The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

Mr. HUME said there was not a man in the city
of London who did not consider this Committee as a
mere cloak.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see any oc-
casion for augmenting the number of the Committee
beyond what the established practice of the House
required. But he did not see the necessity for a
Committee at all. They had Committees in 1832,
1836, 1837, and 1840, and between 14,000 and
15,000 questions had been asked. The whole subject
was therefore exhausted. He believed they were
wrong in attempting to carry on the monetary affairs
of the country by the assistance of a bank which be-
gan without any capital. The Bank of England was
vicious in principle. They required the Bank to dis-
count bills without a shilling, for they had nothing
but the Rest.—(Hear, hear.) It was observed, with
great truth, that the Bank traded on its credit. The
value of property was now less by 250,000,0001. than
it was at the commencement of the year, owing to
their monetary system. They were leaning on a reed
which was not able to stand by itself. In October
last, a few days after the letter of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, there were only 1,100,0001. in notes in
the Bank of England and its twelve branches. What
a paltry sum that was to support the credit of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) And at that moment the
Bank had 20,000,000/. out in liabilities, so that any
two men possessed of 500,0001. might have brought it
to a stand.—(Hear, hear.) That was not the state in
which they ought to be. He saw no use of this Com-
mittee, and he would therefore move that its appoint-
ment be postponed till the 4th of February.
Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
would repeat that he merely desired the appointment
of the Committee, in order that it might be deter-
mined what documents should be called for, so that
such documents might be ready for the Committee
when they should meet after the recess.
Mr. EIVART supported the amendment.
Mr.F.IMACKENZIE considered that some Scotch
Member or Members—the Member for Glasgow, for
example—should be named on the Committee.
Mr. HERRIES said it would now appear that the
range of inquiry to be entered upon by the Commit-
tee was far more extensive, far more general, than
had been indicated by the Government, in seeking the
consent of the House to its appointment.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not think this a fair or straightforward
course on the part of the Government, if their desire
was to create a case for modifying or superseding the
present system.—(Hear, hear.) As to mere in-
quiry, that really seemed to have been exhausted
by the former Committee, which elicited from infinite
witnesses no fewer than 16,000 answers to questions
upon every possible theory connected with the sub-
ject of currency. The House, however, were called
upon in nominating a Committee of 26 gentlemen,
to enter upon a new ocean of theory, with no visible
bound or limit.—(llear, hear.) After sitting two
years they produced nothing but a huge volume.
They offered not the slightest opinion on the question.
After this experience, was the House prepared to
launch again into an inquiry of the same sort, leaving
on the public mind an impression that it was the
desire rather to evade than to prosecute the investi-
gation ? He believed that if the Committee was ap-
pointed it would lead to no satisfactory results. It
was not nominated on a principle to inspire con-
fidence, and on that ground, if on no other, he should
certainly hope that the appointment would be post-
poned. As one of the Members named upon it, cer-
tainly, if the Committee were now appointed, he
must decline to serve.

The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the adjournment
Against it 146
Majority -89
Lord G. BENTINCK said that he should propose
that other names be added. In the list were eight
Members of the late and present Government who
would be banded together against any alteration
in the Bank Charter Act. There was a most re-
markable exclusion of Members who voted against
that Bill. He remarked among others the exclusion
of the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire, who had
predicted the consequences of this Bill, as well as
that of the Hon. Member for Paisley, who had made
similar predictions as to the drain of gold on the
first great demand for foreign corn. And how was
Scotland represented on this Committee ? Why,
only by two Members, while the West Riding of
Yorkshire was represented by three. Neither of
those Scotch Members were connected with joint-
stock banks in Scotland, or with the commercial in-
terests. Out of 105 Members, Ireland was only
permitted to place one Member on this Committee,
although that Member might be said to represent the
commerce of the north of Ireland ; but he was not
connected with the banking interests. The Member
for the metropolis of Ireland was peculiarly fitted to
be placed on the Committee. Lancashire ought also
to have been better represented, and the Bank of
England which was to be put on its defence ; and,
with the exception of the Honourable Member for
Westmoreland, the Bank was unrepresented. Mr.
Muntz was also excluded, perhaps from his known
skill in cross-examining a bullionist witness. He
should propose to leave out the words twenty-six, and
to add thirty as the number.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
must resist the motion of his Noble Friend, on the
ground that the extension of the Committee was
calculated to prevent its usefulness, and he had
regretted to snake it so large although he had used
the precedent in a similar inquiry. The only question
was the number of the Committee, and he would not
go into the names which should compose it. He
should oppose the increase of the number.

Mr. T.-BARING suggested that the Committee
should consist of only eight Mcmber, to be selected
from the late and present Administration, and that
the inquiry should be limited to the Bill of 1844.
£hat would simplify the question, and ensure a more
speedy and satisfactory report upon it.
The House divided—
For the original motion .....
For the amendment .. 45
Majority
On our re-admission into the gallery we found
Mr. FORBES moving that the debate be now
adjourned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
objected to the adjournment.
Lord G. BENTINCK again objected to the con-
stitution of the Committee, composed as it was of
olacemen and ex-placemen.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said the question was should twenty-six Members be
the number of the Committee, and it would be com-
petent for the Noble Lord to move the substitution
of any names for those which were proposed to be
nominated.
Mr. WAKLEY said he should support the motion
for the adjournment of the debate, and thought the
Government ought not to hesitate to consent to it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said what he wished was, not to proceed with the
nomination of the committee to-night, but to give his
Noble Friend opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) an oppor-
tunity of proposing any names he may think fit. He
would therefore postpone the nomination of the Com-
mittee until to-morrow (this day.)
Mr. F. SCOTT urged the nomination of more
Members connected with Scotland on the Committee.
An HoN. MEMBER thought the opponents of the
measure of 1844 should be represented on this Com-
mittee, or its labours would not gain the confidence
of the country.
Sir G. GREY said that the House had decided
that twenty-six should be the number of the Com-
mittee, and his Right Hon. Friend bad agreed to
postpone the nomination of the Committee until to-
morrow (this day.)
Mr. REYNOLDS complained that so few Irish
Members were proposed by the Government to serve
on this Committee.
Mr. DISRAELI supported the amendment.
Mr. OSBORNE gave notice that to-morrow (this
day) he should move to substitute the name of Mr.
Reynolds for that of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. CALEY remarked that the whole value of
this inquiry would depend on the constitution of the
Committee. As it was, he did not hesitate to say
that it was not fairly constituted. The upholders of
the Bank Charter Act should appoint one-half of the
Members, and the opponents of that Act should
appoint the other half. If the number were fifteen he
had no objection to a Member of the Government
being appointed as the fifteenth. As the Committee
was proposed, two-thirds of its Members were selected
from gentlemen favourable to the Act of 1844, and
one-third only from those who were opposed to it.
Captain HARRISS hoped the Government would
consent to modify the Committee between that time
and to-morrow.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
already stated he did not intend to press the nomina-
tion of the Committee that night. As far as he could
do so, he had, to the best of his judgment, named a
perfectly fair Committee ; but it would be open for
any gentleman to move to substitute other names for
any he had proposed.
Mr. HEItRIES inquired whether the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would permit other 'lames to be
moved without notice ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
would fix the nomination for 'Wednesday. lion.
Gentlemen could therefore give notice of any names
it might be proposed to substitute to-morrow (this
day).
The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn.
It was then arranged that the Committee should
consist of twenty-six Members, to be nominated on
Wednesday.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
This Bill was brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE
and read a first time.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

It is rumoured that Mr. Moore has accepted the
seat on the Irish bench vacant by the death of Mr. Jus-
tilt Parton.