sing power by express enactment, commit that power to the Bank, and specify the circumstances under which alone it can be exercised, the Government must consider such provision in the light of a legislative declaration against the assumption of ex

Because the experience of preceding years -full knowledge of the course pursued by the Bank when the Bank had unlimited authority-a deep sense of the evils which had arisen from the uncontrolled power of the Bank in 1825, 1837, and 1839, convinced Parliament of the necessity of sub-traordinary authority, whatever may be the jecting the Bank to peremptory restric- circumstances which may call for it. tions. There was, in 1844, an almost unanimous impression, without which the Act of that year could not have been passed, that the discretionary power of the Bank had been improvidently exercised and ought to be controlled by law.

But it is said-The law so controlling the Bank has failed; it has been necessary to suspend it; the act of suspension is a condemnation of the law, and Parliament must make such provision as will prevent the necessity of another unauthorised suspension. I do not deny the possibility that that which has occurred may occur again; that it is not absolutely impossible that there may again be such a combination of peculiar circumstances that the exercise of extraordinary authority may be upon the whole a less evil than the rigid adherence to the letter of the law. But I contend that it is much wiser to leave the responsibility of such interference in the hands of the Executive Government, in the confidence that it will not be assumed excepting in a case of absolute necessity, than to confer by law a dispensing power upon any body of men, and to define the circumstances under which it may be exercised. In the first place, the knowledge that that dispensing power exists, and the hope that it will be exercised, will lessen the inducement which the commercial world would otherwise have to make preparation, each within his own sphere of business, for a coming period of pressure. In the second place, the giving of the dispensing power to the Bank, with a limitation of its exercise to a certain state of things, namely, that of favourable foreign exchange, will alter the relation in which the Executive Government now stands to Parliament, and will make it much more difficult for the Government to assume such a responsibility as that which it lately assumed.

If the law be left unaltered, the Government may fairly presume, that should an absolute necessity for its intervention arise, Parliament being satisfied of the necessity, will again sanction, as it has lately sanctioned, the exercise of extraordinary authority. But if you provide a dispen

It is no impeachment of the law, no conclusive argument for the repeal or alteration of it, that an extraordinary combination of unfavourable circumstances has compelled the suspension of it. The possible necessity for extraordinary intervention, in order to meet the danger of such an event, or to counteract the effect of wide-spread panic, was not unforeseen. Mr. Huskisson observed many years since

"That by a possible combination of things the Bank might be driven to part with its last guinea not only without having checked the drain, but with the certainty of increasing it in proportion

as their notes were diminished."

He says expressly

"That the possible cases which may call for the extraordinary intervention of power are not capable of being foreseen or defined by law."

And

"That the application of the remedy must be left to those who may be at the head of affairs, subject to their own responsibility and to the judgment of Parliament.'

I may, perhaps, without presumption, refer also to the letter which I wrote to the Governor of the Bank, at the time that the Act of 1844 was under discussion, expressing similar views. I observed in that letter

66

My confidence is unshaken that we are taking all the precautions which legislation can prudently take against the recurrence of a pecuniary and if it does, and if it be necessary to assume a crisis. It may occur in spite of all precautions; grave responsibility for the purpose of meeting it, I dare say men will be found willing to assume such responsibility."

A pecuniary crisis may recur; but recent events have only confirmed my previous impression that it would not be wise to attempt, by legislation, to provide a remedy. In all that is the subject of legislation, as in mechanism, and every thing connected with human contrivance, you take precautions against the dangers and evils that may arise from ordinary causes of disturbance; but it is no argument against those precautions, that some unforeseen event may disturb all your calculations, and compel the application of extraordinary remedies. Take the case of a complicated piece of machinery: you may

favour of restraint upon their discretion. They are also the best judges of the nature and extent of the demands which are made upon them in times of pressure to extend accommodation, and of the necessity of interposing the barrier of law against the too ready compliance with such demands. The Lords' Committee profess entire confidence not only in the integrity and good faith with which the transactions of the Bank are conducted, but in the increased knowledge of the Directors produced by experience and discussion. And certainly, if the judgment be formed on the evidence given before the Committee by Mr. Cotton, Mr. Norman, and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank, that expression of confidence is fully justified. It is impossible to read the evidence given by those gentlemen, and not be struck by their intelligence, acute

