Commons Sitting of 26 June 1828

COMMISSION ON THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY—MR. HUMPHREYS.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words. He confessed that he felt very great regret, in common with all those who took an earnest interest in improvements in the law, that the name of Mr. Humphreys did not appear in the Commission that had been appointed, to inquire into the law of real property. The merits of Mr. Humphreys were so great and so well known, that no name would have sooner occurred than his, to any person who was zealous for reform in this branch of the law. If there was a man who, to a profound knowledge of the principles of the law, joined an eminence for his skill in practice, he could not help considering it as a public misfortune, that Mr. Humphreys's name did not appear in the commission. In saying this, he did not mean to say any thing derogatory of the learned persons who formed that commission. Mr. Campbell, though he had hitherto applied his talents to a different part of the law, would, he was sure, execute his task with skill, integrity, and assiduity. So would Mr. Duckworth. Still, he regretted the absence of Mr. Humphreys's name in the commission; and he had the less hesitation in saying so, as those very persons had expressed their sor-

1525
row at being deprived of the valuable assistance of Mr. Humphreys. Mr. Humphreys, animated as he was by a public spirit, would, no doubt, give the commission all the assistance in his power; but that would be very little, compared to the assistance which he might have given, had he been one of the commission. After the valuable publication which Mr. Humphreys had put forth, he did think this omission a misfortune.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he had been actuated by no personal feeling in the selection he had made. Nay, he had never even exchanged a word with any of the commissioners. Moreover, no one of the commissioners had made any application on the subject; they had each of them been invited to undertake the task; he believed that the proposal was totally unexpected by each of them; and it had been so made that they should consider themselves under obligation to no one for their appointment. As to Mr. Humphreys, the omission of that gentleman was, he would contend, perfectly consistent with the object of the commission. Mr. Humphreys had written a work which had provoked a controversy; and if Mr. Humphreys had been put upon the commission, so also must those who had engaged in the controversy against him. This would not have effected the object of the commission. It was much better that persons who had not committed themselves to any particular points should constitute the commission. If the commissioners thought proper to avail themselves of the services of Mr. Humphreys, they might do so.—They might receive both the evidence and the suggestions of Mr. Humphreys. It was thought that the commission should consist of no more than five; and that a common lawyer, two conveyancers, and two practitioners in a court of equity, were the most proper persons to make up that number.
Sir F. Burdettcould by no means agree in the rule, that persons who had showed a disposition to reform a part of the law, should be excluded from a commission appointed to inquire into that part of the law. Mr. Humphreys, a gentleman eminent in his profession, had performed the extraordinary task of producing a work on the subject of the law of real property, for the comprehension of which no technical knowledge was at all necessary. The omission of that gentleman's name in the
1526
commission reminded him of the old story of the play of Hamlet being performed, with the character of Hamlet omitted.—Mr. Humphreys had given up much of his time, and, of course, of his professional emoluments, to the investigation of the subject, to inquire into which the commission was constituted; and every body expected that his name would have appeared in it.
Mr. Batleythought, that if Mr. Humphreys had been appointed, so also must the learned gentleman who had opposed the doctrines laid down in his publication.
Mr. Broughamwas convinced that the undeviating honour and integrity which had characterized Mr. Humphreys, ought to have assured every body, that a more valuable gentleman could not have been placed upon the commission. He could not help thinking, that the omission would not only tend to diminish the confidence of the public in this commission, but to diminish the prospect of benefit which they had every right to expect from the inquiry. It was said, that Mr. Humphreys had carried reform too far, and that therefore, another gentleman, who differed totally from him, ought to be placed on the commission, if Mr. Humphreys was. Now, he would contend, that there was no sense in putting such extreme notions in such a situation. A learned person was reported to have said, that he would rather have his bowels torn out, than that the system of fines and recoveries should be abolished. Now, would it not be an absurdity, to place Mr. Humphreys and this learned person together on the commission?
Mr. Humesaid, there was a great difference between having the evidence of Mr. Humphreys, and his being on the commission, where he might originate improvements. It would seem, that any men of talent and information, who had ventured to give their opinions on subjects of importance, were less likely to be employed, than men whose minds were a blank sheet of paper.

BANKING SYSTEM—CURRENCY.
Mr. Humesaid, that as he considered the question of the currency to be one of vital importance to the country, he must again impress upon ministers the necessity of altering their policy. In the speech of his majesty, in February, 1826, they were recommended to take such measures as

