exercised an aggravated influence upon commercial distress when it arose, applying one rule to foreign and domestic trade. The framers of that Act meant it to be a law regulating the issue of bank-notes; they erroneously assumed that it was possible for any issuer of banknotes to force their circulation. He hoped, he said, that this Act would receive its death-blow in this debate; and, believing that sufficient materials for legislation were already in the possession of the House, that all necessary information had been exhausted by the Committee of last session, and that the question was now ripe for decision; he moved, as an amendment to the motion, a resolution "That in the opinion of this House, no further inquiry is necessary into the operation of the Bank Act of 1844."

Mr. Cardwell, in supporting the motion, observed that there were two matters before the Houseone, the proper mode of dealing with the commercial difficulty, which had been disposed of by the Bill of Indemnity, and by the Bank having returned to its ordinary limits; the other, the re-appointment of the Committee of Inquiry. That committee closed its labours last session with recommending its own re-appointment, and made no report. They had finished their investigation into the currency; but other branches of inquiry remained, and the events which had happened in the interval increased the need of inquiry. Upon the general question, he defended the policy of the Act of 1844, replying to the criticism of Mr. Disraeli, whose theory, that paper currency convertible at par could not be mismanaged, was contradicted, he said, by experience,

prior to 1844, in this country, as well as by the example now presented by America. He read accounts of the disastrous consequences attending over-issue of convertible paper in both countries, and asked how the aggravation of the late commercial distress could be charged upon the Act of 1844? He believed that, if the opinion of the public could be taken, whatever desire there might be to engraft upon the Act. other provisions, there would be a very decided feeling in favour of its policy.

Mr. Gladstone said, he subscribed to the arguments of Mr. Cardwell, but he differed as to their application. Those arguments went to show that the evidence was accumulative in favour of no longer leaving the country in doubt as to the principle on which the currency ought to be founded. It was impossible, in his opinion, for the Act of 1844 to stand as it was. Experience had shown that it required alteration to obviate difficulties and avert perils arising from overtrading and bad banking. A recurrence of crises must be looked for, and he was not satisfied with the way in which they were met. The practice in two crises ruled the third.

Traders would now know that, if they could stand for a certain time, there would come a letter to relieve them. He obected to vest this dangerous power in the hands of a Minister. Great evil arose from the confusion which prevailed between the functions of currency and banking; and, if the committee were re-appointed, the House would postpone the remedy for these evils, for, besides a variety of questions yet untouched by them, they would have

to consider the question of issue over again. The effect of referring all these questions to a committee was to overcharge it, and to stifle the questions referred to them. Let the House settle at once by legislation the question, which was ripe for settlement.

Mr. Malins stated the grounds upon which he considered that the Act of 1844 was founded upon a false principle, and that it was erroneous in practice as well as theory. He should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Horsfall should vote for the re-appointment of the committee. Approving the general principle of the Act of 1844, he thought that Act required and was susceptible of amendment, especially by adapting it to the more effectual prevention of panics, one of the main objects of Sir R. Peel.

Mr. Weguelin, with reference to the suggestion to limit the operations of the Bank of England to the function of banking, observed that, in his opinion, nothing could be so disastrous to the moneyed interest of the country as to deprive the Bank of the opportunity of making advances to the commercial world. He explained what he considered to be the real origin of the commercial distress.

After some remarks by Mr. Blakemore,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a brief reply, in which he noticed the conflicting views and objects of those who called for immediate legislation upon the subject, Mr. Disraeli urging the total repeal of the Act of 1844 as incurably vicious; Mr. Gladstone seeking to uphold the Act and to increase its stringency.

Upon a division the amendment of Mr. Disraeli was negatived by

295 to 117, and the original motion was agreed to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire into the causes of the recent commercial distress, and to consider how far it has been affected by the laws regulating the issue of bank-notes. After some objections from Mr. Baring, who wished that this inquiry should be referred to a separate committee, the motion was agreed to.

