BANK OF IRELAND. (Hansard, 27 July 1838)

§ Mr. Hume
rose, to bring on the motion of which he had given notice as follows:—"That the exclusive privileges now enjoyed by the Bank of Ireland are injurious to the best interests of that country, and it is therefore most expedient and just to place, as soon as possible, the banks of Ireland on a footing of equality." He wished to know why Ireland, which so much wanted the benefit of capital, should be continued under such a system of monopoly any longer? He considered that they were now in a situation to throw out of view what had been the evils of joint-stock banks, or of the Bank of Ireland. They were now in a situation to call upon the Government, to say why the system of banking in Ireland should not now be put on the same footing as the banks in Scotland. He would call for the same justice to this country, only that he knew that the Bank of England had its monopoly for a certain time; but in the case of the Bank of Ireland it was different, for their charter of exclusiveness was now at an end, and there could be no reason for continuing so injurious a monopoly. Why was the capital of the Bank of Ireland, amounting to two millions and a half, lent to the Government at an interest of four per cent.? He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had continued the former rate of interest, or whether since January any new arrangement had been made? Seeing the right hon. Gentleman might have borrowed the money at three per cent., if he was paying four or four and a half per cent., it was evident that was to the great injury of the public. He 718 wished the Government to declare their intentions as to the future state of banking in Ireland, and he now begged to move his resolution.

Mr. Ormsby Gorei
n seconding the resolution, said, he hoped the Government, if they had it in contemplation to renew the charter of the Bank of Ireland, would recollect the circumstances under which that charter had been originally granted. It was antecedent to the Legislature of Ireland becoming part of that of England; and in consequence it was considered necessary that Ireland should, as England had, have a national bank. But since the Act of Union had passed, what necessity could be imagined for two national banks?

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, both the mover and seconder of the amendment had fallen into error, in supposing that in moving the Committee, the object was to consider the evidence and frame a Report. On the contrary, he had stated that there were three distinct questions on which evidence was to be taken—the establishment of branch banks of England throughout England; the issues, by certain of these joint-stock banks of bank paper in substitution for their own; and, thirdly, this subject of the Bank of Ireland. The proceedings in the Committee had been strictly in accordance with the statements he then made. It had not inquired into matters which were the subject of investigation on previous occasions, and there was therefore no inconsistency in the course taken by the Committee, and the declaration which he had made. He should decline now entering into an argument on the case, because he could show to the House a sufficient reason for reserving that subject for future consideration. Nothing could be more indiscreet on his part, than to go into a premature discussion as to whether he agreed with, or dissented from, the proposition of the hon. Member, because it might prejudice the question to do so before the evidence which had been taken was in the hands of Members. But the hon. Gentleman had a right to see that the public interests were not affected or forestalled out of doors. The Report which had been brought up, although not yet in the hands of hon. Members, adverted to this subject, and recommended that a bill, in continuation of that of last Session, should be brought in, in such a manner as to give the House an unfettered discretion in the 719 next Session to deal with the question as it should think fit. This was doing all that could be required in the present posture of affairs. Without going into the general proposition, he wished to say one word on a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He not only had thrown out a supposition, the practicability of which he did not doubt, that an unrestricted freedom of competition in banking would be advantageous to the interests of Ireland; but he had thrown out a much larger proposition, that if it were not for the privilege of the Bank of England, a free competition of the banks of issue in this country was a matter which he contemplated as advantageous. This was a suggestion to which he should enter his dissent, reserving it as a matter for future consideration. There was another matter on which he also wished to make an observation. Undoubtedly there was on the advances made by the Bank of Ireland an amount of interest beyond the market rate of interest. But, at the same time, the Bank of Ireland acted differently by the public from the Bank of England, which charged 340l. per million on the management of the public debt, whilst the Bank of Ireland transacted this without any charge whatever. He would not go into the question further, than to assure the hon. Member, that if he looked minutely into this matter, which must be done next year, at any rate, he would find that so great a saving as he anticipated would not be effected. He was as anxious as any man to save 30,000l. or 40,000l.; but he was afraid that could not be done. He, however, thought the arrangement that had been made, such as deserved reconsideration. The hon. Member had observed, upon the effect of joint-stock banks, and had said that the inquiry that had been entered into with respect to them, and the publication of the evidence, had been adopted by the Government in a feeling of hostility towards them. Now, in answer to that, he begged to say that he had been actuated by no such feeling. The hon. Member had also said, that the publication of the evidence had left those banks in a state of feverish excitement. In that statement he could not agree with him, as it was his belief that the publication of the evidence had been attended with the best effect, as it had given to the banks, many of which were in their infancy, the benefit of the example and experience 720 of the older banks. The Northern and Central, and some of the other banks, were in no way connected with this subject; and if they were, when he considered the pressure under which the public laboured, and the small number of failures that had taken place, he felt convinced that the principle of joint-stock banks was good, and would prove beneficial to the country. Under these circumstances, he trusted, the explanation he had given would be satisfactory, reserving to himself the right of proposing any legislation in the next Session that he might think fit.

§ Mr. Warburton
, after the intimation just given by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as also the statements made on a former occasion, that in next Session of Parliament not only the affairs of the Bank of Ireland, but also the principles by which the affairs of the Bank of England were regulated, would be submitted to a committee and there undergo examination and discussion, thought it would be most advisable if his hon. Friend would not persevere in his motion. Some of those principles by which banking companies were regulated, particularly with respect to unrestricted circulation, had been the subject of discussion with men who were best informed upon the subject; and it being now decided, that a committee would sit for the purpose of deciding upon these and other points next Session, he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw the motion.