The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-13 00:00:00

The motion was then withdrawn.
BANK ACTS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
move the appintment of the Committee on the Bank
Act. He said—l will trouble the house with a few
remarks relating to the nature of the committee I pro-
pose to appoint—namely, a Committee of Secresy. The
actual difference between an ordinary committee and a
committee of secresy is not, in fact, very wide. It is
competent for a stl :et committee—and it often exercises
the power—to exclude the public during the reception
of evidence. All select committees exclude the public
during their deliberations, which constitute the only
part of their proceedings of which an authentic report
by a shorthand writer is not preserved. To a committee
of the sort I now propose it is not probable that the
public would be admitted during the examination of
witnesses ; but a complete report of the evidence would
be taken, and the committee would have the power of
laying it on the table of the house. Tue only difference
between a select committee, not admitting the public
during the examination of witnesses, and a committee of
secresy is this—that it is the privilege of members not
belonging to the committee to be present at an ordinary
se ect committee, if they so think fit, while the public
are excluded. But, if the committee be a committee of
secrecy then members unconnected with the committee
have not that privilege. That is the whole extent of the
difference.. In looking through the series of committees
appointed to inquire into the Bank charter and other
questions of a similar nature, I find it to have been the
invariable practice to constitute them committees of
secresy. In 1819 the commit.ee on the exi eliency of
the Bank resuming cash payments was a secret com-
mittee. In 1832 a secret committee was appointed
to inquire into the expediency of aenewing the Bank
charter. I a 1836 the committee of joint-stock
.banks was also secret, and the committee on com-
mercial distress in 1848 was likewise a committee
secresy. With respect to the arrangements between this
Government and the Bank of England there is nothing
which, as fir as I am aware, tia'.gh; not be published to
the whole wed 1, and as far as Government is concerned
there is no reason to wish that any departure shoul i take
place from the usual mode of examination in committee.
But the house must be a-rare that, in a committee of
this sort, questions may arise affecting the credit of par-
ticular commercial establishments, with respect to which
it Wight not be desirable that any publicity should oc-
cur ; and the, I apprehend, is the principal reason why
this course Las been invariably purmed with respect to
committees of this kind. Therefore I have thought it
desirable to adhere to what seems to have been the in-
variable practice, and I propose that this should be a
committee of secresy. With respect to the members of
the committee, it has been my study to propose as fair a
list of names as poesible, and one which would insure a
complete and searching investigation of the matter re-
ferred to the committee. I think the house will admit
that there are scarcely any discussions so disagreeable
to the feelings as those which arise with respect to the
preference of one member to another for appointment on
a committee, and if the house should be of opinion that,
on the whole, the list I propose is a fair one, I trust
that, without going into the merits of other members, it
will be disposed to adopt the list I submit. Two gentle-
men—the hon. members for Wallingford and Perthshire
(Mr. Matins and Air. Stirling)—have intimated their
inability to serve on the committee, and I should there-
fore give notice of a moti in to substitute two other
names instead of theirs. The right hon. gentleman con-
cluded by making the following motion :
"That the committee be a committee of secresy, and
do consist of 22 members—viz., the Chancellor of the
E&ohequer, Mr. Disraeli, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Spooner,
Mr. Gladstone, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Wilson, Mr. Hildyard, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Beckett, Mr.
Hankey, Mr. Poll ird-Urquhart, Mr. J. L. Ricardo, Sir
C. Wood, Mr. Cayloy, Sir F. Baring, Mr. M. T. Smith,
Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Fergus."
Mr. PEACOCKE rose to protest against the fairness of
the proposed committee. Opinions upon this subject
were entertained by two schools, if he might call them
so, which were diametrically opposed to each other.
There was the school which wished to preserve the Bank
Act in its present integrity, and which had on its side
the high authority of Lord Overstone. There was the
school which wished to introduce considerable modifica-
tions in the act, and which had on its side the still higher
authority of Mr. Fullerton, Mr. Tooke, and Mr. Wilson.
The last-mentioned gentleman, indeed, had almost de-
luged the country with the variety of pamphlets, articles,
and 'publications which he had issued on this subject
during the last 14 years. On looking at the names that
composed the committee, he (Mr. Peacocke) found one
or two members of what he might call the Birmingham
school, and he found one or two of what he might call
the Overstone school. He found the names of some
members who, he believed, had not expressed any opinion
on this subject, if, indeed, they entertained any. But he
did not find a single member of what he might call
the school of economists, which had the very high
authority of Messrs. Tooke, Fullerton, and Wil-
son. He listened to a great portion of the not very
lively or instructive debate on this subject the other
evening, and of the portion of which he had not the
felicity of bearing, he read a report the next day. He
found that during the whole of the debate there was but
one hon. gentleman who broached doctrines at all ap-
proaching to that school. The hon. gentleman, who
was the hon. member for Wick Burgh (Mr. Laing),
spoke most ably, but his name was not on the commit-
tee. Perhaps, however he (Mr. Peacocke) might be
told, as he had been reminded by his right hon. friend
the member for Buckinghamshire, that the name of the
hon. member for Westbury
r. James Wilson) was
upon the committee ; but he (must take the liberty of
asking whether he was a Wilsonite—(laughter)—for he
was probably n(omrore
a
Wil Wilsonite than Wilkes was a
lieve kite. He mthat the bon.. Peacocke) was rather inclinedtionebd,e-
meinber for Westbury
was
.el
like Wilkes, to repudiate his disciples, and be there-
fore begged to ask whether it was really his intention
to take his place upon the committee, and, ifbe
ehould do so, whether he would do so as the author