The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-10 00:00:00

effect, and propose that the Charter should be limited to
five years. After the experience which the country had 1
had of the disastrous effects produced by the Bank's
management of the currency, it was tuo much to continue
its exclusive Charter for ten years.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the amendment.
It was said that there had not been sufficient icquiry;
surely the voluminous mass of evidence that had been
taken on the subject last session was a sufficient answer
to that observation.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that in consequence of a
subsequent clause in the Bill, which proposed to make
n tes of the Bank of E,,gland a legal tender, the effect of
which could not be calculated or foretold even by those
who proposed it, he would vote fur the imendment.
Mr. GISBORNE was in favour of the amendment,
which, if carried, would virtually continue the Charter for
six years and a half.

Mr. GROTE thought that at all events seven rars
would be a sufficiently long period.
Tl:e Gimmittee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment 47
Against it 122
Majority —7s
--•-

The clause was then agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN read the next (the legal tender)

clause.
Mr. BERRIES said, as the Noble Chancellor of the
Exchequer had on a former occasion stated that this clause
formed no part of the bargain with the Bank, it had better
he struck out and made the substance of a separate Bill.
It was quite out of place in the present measure, if it
formed no part of the bargain with the Bank, though it
might hereafter be contended that it was part of that bar-
gain, in consequence of being in the Bill, and thereby
Parliament would be prevented from repealing it.
Lord ALTHORP admitted that in his opinion the clause
formed no p irt of the bargain with the Bank, and said that
he would state his reasons why he thought it ought to re-
main in the Bill presently.
Mr. BARING expressed a doubt as to whether it would
be in the power of Parliament to repeal the clause, if it
were allow ed to stand in the Bill.
The SOLICITOR. GENERAL said, that as his Noble
Friend declared that the clause was not part of the con-
tract with the Bank, there could be no doubt it would be
competent for Parliament at any time to repeal it. The
question was one to which the Bank were not parties, but
only the Parliament and the public.
Mr. BERRIES expressed his surprise at the opinion
pronounced by the lion. and Learned Member. The
title of the Bill was, " A Bill for giving to the Corporation
of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England
certain privileges for a litni,ed period, under certain con-
ditions." The establishment of the legal tender was
unquestionably a privilege conferred upon the Bank, and
the question was, whether, if the Bill passed with this
clause in it, it would not be considered a part of the b again
with the Bank, whatever might be the Noble Lord's
opinion upon the subject? He maintained that it would,
and that Parliament would not have power to repeal it
without altering the whole tenor of the Bill, unless they
thought proper to commit a breach of faith.
The SOLICITOR. GENERAL repeated, that as Lord
Aithorp had declared the legal tender was no part of the
b again with the B ,nk, Parliament might at any time
repeal the clause referring to it without itnpairint; the ope-
ration of the rest of the Bill.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD maintained that the clause did
form part of the bargain vtith the Bank, and was
astonished that any one could doubt the fact. In one of
his letters to the Bank Directors, which formed the
basis of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made
use of these words :—" The discouragement given to
joint-stock banks of issue, as compared with joint stock
banks not of issue, and the making Bank of England notes
a legal tender, must increase the circulation of the Bank
of England very considerably, while the relieving bills
drawn for short dates from the usury laws will facilitate
the operations of the Bank in times of difficulty to a very
great degree. The Government, therefore, think that
they have a right to demand for the public a liberal com-
pensation." It was quite clear from this that the establish-
ment of the legal tender was part of the bargain, and that
the Bank were to pay for it.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
and Learned Solicitor-General was not currect in stating
that this was a question to which only Parliament and the
public were parties; there was a third party—the Bank,
who paid a valuable consideration for the clause.
Mr. BERRIES said he certainly always considered
this clause a most important part of the contract with the
Bank until the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer de-
clared that it was not.—(A laugh.) At present, how-
ever, it stood upon the tace of the Bill as a part of the
bargain, but as the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer
said it was not, he wished to make the matter quite clear
by putting it out of the Bill ahogether.—( Hear.) He
was sui prised to hear the Le treed Solicitor- General say
that this clause might hereafter be dealt with by Parlia-
tnent, as forming no part of the contract with the Bank,
merely because the Noble Lord said so. Tne Hon. Mem-
ber must be aware that the Noble Lord's declaration was
as nothing unless it were embodied in a Parliamentary re-
cord.
Mr. HARDY said it would be a breach of faith to
repeal the clause before the expiration of ten years.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that in former
Acts relating to the Bank,—namely, the 6,h of William
and Mary and the Bth and 9th of William 111., various
subjects were introduced which had nothing whatever to
do with the B ink, and he considered the clause in ques-
tion to be founded upon those precedents.
Mr. HUME said the question the House had to con
Sider was, whether, if the Bank considered the operation
of the clause beneficial to them, they would hereafter give it
up ? There were two Bank Directors present, and be
should be happy to hear what interpretation they put upon
the clause.—( Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP read the letter written to him by the
Bank Directors, in order to show that the establishment
of the legal tender was not one of the points to which
they attached any importance.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD again read the passage (given
above) from the Noble Lord's letter to the Bank Directors.
Mr. W. WHITMORE suggested that the discussion cf
this important point should be postponed until the amend-
! ments proposed to be made in the clause had been con-