But few other subjects besides the currency laws engaged the attention of Parliament during its brief December session. One important exception, however, was the subject of the Jewish Disabilities, for the removal of which Lord John Russell, with the concurrence of the Government, took the first step on the 11th of December, by moving in Committee of the whole House, that the chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in a Bill to substitute one oath for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion. In so doing the noble Lord stated the nature of the intended Bill, the chief feature of which was the addition to the oath proposed in his former Bill of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and a subsequent clause authorising the omission of those words when the oath was administered to one of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects. He did not propose, he said, to alter the Roman Catholic oath. He referred to an opinion of the Attorney-General, that the Act 5th William IV., entitled that House to frame a declaration to be taken in lieu of an oath, and suggested that although the result of an inquiry before a committee was unfavourable to this

opinion, the decision was arrived at by a small majority, and the question might, if necessary, be revived. Sir F. Thesiger observed that it had been arranged that there should be no opposition to the introduction of the Bill, and that the second reading should be deferred until after Christmas; but he entreated Lord J. Russell to pause and consider the consequences of a measure which would be a stepping-stone to other innovations, to the admission of Mahomedans and Hindoos. He should, he said, resist the measure in every stage, because he believed that, by the admission of Jews to the Legislature, a fatal blow would be given to a principle interwoven with every department of the State.

Mr. Dilwyn, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Griffith supported the Bill, which was opposed by Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Newdigate and Mr. Stanhope.

Mr. Pease argued that the relaxation of forms did not impair the Christian character of the Legislature. He had listened, he said, with pain to the small amount of vital power attributed to Christianity, the principle of which had no occasion to fear the Jew.

Mr. Butt, though he had voted against the former Bill, would support the present measure, upon the Christian principle of doing to others as he would that others should do to him.

Mr. Walter regarded the argument of those who alleged that the admission of a Jew into that House would destroy its Christianity as very much akin to the notion of the Sepoys, who thought a greased cartridge would destroy their religion. The Divine Author of our faith said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The Christianity of the country depended upon the

personal religion of the people, and the presence of Jews in the Legislature would no more destroy its Christianity than the country was unchristianized by the presence of Jews in it.

After some further remarks from Mr. Adams, Mr. Coningham, and Mr. Stewart, and a reply from Lord John Russell, the resolution was agreed to, and leave was given to bring in a Bill.

An important point of commercial policy was mooted by a resolution proposed during this short session by Mr. Headlam on the subject of the liability of shareholders of joint-stock banks. A special interest attached to this question at the present time, on account of some recent failures of great magnitude in joint-stock banks, both in England and Scotland, which had brought to light a system of management so reckless and negligent as to give a great shock to public confidence in such undertakings. The resolution moved by the hon. member for Newcastle was, "That the unlimited liability of shareholders in joint-stock banks gives rise to a species of credit injurious to the interests of the public; and that the present law enforcing the adoption of this principle requires alteration." In bringing forward this motion, he said he was influenced by a rooted conviction, which he had long entertained, and which was confirmed by recent events, that the principle of the unlimited liability of shareholders operated as the moving cause of the mismanagement of joint-stock banks and precipitated and aggravated a national crisis. He explained the particular mode in which joint-stock banks were able to produce the effects he attributed to them through the unbounded

credit they obtained by pledging the property of their shareholders, and the enormous evils which resulted from their mismanagement. He illustrated his argument by reference to the case of the Liverpool Borough Bank, and observed that it was found, whenever a great failure of one of these banks took place, that it arose from the paid-up capital having been wasted and squandered through mismanagement, though it still continued to obtain credit in the moneymarket, owing to the unlimited liability of its shareholders. In support of the principle of limited liability applied to joint-stock banks he appealed to the recorded opinions of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Huskisson, and Lord Althorp, and to the experience of foreign countries; and he asked the House, which had decided in favour of limited liability in partnerships in general, to apply the same principle to joint-stock

banks.

