Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

present as disaffection to their master. Yet in such times, that act, which gave them, he might say, a privilege above all other nations, might in future be taken away by the precedent established in the reign of George 3rd, or rather in the regency of the Prince by whom he was represented. The only excuse by which the appointment of committees by ballot could be defended was, the existence of such danger as rendered secresy imperative. Could such a ground be now advanced; or was there, in

fact, any other reason for resorting to it, than the necessity which was felt of obtaining a bill of indemnity?

Several Speakers on both sides appeared in succession. The question was at length put and agreed to; as were the questions, that it should be a committee of secresy, and should consist of 21 members.

On the question "That the committee be chosen by way of ballotting," the House divided; Ayes 102, Noes 29.

CHAPTER

CHAPTER III.

Mr. Grenfell's questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.-The same topic in the House of Lords.-Treaty between England and Spain relative to the Slave trade.-Its discussion in the House of Commons.

N the 29th of January, Mr.

pose of obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some information respecting two important questions intimately connected with the financial and commercial interests of the country, which ought to be given without delay. These, in the first place, alluded to the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England, which, as at present fixed by law, would take place on the 5th of July next. After the promises so often renewed by the government and the Bank, it was natural to suppose that no uncertainty would prevail in any quarter as to the probability when the period of cash payment would actually arrive; yet considerable doubt did exist in the public mind upon this subject, especially among the class described as the money interest. It was desirable that this doubt should not continue a moment after his majesty's ministers had it in their power to remove it. No one who had a practical knowledge of what was passing in the city, could be ignorant of the very large transactions of a speculating nature which depended on this contin

gency; and it was obvious that

becoming acquainted with the intention of the ministers, must possess a material advantage over those who were not in the secret. For these different reasons, he hoped it would not be considered as making an extraordinary request in behalf of the public, if he desired to know whether any event had occurred, or was expected to occur, which in its consequences would prevent the resumption of cash payments on the 5th of July next.

There was another question upon which he was desirous that some information should be afforded, as it equally related to the subject of the connexion between the government and the Bank. The public stood in the situation of debtor to the Bank, one sum of three millions advanced without interest, the other of six millions at an interest of 4 per cent, which would soon become payable. Until those loans should be repaid, the Bank had secured to themselves the undisturbed possession of a balance upon the public money deposited in their hands, which, for the last twelve years, had never fallen short, upon an aver

age,

age, of eleven millions, or two millions more than the sum which they claimed due from the public. He was convinced that it would be highly advantageous to the public interests that the government should be unfettered by these obligations; and what he wished on this occasion was, to know, whether any arrangement was in progress, or had been concluded, either for discharging the loans in question, or placing them on a better footing; and if any, what arrangement?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his wish to give a distinct answer to the important question which the hon. gentleman had thought proper to put; namely, whether it was the intention of his majesty's ministers to propose any farther restriction upon cash payments by the Bank. He was enabled to say, that the Bank had made ample preparation for resuming its payments in cash at the time fixed by parliament, and that he knew of nothing in the internal state of the country, or of its political relations with foreign powers, which would render it expedient to continue the restriction; but that there was reason to believe that pecuniary arrangements with foreign powers were going on of such a nature and extent, as might probably make it necessary for parliament to continue the restriction, so long as the immediate effects of those arrangements were in operation. As to the loan of six millions from the bank at 4 per cent interest, he should, ere long, have to submit a proposition to the House for the payment of that debt; but with

respect to the three millions without interest, which, for obvious reasons, was rather to be regarded as a gift than a loan, he rather thought that neither the House nor the hon. gentleman himself, would be reconciled to any proposition for depriving the public of such an important accommodation.

In the House of Lords the topic of the Bank restriction was opened on February 3rd. The Earl of Lauderdale said, he would trouble their lordships with some motions connected with a ques tion of the greatest moment. The time was fast approaching when the subject of the resumption of cash-payments by the Bank must come before their lordships. He trusted that parliament would not consent to continue the restrictions without a full inquiry into the circumstances of this question, upon which, more than any other, the welfare of the country depended. He concluded by moving for accounts of the weekly amount of Bank-notes in circulation in the years 1815, 16, and 17; the average amount, the highest and lowest amount in each year, distinguishing the notes of different sums, the rates of exchange, the number of licences granted for the issue of notes, &c; all which were ordered.

