HC Deb 15 December 1847 vol 95 cc1126-76

, in rising to move the first name on the Committee on Commercial Distress, which happened, he said, as was usual, to be his own, he wished to make a few observations in consequence of what had been said on a former night on the subject of the composition of the Committee. The House had already decided that the Committee should consist of 26 members, and the question now before the House was, who those 26 members should be. Observations had been made as to the omission of certain names from the list which he had proposed. Several hon. Gentlemen were of opinion that other hon. Members than those whom he had selected ought to be on the Committee. He hoped he should be acquitted by those hon. Gentlemen whose names had been suggested, of any want of respect or courtesy in not having proposed them as members of the Committee. He had not willingly or knowingly omitted any name which in the discharge of his duty he felt he ought to have selected. With regard to the composition of a Committee of this kind, he agreed that every class of opinion on the subject with which the Committee had to deal, ought, as far as practicable, to be represented. The suggestions, however, that had been made, must, when stated, appear to the House perfectly impracticable. It had been said that there ought to be a larger number of Scotch representatives, and a larger number of Irish representatives; that the metropolitan boroughs and the manufacturing districts ought to be more fully represented; that more Members who were themselves employers of labour ought to be on the Committee; and that the East India interest and the West India interest ought also to be more fully represented. Now, it must be obvious, that if this principle were to be adopted, it would be impossible to form a Committee unless its numbers were greatly increased beyond what the House had already determined it should be. It was his opinion that the object of having every case and every view of the subject fully placed before them, would be better attained by calling parties before the Committee who entertained those various opinions, and examining them in regard to the particular views they entertained upon the subject of inquiry. He perfectly well remembered that there appeared before the Committee of 1841 two gentlemen who were deputed by the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester to attend and represent the opinions which that body entertained. The same course was adopted by other large mercantile interests in different parts of the country. It was the best mode of eliciting different opinions; and he was quite sure that there would be no disposition on the part of the Committee now about to be nominated to exclude witnesses of any description. The most important object in naming the Committee was to select men of experience and judgment, in order that they might be able to form a sound and impartial opinion upon the evidence adduced before them. Although he could conceive this to be in no respect a party question, yet from the known and commonly recognised composition of parties in that House, he believed that party considerations afforded in some measure a clue as to the persons to be appointed on a Committee of this nature; and that by common consent, certain persons who were amongst the most prominent Members on either side, would be those to be selected to constitute such a Committee. He had taken a few leading Members of the Government, a few leading Members of the late Government, and a few leading Members from among those Gentlemen who, when their time came, would in all probability hold prominent positions in the next Government. He had proposed three Members of the present Cabinet, whose especial duties were concerned in the finance and trade of the country—he meant the First Lord of the Treasury, the President of the Board of Trade, and himself. His noble Friend opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) proposed to leave out the name of the Minister whose especial duty it was to represent the trade of the country. He did not think he should have properly discharged his duty if he had not proposed to insert on this Committee Lord John Russell, Mr. Labouchere, and himself. He had also proposed to insert three Members of the late Government—Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Goulburn, and Sir James Graham, all of whom were members of the Committee of 1841. He had also placed on the Committee the names of three Gentlemen who, as he had already said, would, when their time came, probably occupy high office in some future Government—he meant Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Herries. He did not, in this respect, think that any one could find fault with the selection he had made. There were Gentlemen representing the past, the present, and the future Government of the country. He now came to the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, that all classes of opinion on the subject of the currency ought to be fairly represented in the Committee. He agreed with his hon. Friend, and he believed he had put on the Committee men of every variety of opinion on that subject. He would point out how far this object had been effected. Taking the extreme opinions on the Bill of 1844, namely, those who advocated an inconvertible and depreciated paper currency, on the one hand, and those who supported the utmost restriction imposed by the Act of 1844, on the other, he would mention, as the representative of the former opinion, Mr. Spooner, who certainly entertained opinions as far removed from the Bank Charter Act of 1844 as possible. Then his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, besides going great lengths as to the issue of paper, represented an opinion favourable to the establishment of a silver standard, or a double standard of gold and silver. Next, there was Mr. Hume, who represented the Scotch system, or what was called the free-trade system of banking. That opinion prevailed in Scotland, and was advocated by many Gentlemen on the discussion of the Bill of 1844. Another opinion on the subject of the currency, which had been expressed in that House, was that which advocated the issue of 1l. bank notes. