The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-29 00:00:00

that OR every amount it was desiraille that such restric-
tions should be placed on banks as would insure the pub•
lic safety. He hoped and trusted that the House woul i
not agree to the proposition of the Hon. and Gallant
Member for Bolton. They were then in as proper a situ-
ation to take the subject into consideration as they could
be at any future period ; and keeping a question of such
importance in suspense might prove injurious to the best
interests of the country.
Mr. ATTWOOD said, that the Ministers themselves
had always wished to postpone the consideration of the
many important questions. brought before the Howe, on
account of the lateness of the Session, and this, although
perhaps more important than any other, was to be made
a sole exception. The consideration of the Usury Laws,
the Corn Laws, and some others, had been put off on
that account; and still this important question, which in-
volved the question of the Usury Laws, the standard of
value, and the extension of the Bank monopoly further
than it had been extended before, was not considered too
important to be brought forward at the very end of the
session. He (Mr. Attwood) thought that there was
rester danger in coming to a rash and inconsiderate reso-
lotion on this subject than could be incurred by any delay.
The plan proposed by the Noble Lord divided itself into
three parts—first, the increase of the circulation of the
Bank of Eugland ; secondly, the remuneration to be given
to the Bank for the management of the public business;
and thirdly, the extending of the exclusive privilege to the
Bank of England farther than it had ever bee❑ extended
before. This involved many most important questions of
public economy, which were settled by the Noble Lord's
plan in a manner totally at variance with the principles
which his Majesty's Ministers were pledged to follow.
Did the Noble Lord expect that a question which involved
the Usury Laws, the standard arable, and so many other
important principles, could pass through the House this
session ? The plan proposed rested on principles entirely
contrary to those which the Government themselves
espoused. He would only apply himself now to the
propriety of postponing the consideration of the ques•
tion.—(Hear, hear.) Why should they now adopt
resolutions which went to establish a new standard of
value—which went to establish a paper circulation with-
out proclamation? This proposition not only altered, but
it lowered the standard of value.—(Cries of " No, no.")
He would undertake to prove that making Bank of Eng-
land notes payable in one place only would lower the
standard of value. This proposition was the very same
in effect as that which but three months ago the Noble
Lord h imself moved to be inexpedient. The Noble Lord
had moved that it was inexpedient to lower the standard
of value when a proposition which might have that effect
was brought forward. The proposition now made by the
Noble Lord himself lowered the standard of value, and
was liable to all the objections which he found to the
motion which he then opposed. It was true, as the Noble
Lord aid, that people might get gold, but they would re-
quire to send from Cornwall, Yorkshire, or any other of
the most remote parts of the kingdom to London, before
they could get it. In proportion to the expense to which
the Government would expose country bankers and others
to obtain gold for their notes, to that extent would the
standard be depreciated. But the Noble Lord went fur-
ther, fur he proposed to give to the Bank of England the
sole right of circulating paper, even to the exclusion of
country bank paper, which had grown up with the pro-
sperity of the country, and of the paper of the joint stock
bankers, which the Legislature only seven years ago had
introduced as an improvement. In 1826, the system of
joint stock banks hail been adopted as an improvement,
and now they were called upon to change that system
and adopt another improvement. It had been said that
the panic of 1825 was owing to the country
banks ; but that was not the case. It had been proved
that it was owing to the undue circulation of those
very Bank of England notes, which were now to be fur-
ther extruded, to the exclusion of all other notes. The
Hun. Member then proceeded to consider the question of
remuneration, which it was intended to give to the Bank
for managing the public business of the country. The
Noble Lord hail said, that the sum formerly paid to the
Bank was 248,0001., and that he had reduced it by
120,0001. ; and he said, " I take that sum, and multiply
it by 21, and I find it leaves 3,320,0001., which is much
the same as has been paid by the Bank on former occa-
sions for the renewal of the Charter." But the Noble
Lord was mistaken in the foundation of his argument.