provide a remedy for friction, or for any | Horsley Palmer. Being Directors of the derangement proceeding from ordinary Bank they are those whom the law concauses; but sudden explosion may baffle trols, and they can have no prejudice in all your precautions. Commercial panic is like sudden explosion, as little amenable to any control, as difficult to be provided for by previous contrivances of human skill. Take the case of law. The presumption is that all law ought to be strictly obeyed; but circumstances so extraordinary may occur that the violation of law may be a venial, nay, a praiseworthy act. The other day, for instance, if the report of the newspapers be correct, a military officer having Mr. Smith O'Brien in his custody, brought him to a railway station, and finding a train ready to start for Limerick, desired the driver to start instantly for Dublin instead. The driver refused, telling the officer that he was not amenable to his authority. The officer produced a pistol, threatened to blow out the brains of the driver if he did not obey, and was obeyed accordingly. Now, this was a very extraordinary, but a very justi-ness, and the exhibition by them of every fiable exercise of power. There was a suspension of the railway regulations; but it does not follow that they were unwise regulations, or that having been suspended they ought to be repealed. Neither does it follow that provision should be made for a similar contingency in future, that there should be an attempt to define by law under what circumstances military officers may countermand railway trains, and may threaten to blow out the brains of engine-drivers.

It may be in such cases as those to which I have been referring, and in cases of commercial panic also, that the remedy will be effectual for the very reason, that it has not been provided beforehand. It not only may be better calculated to meet the exigency of the case, but the moral effect of the remedy, the effect on the minds and feelings of men, may be increased on account of the sudden assumption of an abnormal and irregular authority by those who are responsible for the public safety.

I repeat, then, that experience and reason are opposed to the suggestion in the Lords' report. How far is it supported by the testimony of those witnesses examined by the Lords' Committee, who must be considered the very best authority on such a subject? The Committee examined five of the Directors of the Bank, the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Norman, and Mr.

quality which can fit them to superintend such an institution as the Bank of England. But the evidence of each of them is decidedly adverse to the recommendation of the Committee; it is in favour of maintaining the Act of 1844 without the slightest alteration. The Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank declare that in their opinion "nothing could have worked better than it has done." Mr. Cotton thinks" that the Act has conferred inestimable benefits, both upon the banking operations of the country, and also upon business." Mr. Norman "would consider any alteration in the Act of 1844 highly inexpedient.'

Mr. Horsley Palmer's evidence is certainly less favourable to the Act of 1844, but even that evidence scarcely supports the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Horsley Palmer does not object to the principle of the Act of 1844, of fixing 14,000,000l. as the issues upon securities and the remainder upon bullion; but he objects to the want of power to relax that principle when the circumstances of the country will enable the Bank to do so, without endangering the convertibility of the bank-note. Mr. Horsley Palmer admits at the same time" that the power of relaxation goes far to destroy the principle of the Act, which renders it extremely difficult to say what should be the regulation, and when it should be acted on?" Being asked "If the restrictions imposed

by the Act of 1844 were accompanied with a power of relaxation on the part of the Bank Directors, would it not be as if no restrictions existed?" he answers Certainly." Such are the opinions of those of the Bank Directors who were examined by the Committee of the Lords. Such also are my reasons for thinking that the recommendation of that Committee that the Directors of the Bank should be intrusted with a power to relax the restrictions imposed upon the Bank in respect to the issue of paper money, is unsupported by evidence as well as by reason and experience.

I shall conclude with an earnest hope, that when the House shall again address itself to the consideration of this great question, with a view to some practical issue, they will bear in mind the great truths by which legislation on our monetary system should be governed that they will bear in mind that trade is not carried on with paper money but with capital, or with credit, of which capital is the foundation-that the arbitrary issue of paper money is no increase of the wealth of the country-that the rate of interest must vary with the value of money and the demand for it, and cannot be permanently regulated by the Bank of England—that fixity in the value of the currency, that is, of the coin, or of the note which represents coin, and a guarantee that the note shall be at all times convertible into the precious metals, are essential to the welfare of all classes, but especially of that class which is in the receipt of the wages of daily labour. Depreciate the value of your currency, and the prices of all articles of subsistence will speedily follow the change; but there will be no corresponding rise in the rate of daily wages. The two shillings or three shillings a-day will continue to be paid long after they shall have ceased to command that amount of the necessaries and comforts of life which they did command before the period of depreciation.

This House will, I trust, continue to insist upon the maintenance of the standard of value, and upon the guarantees for the instant and certain convertibility of paper into coin. Those guarantees you cannot have without restrictions upon the issue of paper. You cannot have them without pressure in the time of commercial discredit. Early pressure-pressure compelled by law-if it be not induced by prudence, so far from being the great evil

which some consider it to be, may be the only preventive of great future disasterthe only certain means of maintaining entire confidence in the paper circulation of the country.