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had put on the Votes a resolution containing the opinion that the issuing of ll. notes was as safe as the issuing of 5l. notes. In point of fact, there were two hon. Gentlemen whose names he had proposed who were the advocates of 1l. notes. Then there was another and more modified opinion, namely, that the mere convertibility of paper was a sufficient protection against any over issues, and that the Bill of 1819 was quite sufficient without the Bill of 1844. That opinion was represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford; and he believed it was also the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. Lastly, an opinion had been constantly expressed, not only last Session, but also this year, that even if the Bill of 1844 were maintained, still there ought to be introduced a power enabling the Government from time to time to relax the restrictive provisions of that Bill. This opinion had been expressed by the hon. Member for Kendal, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon, both of whose names were put upon the Committee. He was not aware of any other diversity of opinion on the subject of the currency than what he had enumerated. Those opinions ranged from the extreme points of an inconvertible and depreciated paper currency to a currency based upon bullion as provided by the Act of 1844. Now, all the names he had mentioned were proposed to be put upon this Committee. He believed that the Committee embraced persons who fairly and fully represented every possible shade of opinion upon the subject. He would briefly allude to one or two other points. It had been said that Scotland was not fairly represented in the Committee. Now, he himself did not attach much importance to having members from particular places, provided all the different opinions were represented in the Committee. But it was well known that Mr. Hume entertained strong opinions upon the subject, and the resolutions of which he had given notice fully represented the opinions entertained by the bankers of Scotland. But the question essentially was, whether there should be an issue of notes beyond a certain amount, without being based on a deposit of bullion? The question was essentially the same in all three countries. There was, however, some difference of opinion in Scotland between different classes of banks; and in order that there should be no complaint on the part of Scotland, he had proposed the name of a gentleman, Mr. Home Drummond, who was a director of one of the chartered banks in Scotland. In respect to Ireland, he had proposed the name of Mr. Tennent, the Member for Belfast. There were six banks of issue in Ireland, three of which were in Belfast, and five out of the six had a direct interest in Belfast; he thought, therefore, that it was very proper the Member for that town should be a member of the Committee. It had been objected, among other things, that the West Riding of Yorkshire was over-represented in the Committee. Now, it so happened that he was connected with that riding; but holding the responsible situation which he held, he could not attribute his place in the Committee to any connexion with the West Riding; as Chancellor of the Exchequer he should be on the Committee, whether he sat for a borough in the West Riding of Yorkshire, or for any borough in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. He had put the name of Mr. Cobden on the Committee without the slightest reference to his being a Member for the West Riding; but because that Gentleman evinced considerable knowledge of the subject in his evidence be- fore the Committee of 1841, and also because he believed the hon. Member to be a most able man upon all matters connected with the trade and commerce of this country, and that he was an enlightened representative of the great manufacturing interests of the country. He did not think it was any disqualification that Mr. Cobden was no longer connected with trade. What was wanted on the part of the Committee was a practical knowledge and an experience of trade; and he did not think men were the less qualified to come to a sound opinion on any subject when that opinion was not likely to be warped by their own individual interests. There was one Gentleman connected with the West Riding, to whom he could not help alluding, he meant Mr. Beckett, the Member for Leeds. That Gentleman represented the largest manufacturing town in the West Riding, and was at the head of one of the best conducted banks in the country. He did not know of any bank which, during the period of commercial distress, extended greater assistance to the trading interests than the Leeds bank. The name of Alderman Thompson was also on the proposed Committee. That Gentleman was a Bank Director, and an employer of labour to a large extent, and was in every respect a proper person to be on the Committee. But those hon. Members who complained that a sufficient number of persons were not on the Committee who employed labour, must have overlooked the names of Mr. Hudson and Mr. Glyn. Those Gentlemen were connected with some of the greatest railways in the country, and employed more workmen than half a dozen manufactories put together. Since, too, much of the commercial distress had been attributed to the large investments of capital in railroads, he thought it was perfectly fair that those Gentlemen should be on the Committee. He would not go any further in analysing the Committee. He hoped, that if the House considered he had constructed the Committee on a sound principle, he should be spared discussing the propriety of proposing particular names. He would now state what he thought would be the exact character of the Committee which he had selected. In the first place, he should propose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth should be the Chairman of the Committee. He thought no choice could be more palatable to the House. His speech in the late discussion was described as a debate in itself, and he did not think any Gentleman could preside over the Committee more satisfactorily to the whole House than his