The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-27 00:00:00

when the inculpated Act of 1844 had
been carried, and Mr. CARDWELL, alio a
member of the ex Ministry ; Sir WILLIAM CLAY,
Rho had written and published a pamphlet expressing
very decided views in favour of the Act, and Mr.
RICARDO, Wh') entertained strong hereditary ep nions
on the currency question. In fact, it was clearly and
distinctly shown that there were fifteen members of the
Committee whose support might be relied on under
any circumstances, while there were eleven who, al-
though not " pledged" in any way, might be con-
sidered as unfavourat.le to the Act, although their
opinions ♦aried very considerably in other respects,
and they could not be expected to co• operate cordially
together.

Immediately after the re-assembling of Parliament
the Committee entered upon its labours. A similar
inquiry was at the same time commenced by a Select
Committee of the House of Lords, which arrived at a
very different conclusion from that of the Commons,
on precisely the same data. Twenty-six witnesses
were examined, two of whom spoke exclusively on
the East India trade, the remaining evidence being
applicab'e to the Acts of 1844 and 1845. Of these
twenty-sour persons, carefully selected, and repre-
senting the most important interests in the United
Kingdom, fair only were favourable to the Act, and
anxious to sustain it ; one thought there were disad-
vantages attending it, but did not express an opinion
against it ; while the remaining nineteen witnesses
were strongly opposed to it, and considered that the
safety of the commercial community required its
alteration.
The only supporters of the Act were Mr. JONES
Lon) (now Lord OYERSTONE), the putative parent of
the measure, the Governor and the Deputy-Governor
of the Bank of England, and a Director of the Bank,
who had been Governor in the year 1844, when.the
Bill received the legislative sanction. On the other
side were to be found all those deputed by great com-
mercial bodies to express their views and feelings—the
representatives of the London and provincial bankers,
of the Chambers of Commerce of Edinburgh and
Glasgow; the managers of some of the principal joint-
stock backs of Scotland and Ireland ; the representa-
tives of the industry of the north, of Liverpool, Man-
chester, and Birmingham; two distinguished writers
on monetary subjects—Mr. Torlie, whose admirable
history of prices attracted so much attention, and Mr-
TAYLOR, the consistent and powerful opponent as well
of the Act of 1819 as of 1844. Arrayed with
these in condemnation of the latter law were
to be found the respected names of SaamEn
GURNEY, of JOSBUA BATES, a partner in the
house of BARING Brothers, and of Joins HORSLEY
PALMER, many years a director, and formerly go-
vernor of the Bank of England, all of whom unhesi-
tatingly expressed their decided opinions as to the
absolute necessity of an immediate amendment of the
law, and the impolicy of maintaining the stringent
restrictions imposed thereby.
It almost unnecessary to say that a body of
evidence was obtained from these eminent and expe-
rienced individuals that would be perfectly conclusive
with any unprejudiced and disinterested persons. As
we have already stated, however, the nature of the
testimony was a matter of but little importance ; it
signified nothing whether it might be favourable or
unfavourable, exculpatory of, or adverse to, the Act—
that was to be sustained perfas aut nefas, " through
good report or through bed report." The Com-
mittee was bound to hear, but not to decide in ac-
cordance with the evidence. The well-selected ma-
jority subjected the opponents of the measure to a
strict and searching cross-examination. But not-
withstanding the subtlety and ingenuity of the
questions, they were completely foiled in the attempt,
their weapons turned against, themselves, and
their leaders completely defeated in their intellectual
gladiatorship.
The investigation finally closed. The Committee
refused to hear several gentlemen who offered them-
selves for examination. The tyrant majority did not
wish to accumulate additional evidence in opposition
to their own views, and they could not hope to get
favourable testimony. The nature of the report
was then considered, and after numerous di-
visions— every position being stoutly contested,
every paragraph being made the subject of
debate and division—a document of the most mea-
gre and unsatisfactory character, as powerful an illus-
tration of the puny and insignificant offipring of the
" parturient mountain" as any of modern days, was
produced. This " most lame and impotent conclu-
sion" to a prcceeding heralded by so loud a flourish
of Mini,terial trumpets—after stating the names of the
vvitnessee, and the "general concurrence of opinion the
the primary cause of the distress was the deficien

harvest, czpecihlly of the potato crop, i❑ 1846

and the necessity tf providing payment for the
unprecedented importations of food which took place
in that year " (would it have been so, but for the
operation of that most impolitic Act, then on its
trial P), and " other causes—the deficient supply of
cotton, the railway expenditure, and the undue ex-
,ension of credit, which VI ere stated by some of the
witnesses to have contributed to the same rezult"—

declared that the committee " saw no reason to
doubt that these catves had in different degrees, and
in different parts of the country, produced the effect
thus ascribed to them ;" and " for the further deve-
lopment of the views entertained on these various
pinto, by the gentlemen whom they had examined,"
referred to the evidence !!

This was Thersily all the information given to the
expectant community as to the causes of the fearful

disasters that had overvihelmed so many princely
houses, that had lid tc a crisis of unparalleled inten-

city, and a total ce.iiation of credit. The Com-

mittee did inquire into " the causes of the

commercial distress, and bow fir it had been

affected by the laws for regulating the issue

of bank-notes payable on demand," but they
kept the result of that inquiry to themselves, and did
not venture to pronounce an opinion which the con-

elusive and incontrovertible evidence produced before
them must immediately have disproved. And better
that they should have acted in this manner, and evaded

the important duty confided to their charge by the
Commons House of Parliament, than to have given a
prejudiced and erroneous deci.ion on the premises.
Ou.• point, however, was decided. Tne report con-
cluded with these words :—" Your Committee, there-
tore, after a careful review of all the evidence, are of

opiniiin that it is not expedient to make any alterwion

in the B ink Act of 1844." This might lead ignorant

persone, who did not take the trouble to read the

evidence far themselves, to suppose that this judg-
ment was arrived at in consequence of the evidence
that had been produced, not that it was totally op-

posed to the entire weight thereof, that it was merely
the expression of " a foregone conclusion," of a de-

termination formed before a single witness had been

examined. It was carried by a majority of two. Sir
R. PEEL and Sir C. WOOD determined the question

in favour of their own measure, and we regret to say

that the vote of Mr. COBDEN was given on their side.
Had the Hon. Gentleman supported "free trade in

bauking," the numbers would have been equal.
Should such a conclusion, so arrived at—in direct
opposition to all the facts and circumstances of the

case, to the very act of Ministers themselves, which
proved that they at least believed that the safety of
the nation required the violation of the law—satisfy
the great commercial bodies whose representatives

were unanimous in condemning the Act, and asserting
that the safety of the nation required its alteration ? It

could not do so, even if the Lords had remained
quiescent, and if it had not been totally opposed by
one of the ablest and most satisfactory documents that
ever emanated from a Parliamentary Committee, a

document to which we shall on a future occasion espe-
cially direct the public attention.