity College, and that the present measure must be deeply and peculiarly interesting to the Roman Catholic prelates. It was a question touching a large portion of the Roman Catholic population, and he was prepared to declare that he did think the opinions of the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church ought to be received with respect; he did not say with humble deference, but at all events with respectful attention. In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, he had to say that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did receive from the Roman Catholic prelates a written memorial, and that in addition to that written memorial the Lord Lieutenant had the honour of receiving a deputation. The Lord Lieutenant conferred with those prelates: he entered largely into the subject, and he had reason to hope that some of their objections were mitigated by the explanations he had given. The consequence of that conference was, the Amendments which he had laid on the Table of the House. Since that no further direct intercourse had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant and the prelates. With respect to further alterations, he would not say, and it would not be fitting to say, that they had been submitted to the Roman Catholic prelates. plan which had been submitted by the Government was a plan for collegiate education, from which religious instruction was excluded within the walls; whilst, at the same time, every facility was given to that religious instruction out of the walls The |