right hon. Friend. He would now read over the names of the Committee as proposed by him, distinguishing those who had expressed an opinion favourable to the Bill of 1844; those who had opposed that Bill, or had expressed a qualifying opinion respecting it; and those who had delivered no opinion at all on the subject. According to this view, he considered there were nine Members who would in all probability support the Bill—namely, himself, Sir R. Peel, Lord J. Russell, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Labouchere, Sir James Graham, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Ricardo, and Sir W. Clay. There were ten Members whose opinions were unfavourable to the Bill, namely, Lord G. Bentinck, Mr. Herries, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. T. Baring, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. J. Wilson. There were six Gentlemen who had not expressed any opinion one way or the other on the question, namely, Mr. Cobden, Mr. W. Beckett, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Home Drummond, and Mr. Tennent. These six were in the position of impartial persons, having given no recorded opinion either for or against the Bill. In this statement of the case, he should be in a minority of one—nine Members of the Committee being supporters of the Bill, ten adverse to it, six not having expressed any opinion on it one way or the other, and the remaining one Member being the Chairman. He would now consider what would be the predominant opinion of the Committee as proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. Mr. Francis Baring would be the Chairman of the Committee as before. There would remain, also, the six Gentlemen, who, having expressed no opinion one way or the other, might be considered impartial men. The remaining Members of the Committee would then stand thus:—The supporters of the Bill would be himself, Sir R. Peel, Lord J. Russell, Mr. Goulburn, and Sir J. Graham—five Members. Those who had expressed an opinion adverse to the Bill, would be Lord G. Bentinck, Mr. Herries, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. T. Baring, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. J. Wilson; and should the noble Lord succeed in his Motion for substituting Members for those he had proposed, then Mr. Hastie and Mr. Henley would strengthen the noble Lord's proportion of the Committee, and give him an absolute majority of seven among those Members whose opinions were pledged. The hon. Member for the city of London (Mr. Pattison) had not positively declared his opinion; but he believed, that it was not very favourable to the provisions of the Bill of 1844. [Mr. PATTISON: Hear!] His hon. Friend said "Hear." He presumed from that cheer that he was unfavourable to the Bill; and the hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown) had last year made a proposal inconsistent with the Act of 1844. Very well, then the result would be that the Committee, if constituted according to the proposal of the noble Lord, would consist of five persons in support of the Bill, and fourteen against it. Now he would appeal to the House whether that was anything like an approach to a fair Committee? He did think, that, as the Committee he had proposed would give a majority of one against him amongst those Members of it who were pledged to their opinions, without taking into account those whose opinions were perfectly free, it could not be said that it was a packed Committee, or that a Committee could be constituted which was more likely to form a fair and an impartial judgment on the subject submitted to them. He wished to say one word more. Two hon. Gentlemen whom he had nominated had expressed a wish not to serve on the Committee—Mr. Herries and Mr. Hume. He should be extremely sorry if those two hon. Members should not consent to be on the Committee. He said this solely on public grounds, because everybody knew the intelligence, acuteness, and long experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries); and the same might be said of the hon. Member for Montrose. No person had for so many years as that hon. Gentleman taken an interest not only in this particular question, but in all questions connected with the trade and commerce of the country. That hon. Member was on the Committee of 1840 and 1841; and no Member displayed greater patience or industry in the examination of witnesses than did that hon. Gentleman, not merely in support of his own views, but for the purpose of drawing forth every description of information upon the subject referred to the consideration of the Committee. It would, therefore, in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion, be a great public disadvantage if those two Gentlemen should decline to serve on this Committee. He considered that all of them had upon so vital a question a great public duty to perform; he therefore confidently hoped that neither of those hon. Members would decline to serve. Should the hon. Member for Montrose, however, persist in his intention not to be on the Committee, then it was intended by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) to propose that Mr. Muntz should be appointed in his stead. All he could say was, that he should be extremely glad to add the name of that hon. Gentleman to the Committee. The only objection he should have to substituting Mr. Muntz for Mr. Hume was, that Mr. Hume, being an advocate of free trade in banking, would be a better representative of the bankers of Scotland than the hon. Member for Birmingham. It would not be fair to constitute such a Committee as that proposed by his noble Friend the Member for Lynn, and therefore he would oppose any alteration in the list he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had offered to the House, with the exception of substituting one name in the place of that of the hon. Member for Montrose, if he should decline to serve. After what he had said, he hoped that impartial people would not think that he had proposed a very unfair Committee. It was painful to him to omit the name of any Member who was anxious to serve on the Committee; but he had discharged his duty to the best of his judgment.