Lord King felt himself called upon to advert to the subject of the Bank, in consequence of its being asserted, from official authority in another place, that doubts existed whether payments in cash could be resumed at the Bank at the period appointed for that purpose. The reason

as

signed for this delay, was that the negotiation of foreign loans might tend to prevent the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England, which must be considered only as the ostensible reason, and not the real one. What would be said of the minister of France if he were to tell the legislative body of that country, that he could not pay in cash, because there was a loan negotiating for England, or any other country. Would not such an assertion be laughed at as a mere subterfuge; and was it not to be expected that such an assertion here would be considered in the same light. If, indeed, the negotiation of loans here for foreign countries was to be a cause of preventing the Bank of England from paying in cash, then he could conceive no time in which that return to a healthy circulation could take place.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that with regard to the particular measure to which the noble lord's inquiry was directed, he had uniformly held, and still did hold, that it was the interest of this country and of the Bank that cash-payments should be resumed as soon as possible. He must also remark, that he was equally convinced that the particular moment when the Bank ought to resume the regular course of payment, was a consideration of the greatest delicacy and importance. Having said thus much, he should only add, that he had ground for believing, and indeed knowing, that the Bank had made every necessary preparation for answering the demands which VOL. LX.

might arise by the expiration of the restriction bill. His lordship then went into the same explanation which had been given by the chancellor of the exchequer in the other House.

The Earl of Lauderdale affirmed that he should consider himself as wanting in duty, were he to allow what had fallen from the noble secretary of state to pass unnoticed. He had stated that the particular period for the resumption of cash-payments was a question of expediency, which required great consideration. Now, only two years ago, he had treated with great derision all those who ventured to doubt that the Bank would pay in cash within two years from that time. The noble secretary had declared, that notwithstanding the intended. delay, there was nothing in the situation of the country to prevent the Restriction act from being allowed to expire, and that the Bank was perfectly prepared to pay its notes in cash at the time fixed by the act of parliament. He knew not on what information this opinion had been founded; but though the Bank had made ample preparation, the noble secretary hinted that there still might be something in the relations subsisting among foreign powers which ought to retard the resumption of cash-payments. What that something was, he had not chosen to explain; but this much appeared--that this most important of all measures no longer depended upon the decision of the British parliament, but on what might be done by the government of France or of any other foreign country. In [C]

fact,

fact, the cause of delay assigned by the noble earl was of so extraordinary a nature, that it called for the most serious consideration their lordships could give it. The proper course would be to examine the Bank directors; and indeed he thought that nothing short of an inquiry of that kind could satisfy parliament and the country.

A copy of the treaty between England and Spain being presented by command of the Prince Regent to both Houses of parliament on the 28th of January, the same was laid before the House of Commons on February 9th, with the title of a treaty for preventing their respective subjects from engaging in any illicit traffic in slaves. Lord Castlereagh, who laid it before the House, called to their recollection their own recommendation to the throne at the end of the last session, in strict conformity to which these treaties were framed. In looking at this subject as it now presented itself, he thought he could do nothing better than lay before the House the state of the abolition at the close of the last session, and then show what had been done since that period. There were two distinct questions involved in this subject: first, what was the actual state of the abolition as a great international law: secondly, what was its state with a view to giving effect to the whole principle on which it was founded.

He would first show the state of the law on this subject. Great improvements were made in the law from year to year; but in none was the improvement greater

than in the last year. In that, all the crowned heads of Europe, except Portugal, so far as the south of the line was concerned, had either abolished the slave trade, or had entered into stipulations for its abolition at some future period. The House would agree with him, that our own abolition of the trade, and all our enactments against it, were as nothing, unless we exerted all our power and influence to put an end to the trade among other nations. There was, however, no other power whose continuance or discontinuance of the trade was of more importance than that with whom the present treaty had been formed. Spain, infinitely the most important of all the European powers in this view, both for local authority, and extent of colonies, was stipulating for the final abolition of the trade. While she carried on and protected this traffic both on the northern and southern coasts of Africa, all that the other powers of Europe could do for the abolition was nugatory. There was now no slave trade to the north of the line; and it could be only carried on by possibility to the south of the line from May 1820. After that period there could be no slave trade to the north of the line, or to the West-Indies. Till this treaty was effected, the legal and illicit trade were so mixed up that the one gave ample protection to the other; but there was now a broad line of demarcation.

There was a wide practical distinction between the abolition by treaty, or by the act of any particular state, and the giving

effect

« ZurückWeiter »