The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-23 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1848.

The attention of the House of Commons has again
been called to the fatal effects of the Bank Charter
Act of 1844. Although, at this advanced period of
the session, nothing could be attained of any real
value, it was at least desirable to show that some re-
sult should follow from the inquiries that have taken
place, and that the public and their representatives in
Parliament would not await in listless apathy the dis-
tress and suffering occasioned by a blind adherence
to an abstract theory. If the investigations directed
by both Houses of Parliament were intended to answer
any beneficial purpose, if they were not mere pretexts
to avoid an immediate discussion, when the public
mind was fully awakened to the vital importance of
the subject, and men of all classes were smarting
under the injuries and losses they had sustained from
the total prostration of credit that had taken place,
some steps should be taken to follow up by active
proccedings—by certain and tangible measures—the
* infornwtion that has been obtained, and not to
permit the evidence that has been taken to re-
main buried in the pages of, the Blue-book,
in which it is contained. The Right Honour-
able Gentleman the Member for Stamford has given
an assurance that he will not permit the question to
be thus shelved ; and by the motion which he last
night submitted, calling upon the House to take into
its serious consideration, early in the next session of
Parliament, the reports of both Committees, he
afforded the best proof of his sincerity and steadiness
of purpose. A certain insight was given by his state-
ment into the management of the Committee of
which he was himself a prominent member ; and
he clearly established that their decision in favour
of the continuance of the Bank Charter Act, without
relaxation or modification, was wholly opposed to the
opinions of the great majority of the witnesses examined,
four-fifths of whom, and th6.le the persons wh,ase
varied experience, representing the most influential
and deeply interested classes, should have given pecu-
liar weight to their testimony, strongly condemned
its provisions, and yet the report said, that "after
a careful review of all the evidence" they are of opi-
nion, " that it is not expedient to make any altera-
tion in the Bank Charter Act of 1844."
This statement we unhesitatingly denounce as a most
unfair attempt to mislead the public, as to the tendency
and effect of the evidence so given ; the quibble of
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER that "a jury
should not be debarred from taking into their consi-
deration the value of the evidence given before them,"
is unworthy of notice, and we regret to be obliged to
say unworthy of the character and position of a
Cabinet Minister. The Committee were, of course,
justified in coming to such decision as they thought
pro Per, and any person acquainted with its composi-
tioncould have little doubt as to what that decision
would
mischievoushave provisions of the Act of 1844 from the
creation or even the aggravation of the commercial dis-
tress ; but we repeat that they had no right to
permit the public forsingle
deceived as to suppose th moment to be so far
evidence
en decision to be in any
vtd
degree founded upon the that was adduced
before before them, when it was wholly
weight and authority thereof opposed
Before entering on the analysis of the evidence
given by the Right llon. Gentleman, we may be
permitted to direct the public attention to
one extraordinary fact stated by m
that " there were six Members intitnron'
avteizl;
connected with commercial affairs in the cotn
Committee, and it was remarkable that of those five
always voted in the minority." Thus it would appear
that the independent and unprejudiced practical men
of business on the Committee were opposed to the
Act, in nearly the same proportion as the witnesses
examined before them, and yet the votes of Sir R.
PEEL and Sir CHARLES WOOD, and of their adherents,
set aside the opinions of those who from their position
and valuable experience would have commanded the
public confidence. .
There were then, it appears, twenty-six witnesses