The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-04 00:00:00

rnE SUN LONDON, FRIDAY EVBIBIING DECEAIBEIL 4, 1.857.

army to fight our battles, and they were large contribu-
tors to the revenue. He then referred to the commercial
panic that had recently been felt iu this ciuntry, and
thanked the hrn•se for tl.e attention with which
it bad beard him, the hon. member resumed his seat
amidst cheers.

The Address having been read by the SPEAKER,
Mr. DISRAELI said—The surprise which has been fell
by the bon. member who has just addressed us at this au.
tumnal meeting of Parliament could not have been limited
to the country, or even to the independent, members of
this house. I think it must in some degree have taken her
Majesty's Ministers themselves by surprise ; for it appears
that, upon the 4th Nov., a council was held, in which they
recommended that her Majesty should prorogue Parliament
to the 18th Dec., yet, but eight days afterwards, viz., on
the 12th of the same month, they find themselves under
the necessity of recommending a violation of a most im-
portant statute. The hon. gentleman who has just ad-
dressed us, and who, I am sure, need not have apologised
for his speech— (hear, hear)—whieb, with the utmost
frankness and considerable knowledge, treated of a subject
most interesting to the house, and to those whom he repre-
sents peculiarly interesting—the hon. gentleman, in his
reply to the hon. mover—(laughter)—informed us that on
the 4th Oct. the difficulty commenced, and that in the
middle of that month there was danger, while on the 6th
Nov. her Majesty's Ministers recommended a proro-
gation of Parliament to the 18th December, and then
not for the despatch of business. Under these circum-
stances her Majesty's Government now find it absolutely
necessary to rescind their resolution, and not only rescind
their resolution, but to seek the advice of Parliament in the
present emergency. What was the opinion of the Govern-
ment in November or October regarding the state or con-
dition of the commerce of the country? That would be a
suject which would almost primarily, in the nature of
things, occupy the consideration of the Ministers of the
greatest commercial country in the world. No doubt there
were other subjects of the greatest importance which were
soliciting the attention of the Government. Her Majesty's
Ministers might have been maturing a Reform Bill, though
they bad had so considerable a space for that effort that I
should have thought by that time those efforts were eon-
siderably advanced; they might have been continuing those
efforts which were unfortunately not sufficiently successful
in adding to the forces of the gallant Wilson and of the
intrepid Havelock. But, under any circumstances, I
should have imagined they would have given their gravest
consideration to the condition of the commerce of the coun-
try. There is one member of the Cabinet whose special
duty it is to study all the circumstances that enter into our
commercial condition, I mean the President of the Board
of Trade, who is a member of the Cabinet. I apprehend
he was present at the Cabinet meeting when the prerogative
of the Parliament was decided upon. I take for granted
that the President of the Board of Trade communicated to
his colleagues to what conclusions he had arrived, no doubt
after much painful investigation and deep thought. (Ironi-
cal cheers.) I take it for granted that upon that occasion
that functionary told his colleagues that they might make
themselves quite easy, so far as the commerce of the coun-
try was concerned—that they might feel assured of the
tranquillity of the working classes—that no country had its
commercialsyst mestablished.onsosound a basis— that there
were no longer those old fashioned protective restrictions to
impede the progress of the nation—(cheers)— that there was
unrestricted competition —that our exports and our im-
ports were increasing—that our commercial principles
were sound, and our mercantile system safe, and pro-
bably used that form of phrase which of late years
has in some men's mouths become so customary, "that
trade never was in so healthy a condition as at pre-
sent." (Hear, and a laugh.) Yet, sir, notwithstanding all
this, a practical member has just told you that on the 4th
of October there were serious difficulties in the commercial
world, that positive danger had occurred about the middle
of that month, and that when the Council which prorogued
Parliament was sitting, occurrences were taking place
which were about to shake to its very centre the whole of
our commercial system. (Hear, hear.) And yet, sir, it
would seem that Government must have come to a conclu-
sion the very reverse of this, judging from the course which
they have pursued. Under what circumstances do we
meet now ? Her Majesty's Government has thought pro-
per to authorise a departure from the existing law, a step
in itself of the very gravest importance. Ido not want to
enter into a discussion to-night as to whether it is expedi-
ent that this change should be permanent or temporary.
I think I do not misinterpret the feelings of the house
when I say that it is not desirable this night to enter into
a currency debate. (Hear.) That would be a course highly
inconvenient in dealing with a subject of so much import.
ance, and which demands precise treatment and concen-
tration of attention. But are we about to be asked to
grant a bill of indemnity to the Government for departing
from the existing law ? Now, I know it is the habit of this
house, when a bill of indemnity is asked for, to treat it in
a very light manner. Generally speaking, such a measure
is not to be asked for unless it is supposed to be a matter
of course, and therefore it is treated lightly. Under some
circumstances it is cordially, liberally, and even generously
accorded ; bat under no circumstances ought it to be ac-
corded lightly. The house should, under no circumstances,
assent to a bill of indemnity, especially like the one ad.
verted to in . the Speech from the Throne, without well
weighing the circumstances under which the infraction of
the law had taken place. It is now about 10 years since
there was a state of affairs like the present—not, indeed,
identical, for there was then a technical difficulty which
must be familiar to all who hear me. I ask any hon.
member if he have a clear idea of the circumstances
under which the Government then acted, and in con-
sequence of which they recommended the suspension of
an important act—in consequence of which they came
to Parliament, not absolutely to obtain a bill of in-
demnity, but for a sanction of the advice which the
Government had given to the Bank. At that time the
country was told that an immense calamity would have
occurred had not the Bank of England applied, and not
unsuccessfully, for the interference of the Government ;
but it turned out, according to the evidence given before
