HC Deb 07 May 1817 vol 36 cc252-6
Mr. Grenfell

knew not whether the motion he was to submit to the House would be opposed, or upon what grounds it could be opposed; hut he founded it on a paper which he held in his hand, published by order of the hank directors, and of perfect notoriety. It was an account of the number of the proprietors of bank stock, among whom there was no inconsiderable proportion of aliens. It was not of this that he had any intention to complain; but the profits of the directors being enormous, he thought it an aggravation that foreigners should pocket our money. The profits of the bank were at present extravagant; he would assert that they were undue and unnecessary: and, as his late lamented friend, Mr. Horner,—whose premature death was an irreparable loss to the country, had described it—"the result of extravagance and prodigality on the part of the government, and of rapacity on the part of the bank." The object of the first part of his motion was, to ascertain what proportion of these profits foreigners pocketed. It was true, the great part of these profits had their center among ourselves; but it was no satisfaction to the House, or to the country, that one noble lord among ourselves pocketed on the 23d of April last, no less a sum from these profits than 70,000l.—it was no satisfaction that another noble lord pocketed 60 or 70,000l. That a bonus of such an amount was pocketed by individuals among ourselves was not such a satisfaction, that it could not be felt as an aggravation that a considerable portion of those profits was exported from the kingdom, and went to enrich foreigners. He did not mean to go into the details of this subject on the present occasion, because he had on former occasions proved that from 250,000l. to 300,000l. was annually paid by the government, out of the taxes levied from the people, to the bank for managing the public money. He would venture to put it to the House whether that sum was not enormous and extravagant, and whether the proprietors of the bank would not be liberally paid, nay, overpaid by one half of that sum? 1.50,000l. therefore, would be annually saved, if justice and equity were regarded in those transactions. These bank proprietors had, during the last 12 years, had in their possession no less a sum of the public money than 11,000,000l., and by means of this they had made annual profits of not less than from 5 to 600,000l.; yet annually were they paid nearly 300,000l. for the trouble of making those" very profits Since 1807, sums had been annually advanced by the bank, which were improperly called loans; for it was only the public money again restored to the public; and for those loans they received 280,000l. per annum. This immense sum they received for a trifling and insignificant service. It was very evident that this sum, therefore, could not be paid to them for merely acting as a bank: it was for other services and support of a different kind rendered to the right hon. gentleman. He would appeal to that House, whether, if a second bank were established, it would not willingly undertake the whole of this business for 20 or 25,000l. per annum. Thus, then, would a sum exceeding 400,000l. be saved to the public. At this moment it was a matter of the greatest and most anxious difficulty how to relieve the distresses of the country, and how to meet the demands of the state. A finance committee was now sitting; he hoped this subject would attract their attention. He trusted he should be called before that committee to give his evidence as a member of that house, or as a bank director; and if he were, he pledged himself to prove that upwards of 400,000l. could be annually saved of the public money. One other circumstance he would mention. In 1797, the bank was relieved from the necessity of paying in specie; there was, in consequence, a great addition to their circulation: their circulation, in fact, amounted to 16,000,000l. and consequently their annual profits were not less than 800,000l. This was a most enormous evil; yet of this evil it was an aggravation, that a considerable part of the proprietors were foreigners, living in foreign countries, and that a considerable part of the profits went out of this country. What the proportion in both these respects was, formed the subject of his motion. He therefore moved:—"That there be laid before this House, 1. an account of the number of the Proprietors of the Bank of England, on the 31st March 1817; distinguishing the number of aliens, from that of British subjects. 2. An account of the aggregate amount of the capital stock of the bank of England, standing in the names of British subjects, and of aliens, on the 31st March 1817; distinguishing the amount belonging to each of these two classes of proprietors respectively"

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could not conceive what right that House had to call upon the bank to lay those accounts upon their table, any more than they had to call upon any mercantile house to lay its accounts before them. He objected too, to the policy of the proposal. It was the policy of this country to encourage foreigners to deposit their capitals among us. What other object could this proposal have than to ascertain and publish the names of all the foreigners who had money in our funds? This, he contended, would be a pernicious thing. Besides it could not be done; other persons held property in their name, so that the names of the proprietors could not be ascertained; but if it could be done, it would be highly injurious. The hon. gentleman had mentioned no reason for this motion. The amount of the bank profits was no reason: for if foreigners had their money in the bank, they must have their share of the profits; and besides, the profits had no relevant connexion either with the number of foreigners or their proportion of stock. If there was any fraud, the public were equally defrauded and injured by native stock-holders as by foreigners. There was in this respect no difference. He therefore considered the motion as unnecessary and improper in all its parts, and as such he hoped it would be resisted.

Mr. Ponsonby

was satisfied there was not a gentleman in that House more attached to the interests of the country and the prosperity of its commerce than his hon. friend. He did not know the precise object he had in view by the present motion: yet knowing his zeal to serve the country, and the good he had already done, he could not with-hold his support. How many motions of his honourable friend had been opposed as dangerous to the interests of commerce, incompetent for that House, and even injurious to the character and prosperity of the country? and yet how many of those very motions were afterwards complied with, and found most beneficial. When he recollected this— when he had seen how much good he had done—when he considered that he had saved 90,000l. a year to the country, he was satisfied that he would found some salutary measure upon the documents he now moved for. At any rate it could not possibly do any injury.

Sir J. Newport

said, that if he had not known that the chancellor of the exchequer was restrained by the directors of the bank from assenting to any pro- position in that House, displeasing to themselves, he should be surprised at the opposition now offered by the right hon. gentleman to his hon. friend's motion; but his wonder ceased when he knew the restrictions the bank had imposed on his conduct. The motion, however, required no further information than what had been already given to the public, so that if any danger could thence result to the commerce of the country, it had been incurred already. Unless the House were resolved to exert its power, and release the chancellor of the exchequer from his dependance on the bank, no good could result to the public. The country was very much indebted to his hon. friend, who had effected more real service than all the finance committees who had sat for many years; to him must be attributed any relaxation on the part of the bank in its drafts on the public purse.

Mr. Manning

said, he could have wished to have heard some parliamentary ground laid for the present motion, which he had not. He did not see any practical good that could result from it, while, on the contrary, it might do mischief, by creating an alarm in the minds of foreigners, as to any ulterior proceeding which the House might adopt. He objected to it upon the principle that they had no right to interfere; but, at the same time, he had no objection to state, that the proportion of profits derived by aliens was very inconsiderable.

Mr. Grenfell

, in reply, stated, that the proportion of alien bank proprietors was one-tenth of the whole number. With respect to the profits enjoyed by the bank, the House was probably not aware, that, during the last twenty years, they had divided, in addition to 7 per cent, upon their capital, no less a sum than 25,000,000l. sterling, by bonuses, increase of dividends, and increase of capital. Those profits were exclusively derived from its transactions with government.

The motion was negatived.