MR. MUNTZ would admit that, if it was proper to pass the Act of 1819, it was necessary to pass that of 1844 to prevent vacillation on the part of the Bank. In evidence given before a Committee of the House, before the latter measure was introduced, he had stated his opinions that the Bank should keep 500,000l. of its circulation in gold. But he had always thought the Act of 1819 a gross injustice, and it would continue so till prices were reduced to the level of 1819, which was the level of Continental prices. Were the law carried out to the letter, it would produce an explosion. If the pound sterling were to be converted into the precious metals at what he thought a just rate, a great stimulus would be given to the industry of the country; the result would be a higher scale of nominal prices. It had been said that the Act of 1844 had not aggravated the distress last year; but if not, why were its provisions relaxed? And how did it happen that the moment the relaxation took place the distress abated? For his own part he wished the Act had never been touched. It was a disgrace to the country to have a law that required touching. If it had not been interfered with, his belief was that the question would have been settled in a week, and hence he was sorry that it had ever been meddled with at all. The country might possibly allow another relaxation to take place; but he felt convinced that they would not bear it above once more, for their eyes were fast opening to the true merits of the question.

MR. HUME had been anxious to hear the speech of the right hon. Baronet; but he confessed that, looking to what was expected from this Bill, and what he had just stated to the House, he was utterly at a loss to understand the right hon. Baronet. Much time had been taken up by the right hon. Baronet in stating the principle on which our currency was based; but that was not the question before the House on the present occasion. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford did not require the House to go back either to 1811 or 1819. The right hon. Baronet had spoken lightly of the report of the Lords' Committee; but it was nevertheless an honest report, and in accordance with the evidence that was laid

before the Committee. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, however, that the recommendations of the Committee were

exceedingly vague. The Committee were all agreed, however, that the Acts of 184445 did greatly aggravate the distress when the time of pressure came. Although there had been a great jumble on the part of the supporters of the measure of 1844, as to what was expected from it, and what had been its result, he begged to say, that if there was any one principle more intelligible than another in that measure, it would allow no interference with its operation; and yet ruin stared the country in the face till interference took place. This showed that it was founded on a wrong principle when it required such interference. The right hon. Baronet seemed determined to maintain the principle of his Act; he was unwilling to yield, even although every fact was against him, for, with the exception of the Bank Directors, all the other witnesses were opposed to him.

With respect

to the report of the Committee of that House, it was right that the public should know that the numbers in its favour would have stood exactly twelve to twelve but for the accidental absence of two Members; and taking this fact in connexion with the bearing of the evidence, it could hardly be expected that the public could have much confidence in the report. With respect to the Act of 1845, relating to Scotland, he ventured to say that there never was a more uncalled-for piece of legislation in the world. Not one single soul in Scotland was found to support it; and all the Scotch witnesses who were examined before the Committee spoke of its bad effects. After the best consideration which he could give the subject, he did not hesitate to confess his belief that the measure from which so much good had been expected did really aggravate the evils that it was intended to remedy, and he, therefore, was clear in the conviction that it was quite right to draw the attention of the House to that subject.

PETITIONS PRESENTED.

By Mr. Fortescue, from the Borough of Barnstaple, for an Alteration of the Law respecting the Church of England Clergy.-By Sir R. H. Inglis, from the Presbytery of Aberdour, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.-By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Members of the Independent Congregation assembling in Donegal Street, Belfast, for the Withdrawal of the Regium Donum Grant.-By Mr. Disraeli, from several Persons connected with the Mines in St. Austell, and other parts of Cornwall, against the Copper and Lead Duties Bill.-By Mr. Cardwell, from Members of the Loyal Harmony Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Bury St. Edmund's District, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.-By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Members of the Church of England, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill. -From the Board of Guardians of the Great Boughton Union, Cheshire, for an Alteration of the Poor Law Union Charges Bill.

NEAPOLITAN AFFAIRS.