said, he knew not if the selection of the Committee would or would not please the Members of the past, the present, and the future Government of the country; but supposing that it would, he could not but recollect there was a fourth party whom it behoved to pay some attention to the subject—he meant the House of Commons. He thought the House should first decide what were its objects in appointing the Committee, and next whether the Committee so appointed were a fit instrument for carrying their intentions into effect. Before he went further, he must allude to the observations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman below him, to the effect that the appointment and result of this Committee was looked to with considerable anxiety by a large body of suffering tradesmen throughout the country. He, with every other Gentleman in that House, felt exceeding regret that such should be the condition of so large a class of the community; but at the same time he was sure that no one could render them a better service than to convince them that to look for any relief or alleviation of their sufferings to any Committee, or to any report of a Committee, was a perfect delusion; and that it was impossible for either relief or alleviation to come from such a source. He could not understand the principle on which it was proposed this Committee should be appointed. Sometimes it appeared to be geographical, and that a certain number of Members were to be appointed from Scotland, a certain number from Ireland, and so many from the north, south, east, and west of England. At another time it was proposed to represent interests; that there should be some of the great manufacturing interests, some to represent those of agriculture, others banking, and so on. But he did not clearly see what advantage this would produce. If the great manufacturing interests were summoned, all the Gentlemen representing them could do was to tell the House they were in great distress—that they had bought dear and must sell cheap—and that their money was gone. Everybody knew that already. He was quite at a loss to understand how the House could be much benefited by this. The question for the House to consider was, what they wanted to do in appointing this Committee. Did they want to get rid of this dull uninteresting debate by shutting into a room upstairs every Gentleman who troubled them with his opinion on the subject? If that were their object, he thought the House had not acted unwisely in the course they had pursued. But if the representatives of various opinions were to be summoned to serve upon it, he would just suggest that the larger the Committee the more discordant it would be. If it were their object that any practical suggestion should be made, it appeared to him the very essence of the Committee that they should at first all be agreed on the nature of the subject to which they were about to apply themselves. Suppose the House in its wisdom decided on appointing a Committee to ascertain the extent of railways at present in existence throughout the country, and that half a dozen hon. Members were, in obedience to its mandate, to start on the expedition, what would be the result if some two or three of them, on coming to the first line of rails, were to take a foot-rule out of their pockets and proceed to measure with it, and that all the other gentlemen exclaimed, "Oh, that won't do; you are using the old foot-rule, with which you measured turnpike roads and footpaths under the old regime. It won't answer now. You must have an expanding rule to measure railways." There might be gentlemen who would propose a measure of length (as Mr. Cobbett did once), to be determined by the vibrations of a pendulum of a certain length and weight, and at a certain temperature, according to the chord of the are it described; and this might excite much laughter and ridicule, and be called most visionary, as it was at the time. Their opponents would assert, "Everybody knows what a foot-rule is—it is twelve inches." "But what is an inch?" "Oh, it is three barleycorns." The House will perceive that until these Gentlemen were agreed on what the rule should he, it was impossible for them to make any report on the length of the railways in that country. Let them suppose, again, that they appointed a Committee to inquire into the quantity of corn imported into the country under the new law, and that they proceeded to calculate it according to the old measures. What would be the result if they were met by the cry, "Oh, these are the old measures—you must have free trade in bushels as you have it in corn—you cannot measure by the small bushels that did when you only had a home trade." They must go back, in fact, to the old theory, and must proceed to take a fixed measure of quantity to measure corn and everything else capable of