siderei. -
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said the Noble Lord was
correct in stating that the Bank had never attached any
great importance to the clause. They had, as appeared
from the correspondence, not expressed an opinion one
way or the other. Unquestionably, however, the Noble
Lord had in that correspondence referred to the legal
tender as one of the advantages for which the Bank ought
to make a considsrable abatement in the charges which
they had heretofore brought against the public. He con.
fessed there might be a difference of opinion on the SUt jest
amongst the Bank Directors, but speaking himself as a
Member of that House, and not in his character of Bank
Director, he viewed it as a question of state policy, of
which the Government and Parliament might dispose as
they thought would be most advantageous to the country.
For his own part he attached great importance to the
clause, and should regret exceedingly if it wets omitted.
It was fur the interest not only of the 13ank, but the
public, that Bank of England notes ,should be made a
legal tender. It would prevent a panic being attended
with the dangerous results which had heretofore accom-
panied them.
Sir 3. R. REID waa understood to say he thought the
clause would be most beneficial to the public, but of no
great value to the Bank of England.
The first blank in the clause was then proposed to be

filltd up with the words " Ist of August,' 1834," as the
dare from which 5/. Bank of England notes should be a
legal tender.
Mr. T. ATT WOOD hoped the Committee would sub-
stitute the date of " the lot of October, 1833," as that
u ould enable them to get over the winter better.—(A
laugh.) The Hun. Member moved an amendment to that
effect.

Mr. JTERRIES thought that the date which Govern-
ment proposed to insert in the clause, furnished an addi-
tional reason for omitting it, because before it would come
into operation another measure would have passed the
House for regulatine private banking.
Lord ALTHORP said he could shortly state the rea-
sons which induced him to de-ire to have the clause in-
serted in the present Bill, rather than in that which was
to be introduced next session. The clause did not affect
country bankers in any material degree, but it would
operate as a security to the Bank of England, though not
as a pecuniary advantage, and fur these reasons he thought
it should be comprised in the measure relating to the
Bank rather than in that hereafter to be introduced rela-
tive to country banking.
Mr. WARBURTON said that the Bank Directors
who had addressed the Committee had given their opi-
nions as to the general policy of the clause, but upon the
precise point as to which the Committee most wanted in-
formation—namely, whether the Directors considered it
to stand on the same footing as the other clauses of the
Bill as respected them—they had been perfectly silent.—
Jr it. should turn out at the end of two yea's,
a(ilea
sber.) believed it would, that that clause conferred great
pecuniary advantage on the Bank, would they or would
they not hold that it was part of the bargain ? The ob-
ject of the clause was to prevent a run upon the Bank ter
gold, and therefore they might keep a less quantity of
bullion in their coffers than they were compelled to do at
present, and thus they would derive great pecuniary ad-