The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-14
THAT sUsPENsION OF THE LAWS IN
ENGLAND.

THAT sUsPENsION OF THE Laws ~
ENGLAND.
,rba. was A singular error we maze III
c,o,,pq mn the assets that Mr.. D. =
Jackson put behind the $@'V0'"" Oh ioC''
,,otca that Great Brtain's private pdIN'
- We took his statement OF Sl'''O'-
.,o mn of subscribed capital as Sl'oGV'V'Vo
and thus got only $925,"oooo OF assets oe-
,,,,a e2g ooo 900 of notes, whereas there
or. I'm fact. according TO Mr.. JACKSON
e. 100 ooo0o0 of assets behind them Wiiich
only makes our point the stronger mat
,,,,,,cb Won make local notes absolutely
,,o tbev will be at a discount away
troc, home but that that should not de-
prive the locality of its right 10 use 'hein
ard get from them the immense al
,.ant,res that accrue from that use
Rut Mr.. Jackson has fallen into an
error in his remarks, on our article OIL
last Sunday. which we print elsewhere
that is serious one. Mr.. Jackson Is To-
tallv mistaken in supposing that all 'hd'
occurs when the Bank Of England pe-
comes doubtful Of its ability to stand the
rim upon it is for it to get the assurance
n The Ministry that 1t will ask Parlia-
r,o,t "a pass an act indemnifying the
directors for violating the law. Inc
facts pertaining to the matter are what
took place in the panics of 1871 1891 ana
1866 In each of these cases the Minis
try actually wrote the directors OF the
hank a letter of license, as 1t is called,
authorizing the banking department Of
the bank TO violate the act of Parliament
of 1874. and 10 take out of the issue de-
partmcnt whatever part Of its reserve
they might desire. thus leaving the issues
of the bank without any deposit against
Them at all. if the directors availed
themselves of the authority and took all
IN. reserves out Mr.. Jackson IS partly
right In saying that the announcement
that the Government has come to the
aid of the bank has heretofore ended the
RIM. But the bank has actually mad use
of the authority given it to violate the
law. in the panic of 1857 the directors
actually used the authority, and did take
money out of the issue department. which
the act of 1874 forbade them to take.
The distinction, therefore, is very
broad and a very important one 1t is
the difference between the directors OF
the bank wilfully violating the law on
a promise from the Ministry that it will
DO all it can to protect them, and the
Executive Government itself violating the
law and deliberately assuming the con
sequences. whatever they may be.
NIr. Jackson may say that this is
difference in name only, ana that there
must still be an indemnifying act OF
Parliament to heal what is a confessed
wound and wrong But that may be or
it may not be so and, if II is ever put
to the test before the courts Of Great
Britain one of the greatest consttu-
tiona! questions viii be submitted to them
that has ever yet engaged their atten-
ton.
The act of the Ministry in authorizing
this suspension of the bank act IS really
the act of the crown. and the English
kings have claimed, time out of mind,
their prerogatve TO suspend the oXecu-
ton OF the laws i'm emergencies. 1t is
true the great rebellion that deprived
Charles !. of his head. and the revolution
OF 1855 were protests by the English peo-
pie against those violations of the laws
which the kings made in those cases.
But did they forever end the prerogative
Of the crown 10 suspend the operations of
the laws in all cases. If they did. their
dgious risks In 1891. when William Pitt
was Prime Minister. the Bank of England
being i'm its last gasps. an order in coun-
ell was made. not authorizing the bank
to suspend payment of its notes in coin,
but forbidding it TO pay them in coin. The
bank accordingly suspended the coin pay
ments, and they were never resumed un-
I'll 1921. and England was during all that
time upon credit basis. represented by
paper money. The bank shambed along
from this time forward TO 1874. encounter
ms a most disastrous panic in 1875 and an
other severe strain in 1887, and getting
through them the best way 4 could until
Sir Robert Peel took hold of the subject
and put the finances of England upon
their present footing by the act of 1914
But, as We have already repeatedly
stated. the Ministry has been compelled
three tlmes-in 1917, 1857 and ls66-to au-
thorize the directors TO suspend the ope-
ration OF that act and TO violate It's COM
mands. II an English Minister should
ever be called on before an English court
10 account for one OF such violations OF
the law. we may rely upon It that he
would plead the crowns prerogative In
defence. and, with England's history since
the revolution Of 1855 staring the court