Mr. Cowan opposed the motion. He had been always opposed, he said, to limiting the liability of banks, and he was unconvinced by the speech of Mr. Headlam, who had mistaken the cause of the evils he had mentioned, which had resulted from a system of gross mismanagement, breaches of trust, and practices which should be made indictable offences.

Mr. Collier said, if the resolution had been based upon the principle of non-interference, leaving parties to do as they pleased, he should support it; but, as it pledged the House to the condemnation of unlimited liability, he was compelled to vote against it.

Mr. Weguelin remarked that there was a distinction between

partnership concerns that traded with their own money, and banks trading with the money of others. To limit the liability of banks would be to limit their credit, which was their sole capital. He opposed the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he concurred in the objection of Mr. Collier to the form of the resolution, and protested against being bound down. to a formula that the unlimited liability of joint-stock banks was injurious to the interests of the public, the inference being that it should be prohibited. These banks had two functions-one the issue of notes, another the receipt of deposits; and there was a distinction in respect to liability between these two functions. When a country bank issued notes, although they were not a legal tender, they did practically discharge the function of money; therefore the notes of a country bank circulated upon the credit of that bank, and it would not be just to deprive the holders of the security of unlimited liability, which was not, in that case, injurious to the interests of the public. The whole question would, however, fall within the scope of the inquiry of the committee on the Bank Acts, the re-appointment of which he was shortly about to propose, and he was under the necessity of opposing the motion.

Mr. Malins was of opinion that Parliament should not stop short in the application of the principle of limited liability, which should be applied to banking as well as to other branches of trade.

Mr. Hankey moved, by way of amendment, the following resolution: "That the present law, enforcing the unlimited liability of

shareholders in joint-stock banks, requires alteration."

After a short reply by Mr. Headlam, the original motion was negatived, and Mr. Hankey's amendment was likewise rejected on a division by 118 to 47.

A question of considerable interest to the Church of England was involved in a Bill which was laid on the table of the House of Lords at this time by the Earl of Shaftesbury. A strong sense of the inadequacy of the means afforded to the poorer classes of attending the public service of the Church, had induced some influential persons, both lay and clerical, in the early part of the present year, to organize a special service on Sunday evenings at Exeter Hall. On these occasions, some of the bishops and leading clergy of the Establishment had delivered sermons expressly adapted to such congregations as the service was designed to suit, and the success of the experiment, so far as the number of those brought together to worship was concerned, was complete. In the autumn of the present year, an attempt was made to renew the Exeter Hall services, but, although the Bishop of London gave the step his full patronage and sup. port, an unexpected difficulty arose on the part of the incumbent of the parish in which the place of meeting was situated, who, in the exercise of a legal right assumed to belong to him, issued a prohibition against the performance of the service. It was for the purpose of preventing such a conflict of authority between an incumbent and his diocesan that Lord Shaftesbury, who was warmly interested in the special services in question, introduced his Bill. As, however,

the measure was threatened with serious opposition from the Bishop of Oxford and some other bishops and peers, the noble Earl thought it advisable not to proceed further with his bill before Christmas, but when the order of the day for the second reading came on, he announced the postponement of it till February, while at the same time he explained the object of the measure as affecting the rights of incumbents to prohibit Church of England services in their parishes. The services in Exeter Hall last summer, he said, were intended to meet the wants of a large portion of the community which was virtually excluded from public worship; they had been eminently successful, and had produced a deep effect on the minds of the working classes; but they were now at an end in consequence of the prohibition of the incumbent, though they had been sanctioned by the Bishop of London. In his own mind he had strong doubts of the legality of the step taken by the incumbent, but, assuming that it was legal, he had felt it to be his duty to introduce this measure, and thus rescue the Church of England from a disability under which she at present laboured. Lord Shaftesbury concluded by saying that he was willing to postpone the Bill for a time on account of the representations which had been made to him that the bench of Bishops were opposed to it; he therefore begged leave to move that the Bill be read a second time on the 8th of February next.

Lord Derby expressed his satisfaction that the Bill was to be postponed. He was not competent to say whether the Exeter Hall services had done good or not, but he was averse to legislation on this