SIR JOHN WALSH said, he had a notice on the Paper for an explanation of the circumstances connected with the recent appearance of the fleet under the command of Admiral Sir William Parker in the Bay of Naples; but perhaps the noble Lord could give some explanation which should obviate the necessity of his bringing forward that Motion.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that the reason Admiral Parker was sent with his squadron to Naples was, that it had been stated that the Neapolitan Government were about to raise a forced loan, contrary to existing treaties; but the intention of contracting that loan was afterwards abandoned. Another question had, however, arisen with respect to the use of the MR. HERRIES was satisfied, from the British flag by the Neapolitan navy in course which the present discussion had seizing certain Sicilian vessels; and upon taken, that he was justified in bringing for- that subject also a satisfactory explanation ward the Motion which he had submitted had been given. After that a question to the House, and he felt quite confirmed arose as to whether certain prisoners had in the opinion that the question could not not been taken on board ship, and there rest where it now was. In bringing for- was a doubt whether they were taken in ward the present Motion, he wanted to the waters of Corfu; and Admiral Sir Wilshow that the report was not in conformity liam Parker, not being satisfied with the with the evidence; that purpose had been explanations given, inspected the log-books fully answered, and he should certainly of the Neapolitan captains, and then wrote

SIR J. WALSH said, the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory; but he wished to put a further question to the noble Lord, relative to the existing state of things. He wished to know whether, up to this time, Her Majesty's Government had maintained a strict neutrality between the two contending parties; or whether Sir William Parker had committed any act, either towards the King of Naples or the Sicilians, which could in any respect make England a party to the contest?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that Sir William Parker had not received, nor had there gone out to him, any instructions for him to take any hostile measure with regard to either party. Sir William Parker had been sent out mainly for the purpose of protecting British interests.

a letter to the Lord High Commissioner of | to his (Lord Dudley Stuart's) control. His the Ionian islands upon the subject. When answer to that complaint was simply that Sir William Parker last wrote to this coun- the grant was not under his control at all. try, he had not received any answer from All he had to do with it amounted to this: the Lord High Commissioner. He begged that whereas by the rules of the Treasury, to observe that Sir William Parker was an when three Poles were removed by death officer of the greatest prudence and discre- from the list of recipients, one was allowed tion; and he thought both the Government to be substituted in the room of the three and Parliament might fairly trust him to who had dropped off, the Treasury had take any future proceedings he might think until lately permitted him to recommend right. the individual who was to be so substituted. But that system of substitution had, in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee, been wholly abolished. It was true that for a period of four years the distribution of the grant had been confided to the Literary Association of the Friends of Poland, in which he (Lord D. Stuart) occupied a prominent place. But it was more than ten years since the association had ceased to distribute the grant. His hon. Friend had complained of the expense incurred by the country in paying persons to distribute this money. During the time the distribution was confided to the association to which he (Lord Dudley Stuart) belonged, it did not cost the country a farthing. When he recollected the enthusiasm with which the vote had originally been made, and the unanimity with which it had passed ever since, he would not believe that the House of Commons would do anything so harsh, so ungracious, and so ungenerous, as now to refuse to renew it. The recipients of it were men who had sacrificed everything in the defence of those things on their attachment to which Englishmen prided themselves so highly, viz., the liberty and independence of their country. Their cause was a just and righteous one, and had been felt and acknowledged to be so on all hands; and was as much so now as when the grant was first made. Some hon. Gentlemen might disapprove of the conduct of some of the Poles in recent transactions on the Continent. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) should be ready to defend, at least, most parts of that conduct on any fitting occasion; but he did not suppose that even those who might be most disposed to censure that conduct, would allow it to influence them in dividing on a vote, intended for the relief of persons in distress who had no hand in that conduct which might be disapproved of. His hon. Friend had talked of economy, and the distress of our own people. He was an advocate for economy. He had proved it by his votes. It was by such proposals as those of his hon. Friend the

SUPPLY-POLISH REFUGEES.

House in Committee of Supply. On the question that 10,7007. be granted for the Polish and Spanish refugees,

MR. OSBORNE opposed the vote. While thousands of our own people were starving we were voting this money for the Poles. The whole of this sum of 10,000l. was placed at the disposal of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. The hon. Gentleman read a list of Polish pensioners, upwards of twenty in number, who kept large and flourishing shops. One kept a tobacconist's shop, and another a bookseller's shop, and many of the wives and children of these men had pensions. It was quite time such a vote was stopped. A large expense was incurred in dispensing these pensions. The clerk in the War Office had 2731. for superintending the payments. He should, if he had any support, move that the vote be disallowed.

LORD D. STUART said, that nothing was more popular than to call for these reductions; but when the grant under discussion was minutely investigated, it would be found to be just and proper. The hon. Member for Middlesex had complained that the distribution of the grant was subject