He had taken long statements from the Bank Directors on
which he had founded hie ideas on the subject, and he was
deceived by them. The question was, what would be a
fair remuneration to the Bank for doing the public busi-
ness ? The manner in which the Bank was formerly re-
munerated was, by the payment of a certain sum for every
million of the debt. That might have bee❑ a very proper
mode at the time when the debt was incurred—it was not
so now. The basis of the calculation in ascertaining the
amount of remuneration should now be the amount of
capital which passed annually through the Bank. The
average amount which passed annually through the Bank
was about 30,000,000/. Now the highest commission
kn wn among merchants was ss. in every 100/., and for
that commission bankers transacted all their business. But
the bankers had much more trouble than the Bank of Eng-
land in their business, for they drew bills, and had a variety
of trouble which did not fall to the Bank in its transactions
with the public. He found that at ss. in every 100/.
the remuneration would be 70,000/. a-year, and that was
the very interest which should be allowed ; but as pi ivate
individuals doing business in the funds were obliged to
employ brokers and other persons, all of whom received
commission., and in such cases the Bank books were only
serviceable as a register of the transfer of stock, he thought
that 30,0001. a year would be ample remuneration. The
Noble Lord, too, besides extending their charter, allowed
their notes to be legal tenders. Was it fit that such a
bargain as this should he concluded with that body, for
twenty-one or even ten years, without the least provision
as to what the public should receive in compensation for
such enormous privileges ? Then the Bank Company
charged the public 26,600/. for their house-rent, &c.
Was this a fair suni for the nation to pay ?—( Hear, hear.)
It was the more unfair, too, when it was considered that,
although they made the public pay 26,6001. for it, they
only valued it at 1,700/., when they had to pay the as•
sessed taxes.—(Hear, hear.) He should therefore support
tae amendment.

Sir H. PARNELL was, throughout his speech, very
inaudible, and the difficulty of hearing him was materially
it.creased by the noise in the Hioise. He was for some
time wholly inaudible; at length we understood him to
be commenting on the report of the Committee, which,
he said, gave in great measure an ex parte report ; tor,
with two or three exceptions, the evidence in favour of
the Bank give❑ by a host of Bank Directors, London
bankers, and others, all, as it were, parties—(Hear)—had
occupied the whole of the Committee's sitting. Indeed,
such was the impression produced on the Committee by
this ex parte evidence, that he (Sir Henry) had been
almost the only Member of it who had objected to
the immediate renewal of the Charter. L ist August
there were three competent gentlemen whom he
knew to be prepared to come forward anal explain
the evils of the Bank monopoly ; but, on his men-
tioning this to the Committee, he was told that it was
then too late to hear their evidence, but that the Com-
mittee was to be renewed next (this) year ; but no further
inquiry had taken place. In the early part of the session,
the Noble Lord had intimated that this Committee would
not be renewed. He was not a Member of the House at
that time. Had he been so, he should certainly have
thought it his duty to call for a renewal of the Committee.
—(Hear, hear.) There had bee❑ no evidence taken on
the other si e, to inquire as to whether the Bank mono-
poly had not been injurious to the community ; yet the
great point to be decided wa,, whether the past conduct
and management of the Bank Company had been such as
to warrant a renewal of their Charter. He himself had
a mass of calculations and figures of a most Important
description, which could be made available by a Commit-
tee. Surely there must be a much better chance of elicit-
ing the real state of the ease, if the Governor of the
Bank were examined before a Committee, than by a mete
correspondence between him and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Under all these considerations, he could not
but give his vote in favour of the amendment of the
Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite. There had been
no evidence given before the Committee, with reference to
the new plans of Government. There had been no
evidence at all adduced, to justify Government in intro
hieing such innovations in the tnoi.etary system. All
the great authorities were against it, and but a few
anonymous writers in its favour. He was fully con-
vinced, from every inquiry lie had made, that this
proposition would necessarily establish a paper money
system instead of the metallic currency, which would
never answer ; and that the effect would be, that in a
short time sovereigns would be at a premium. Then,
as to the new plan for the joint stock companies, be
could not imagine any thing more dangerous ; the sys-
tem would produce nothing but lucre bubbles. And
as to the restrictions which were proposed to be put upon
the established joint stock companies, be conceived that
such restrictions were nothing short of a breach of public
faith. These companies were established under the direct
•auction of Government, and there had been no proof
whatsoever of fault committed by them. He therefore
thought that a Committee ought to be appointed to in-
quire into what these joint stock companies were doing and
had done.—( Hear.) in all that appeared, these restrictions
were vexatious and mischievous.—The Hon. Member, to-