the committee of last session upon this very subject, ten
years after the event had taken place--evidence given by
men of great ability, by men who held the office of Gover-
nor of the Bank—that, in 1847, the Bank of England, not-
withstanding all that had been said, made no appeal at all
to her Majesty's Ministers ; that they never had asked for
any interference ; that they had protested against any in-
terference; that they did not require protection ; that the
Bank was, in 1817, prepared not only to maintain the con-
vertibility of the bank notes which they had issued, but
also to protect the deposits which had been entrusted to
them. Now, what evidence up to this moment has the
ponce? eceived that the same circumstances have not taken
place (Hear-) ho far as the language of the Speech
from the Throne is concerned, I am inclined to believe that
the Bank had not applied for assistance to the Government.
Her Majesty says—" The failure of certain joint-stock
banks, and of some mercantile firms, produced such an
extent of distrust as led um to authorise my Ministers to
recommend to the directors of the Bank of England the
adoption of a.course of proceeding which appeared neces-
sary for allaying the prevalent alarm. As that course has
involved a departure from the existing law, a bill for in-
demnifying those who advised and those who adopted it
will be submitted for your cousideration." I think, there-
it is pretty evident that it is the Government who has
again
recommended the Bank to suspend the law; and
fore
therefore, when Government comes forward to ask the
house for a bill of indemnity, I think I am only recom-
mending a prudent and a proper course—that we should
have a frank and full declaration from the Government of
the circumstances which induced them to pursue this policy
and the reasons which in their minds rendered that policy
necessary. (Hear.) The house is no doubt familiar with the
whole scheme embodied in the Bank Act of 1844, and upon
this occasion I need not dwell upon it. The house is aware
that although many men of great eminence support, as I
do, and, as I trust, the house always will support, the con-
vertibility of bank notes—(near) —yet that there are still
many men of the highest authority—not inferior to any of
those statesmen or distinguished literary economists who
obtained such celebrity for their connection with the Act
of 1811 by their evidence before the committee—who dis-
pute the very principle upon which that act is founded,
and to the fallacy of that principle attribute the occur-
rence, or rather the grievousness, of those events which
have been referred to. For myself, I offer no opinon upon
this subject, because I do not wish to draw the house into
a currency debate. But it is, in my opinion, not only the
duty of the Government, but even of any man, or set of
men, who aspire to any leading in this house, to have on
those points of controversy a distinct and definite judg-
ment. I learn with great regret that the right hon. gen-
tleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice
for to-morrow for a committee of the house to introduce a
bill of indemnity, and for a committee to inquire into the
Bank Charter Act of 1844. It appears to me, sir, that we
are now doing exactly what was done in 1817. In that
year the country was panic-struck, and we were half ruined.
Parliament was called together—a committee was appointed
—and, 10 years after, Parliament is again called together
under similar circumstances—l deeply regret it—to indem-
nify the Government for the same sort of proceeding and
to reappoint a Bank Charter Committee ; and I suppose in
1861, after the occurrence of the same mischances and the
same miseries, we shall have the same conduct, the same
fruitless and bootless proceeding. Look at what has been
done. Before the Bank Act of 1844 was passed, you had a
committee upon the issue of bank notes—it was ostensibly
appointed to inform Parliament on the subject, and it led
to the adoption of that act. The most eminent men were
examined before that committee. Three years had not
elapsed before that act was virtually suspended. What
collectedthen fromAeo all mmittee
wasagain appointed—evidence was
classes—from all quarters—from the re-
presentatives of all schools, and the professors of all the
doctrines upon the subject. We now come to 1857 and
we have again a committee appointed—a third committee.
Well, subsequeutly the crash comes, and we are now
again asked to reappoint a committee to inquire into
the most important subject which can possibly affect the
interests of this country—we are called together suddenly
to inquire into the violation of an Act of Parliament ;
but; a great programme of public policy is placed in our
hands, This programme, sir, contains no mean subjects.
There have been Royal speeches which it has been
my fate
to criticise, which were but pompous enumerations of very
petty events couched in mystical phraseology ; but here
are great topics, one of them being no less than the form of
government for the greatest of all our dependencies. We
are to consider how we are to construct the principles of
this house, and upon what principles the trade of this
country is to be re-established, and an act of indemnity is
one of the most important of those principles. You may
regain an empire which you have lost, but that the
currency should be established upon sound principles is
an axiom the application of which exercises the most
and a laugh.) Well, then, I say
general influence over tee state of Society in this country.
(Hear, hear.) It touches all classes; and many,
op(Honeawrhich Ministers ought to make up
who are
totally insensible to imperial grandeur or political rights,
have a very near interest in the decision which we may
ichomiseistoa uponsub jecitt.
their minds. Aro they going to stand upon the Bank
Cb arter Act of 1841, or are they not ? (Hear.) Now,
this is really the question which the country wishes
them to answer. If they are going to stand upon the
Batik Charter Act of 1844, I should myself fur one hesitate
before I agree to that bill of indemnity, because they were
not justified in departing from the letter of that act. If,
on the other hand, they are not going to stand upon the
Bank Charter Act of 1814—if they have a policy, and
come forward and toll us they have a policy, and that they
intend to propose amendments in that act, then I say we
:twist not be scrupulous or litigous about bills of indem-
nAtY; we must grant them without reserve, And await
resloootfally, but with the greatest interest, what their
dic.i.sion may be, But it appears to me that we should
first' lay claim to the confidence and respect of the country ;
and if, indeed, the noble lord wants to lay a good ground
for an extensive measure of Parliamentary reform, I think
he swill lay LO better ground than when the country,
which has suffered so much, understands that we, who
have been called are the representatives of the people,