1527
would prevent the fluctuations which had lately taken place; but instead of attending to this recommendation, ministers came down with a measure, which lessened the currency, and tended to increase those fluctuations. The object of his motion was, to ask leave to introduce a bill which would compel bankers to make quarterly returns of the amount of their notes in circulation. If that plan were adopted, not only would it prevent excessive speculation, but it would enable parliament to deal with the currency, upon any emergency, with greater safety than at present, when it was impossible to ascertain, with exactness, the amount of paper in circulation. The bankers with whom he had communicated on the subject had declared, that they had no objection to give publicity to their proceedings in the way he proposed. The hon. member then proceeded to repeat the opinions he had formerly expressed, as to the manner in which the system of banking should be conducted in this country. He thought that no bankers should be allowed to issue notes, until they had given full security for every farthing of the amount to be issued. That, combined with the plan of quarterly returns, would, he conceived, afford perfect security to the public. He disliked the air of secrecy which was observed with respect to all the proceedings of the Bank of England. The Bank of France was guided by a more liberal policy; for, in February last, it laid before the public a full statement of all its affairs. If the Bank of England had been in the habit of issuing similar statements, the lamentable events which distinguished the close of 1825 would not have occurred. He did not, however, mean to blame the Bank for what they did on that occasion; for he believed they thought they were acting in a way which would be beneficial to the country. He then referred to the United States of America, where, as he said, during the recent panic none of the banks formed on the principle of the Scotch banks (that of giving security) had failed, whilst most of those established upon the system prevailing in this country had become insolvent. That was a practical instance which ought not to be lost sight of. The hon. member then read several extracts from papers which had been laid before the local assemblies in the United States, but in so hurried and confused a manner that it was impossible to collect their pur-
1528
port. He did not scruple to call this a complete departure from consistency on the part of the ministry; indeed a total dereliction of all principle. He would not require at the hands of private bankers the same minute accounts as from chartered banks; but he thought these depositories of public money would never be safe until government required of them, in the first instance, securities, and next convertibility of their paper into gold, with a regular quarterly return of the amount of their issues. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to compel the Bank of England, and all country bankers, to make quarterly returns of the amount of their promissory notes outstanding."
Mr. Hudson Gurneyopposed the motion. At that late period of the session, and on the eve of the operation now about to take place, of calling in the one-pound notes, no conjuncture could be conceived, in which this species of legislation could be more ill-timed. Indeed, the hon. member's own views seemed to be singularly confused. He had mixed up joint-stock banks, and chartered banks, and private banks, and banking in England, and banking in Scotland, and banking in France, and banking in Massachusetts, in a manner which could not practically bear upon the present state of monied transaction in this country, whether the existing system be a good or an erroneous one.—He, however, should, at the present moment, deprecate any legislative measure. It had been put forth, in 1825, that the insolvency of many of the country bankers arose from their having gone into the bubbles and speculations of the day. It was, however, found that the contrary was the fact; and, whatever failures had then taken place, had, for the most part, arisen from their having made imprudent advances to their immediate neighbourhoods. Now, as the legislature had determined, that the circulation of one-pound notes should cease in April next, the real danger to be guarded against was, lest the bankers, anticipating a greater demand on them than might probably take place, in consequence of that measure hanging over them, should be too hastily withdrawing their credits, and might thus bring on, during the winter months, a greater pressure than the country could conveniently bear. A run on the bankers was a great grievance to them; but the real pressure was from that which necessarily followed

1529
it; namely, the run of the bankers on the country; and though in his (Mr. Gurney's) opinion, the looseness of credits given by bankers, had, at one time, gone to a very dangerous and injurious length; yet it must be obvious, that the bankers, having to supply their respective districts with the specie necessary to their circulation, would not be very ready to grant such credits now, and might be safely left to take their own measures, without being obnoxious to the suspicion of wishing unreasonably to extend their issues.—Here, Mr. Gurney said, he could not but remark on the most unfortunate examples which the hon. member had brought forward to sustain his motion. In America there was hardly any metallic currency. The notes of the banks in the different states circulated at different values; as calculated against the United States bank note, which went every where, and with them appeared to constitute the standard in use; whilst the very system of the Scotch circulation was issuing on joint securities, to be met by after returns of the sales of property, and not, as in England, real cash lodgments previously made. Under all these circumstances, he hoped the House would not concur in the motion of the hon. member, and that if the hon. member were to bring any motion forward in another session, he might see fit to have his plan a little more digested than it appeared to be at present.
Sir C. Colesupported the motion. He thought that the labouring classes had a right to ask, at the hands of the legislature, some security for the solvency of country banks, in which they must of necessity repose so much confidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconcurred fully in what had fallen from the hon. member for Newton, and felt, that after his observations upon the motion, it was unnecessary to enter into the wide field of discussion which the hon. mover had thought it necessary to take. The question really was, ought parliament to compel all bankers to render a public account of their issues? To accomplish this object, it seemed, the hon. mover had no hesitation in prying into and revealing the secrets of their business; secrets on which not only their welfare but their ruin might depend. Admitting that in the estimate he (the chancellor of the Exchequer) had made of the issues of country bank paper, there had been some inaccuracy, was that
1530
a reason why private individuals should be compelled to go into a statement of this nature, and disclose what must so often prove injurious to their interests? He, for one, could not concur in the motion. That hereafter a mode might be struck out, of controlling those issues by some species of return of the issues, he thought not impossible; but he felt that, at present, circumstances connected with the currency, called on parliament not to be precipitate in legislating on the subject.
After a short conversation, Mr. Hume consented to withdraw his motion.