POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY Noun.
In the House of Commons, last night, the adjourned debate on the Bank Charter Act and the commercial distress was continued at some length, by the Marquis of GRANBY and Mr. Hatteras against the law of 1844; by Mr. F. T. BAILING, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. REYNOLDS, and Sip ROBERT PEEL, in support generally of the law and the Ministerial motion, but with differences.
Mr. F. T. &aunt° declared that the act of 1844 had fulfilled two of the three expectations which he had formed of it,—that it would prevent the over-issues of private banks, and that the foreign exchanges would be set right before the Bank of England was in a state of extreme weakness. It had been said that, in spite of the restriction on private banks, speculation was still as rife as before: now the act was not intended to prevent speculation but to prevent the conetry, when excitement prevailed from other causes, from Leing subjected to additional excitement by an over-issue of paper leading to extravagant enterprise. His third expectation was, that by compelling the Bank of England to commence its operations early—to withdraw its notes as gold flowed from its coffers—the act would mitigate the pressure of any crisis. But in this expectation he had been disappointed; for he found that while the bullion decreased from 16,000,060C in September 1846 to 9,000,0001., in April 1847, the circulation- had inereemedin the same period from 20,980,0001. to 21,228,0001.: the operation of the " re- serve" had not been sufficiently considered by the framers of the act Lord JOHN RUSsELL repeated, reinforced, and as it were restored the speech- beaten arguments of Sir Charles Wood. In one passage Lord John let out a little more explicitly the views of Ministers on a particular point. "I do net give great credit to laws, either on this or on other subjects, unless the law is adminis- tered by persons prepared to administer it in the spirit of that law. I therefore agree with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in think- ing that it will be one great question for the consideration of the Committee—first, how far the provisions of the act of 1844 are deficient; but, secondly, whether you will not obtain a more steady administration of the Bank than you use 11001 persons who but occasionally attend."
To the speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL, with our choked space, we cannot now do justice. Sir Charles Wood's was necessarily more elaborate; Sir Robert's was simpler, broader, more unmistakeably direct and clear. Per, Imps wormay be able to return to it next week ; at present we-tan barely indicate the chief points.
Sir Robert first dismissed an idle reproach by Mr. Urquhart, that the Scotch banks had been "stabbed in the dark"—deceived by a verbal.declaration that they should not be touched by the act of 1844, while one clause was surreptitiously extended to the "United Kingdom ": Sir Robert showed that be had expressly
declared that thia clause, the.prohibition -against nem banks of is would, enteld to Scotland.
He explicitly avowed his adherence to the principles-of the acts or nut and 1844; but questioned the Parliamentary deoorum-of holding his responsible for an act like that of 1819, which was proposed by him as a private Member uncon- nected with Government, on the authority of a Select Committee; and which was sanctioned by the authority of both Houses, without a single division, except On an amendment by Lord Holland to hasten the operation of the bill. As to the want of preparatory inquiry for the act of 1844, he allowed that five Committees on Banking had sat, in 1836, '37, '38, '40, and '41, their- blue books containing an aggregate of 14,000 questions, with the corresponding answers--a surprising amount of "inquiry." And the billWas carried with an opposition never exceed- ing 38 Members. However; he admitted that, from its nature, the subject was open to the reconsideration of Parliament. The first object of the act of 1844 was to prevent' commercial revulsion and panic: it was intended to impose, if not a legal, at least a moral restraint, on the Bank of England; and it was expected that the Bank, profiting by the disastrous experien- ces of 1826, '36, and '39, would have abided by those principles of banking which its own directors admitted to be sound. That hope had been disappointed; Mr it was in the power of the Bank to prevent the late distress if it had acted earlier. It was never expected, however, that the act would prevent all wild speculation— Sir Robert read a passage to that effect from his introductory-speech; and it-has, completely attained two important objects—it has maintained the convertibility of paper, and has checked the abuse of credit The commercial depression is in no respect imputable to- the restrictive effect of the act of 1844. This he proved by the history of the last sixty years, which, shows that, with protection or with free trade, in peace or war, with paper con- vertible or inconvertible, a time of prosperity and low interest has always been followed by a period of depression ; as in the instances of 1784, .13, 1810; '23, '36, '39, and '47; in their commercial history the years; 1793' and, 826 are, striking counterparts of 1847. We have seen men failing, with liabilities of 50,0001 and assets of 5,000L, or lending to one- firm 500,000/. out of. a capital of 600,00W.; an& 'hello they say, they " want money "—" that infernal act of 1844" prevents diem from " meeting their engagements "! But it is impossible that the commerce ofthe country can be conducted on such principles; and it is monstrous that the standard should be endangered for such transactions. They might thank the act of 1844, that the evil consequences were not greater. Sir Robert expressed cordial approval of the Treasury letter of the 25th October. It was right not-to issue it earlier, because that would have preventeeindividual exertion, which is the main reliance for recovery; bat when -the unforesaapanic arose, dovernment rightly interposed to prevent the consequences of unreasoning terror.
Sir Robert concluded by calling en Parliament to uphold' the standard, if not in justice to its own wisdom, at least in justice to the industrious poor, whose wages are at stake.
Mr. JAMES STUART moved that the debate be adjourned: This was re- sisted, and negatived by 256 to 45. Sir Charles Wood's motion for a Corn. mittee was then carried without a division; Mr. WILSON withdrawing his. amendment.
Earlier in the evening, the Railways-Bill passed through the stage of Com- mittee. The extension of time allowed for completing works and purchas- ing land was fixed at two years. The compensation-clauses were postponed for further consideration.
The House adjourned at half-past one o'clock, till Monday.1
Mi. EWART gave notice of moving, on a future day, for leave tn Witten': a bill to give the power of appeal in criminal cases.
In the House of Lords, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE nominated the: Committee on the commercial distress, as follows— The Doke of Richmond, Earl Grey, the Earl of Auckland, the Marquis of Salisbury, Lord Ashburton, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Ellenborough, the Earl of St. Germans, Lord Glenelg Lord Beaumont, Earl Granville, the Earl of Eglin- ton, Lord Kinuaird, Lord Vilharneliffe, the Doke of Montrose; the Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord Stanley, Lord Monteagle, Lord Campbell, and the Marquis of Lansdowne.
Previous page