being measured with accuracy; and unless the Committee were decided on this point, it was quite evident they could not proceed to any report at all. They had all heard of the rise and fall in prices. Did not those very words refer to a fixed standard, not to one which was moveable, and which rose and fell with the thing to be estimated? As in the case of the pendulum, they had got to another measure, which was a measure of a certain diameter and height—which, filled with water at a fixed temperature, was called a pound, and was the measure of all weights—the measure by which the mass of all the lead, iron, gold, copper, &c., in the empire was determined. And now they came to the last point. What the House wanted was a fixed measure of values. They had already got that fixed measure, because all mankind having agreed to trade by weight, in their fixed pound of gold they had that by which they could measure all their relations with other countries. The pound of gold was fixed, and gold was the metal by which alone all the nations of the world settled their different accounts, and which the State took and stamped in pounds, or aliquot parts of pounds, so as to provide us with the standard by which everything else was measured. There was no meaning whatever in the words "high" or "low," "cheap" or "dear," save in reference to these stamped and fixed pieces of gold. He must, before he sat down, warn the House against being led away by another delusion that existed respecting free trade in banking. Banking was free as air. The only thing that was not free was the privilege of making and issuing paper money. The whole demand that Scotland made was to have that power, and to be at liberty to coin as much paper money as was required. He did not think the opinions of what was called the Birmingham school were incompatible with what he had stated; but the only advantage of the principle he advocated would have been that it would, at the time, have liberated a considerable quantity of capital; and the same effect would have been produced by the system of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. This would have been the whole of the benefit to be expected from these principles, if carried into effect; but it was a delusion to suppose that any alteration whatever of system or systems could permanently pre-vent commercial crises. The House must rest certain, and receive it as a fixed commercial law, that whenever and wherever the price of money was as low in trade as it was in the public funds, over-trading would go on, and commercial crises and difficulties would follow. He concluded, as he began, by asking the House—what did they want? If it were to get rid of what, he confessed, was an exceedingly dull subject, which, like political economy, was very uninteresting, but at the same time very useful, they could not have done better than in taking the course they had adopted; but if it were their intention that any practical result should follow from the appointment of the Committee, let them see that the persons appointed to it were agreed on those principles which were the A B C of the whole question.


quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that if the House wanted to get rid of the question, they could not do better than lock the twenty-six Gentlemen of the Committee in a room upstairs. The House seemed to him to be enacting a scone from Much Ado about Nothing; for if any hon. Member was weak enough to suppose that anything would result from the Committee, there was not, he believed, a single man out of doors, even among the working classes, who was at all interested in the report; for if there was one fact more clearly laid down and demonstrated than another, in the very clever speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, it was the total inutility of any Committee at all. The right hon. Baronet entered into the whole history of every Committee that sat on the question, and had told them there were no less than 15,000 questions and answers in evidence before them. If any hon. Member would turn back, and look at those answers, he would see that some of them, especially those of Mr. Jones Loyd, were essays on banking in themselves. Every one knew the appointment of the Committee was nothing more nor less than a mere pretext to shelve the question. While the commercial world out of doors were looking for some expressed opinion from the Government, assisted by the right hon. Baronet, who had kindly thrown his shield over them for the occasion—they were about to send twenty-six unhappy Gentlemen upstairs to be locked up in a room, and at the end of two years probably they might publish some four or five volumes of a report, and the public would be just as wise as ever. It was quite true he had voted for this Committee; but he was not at all aware at the time that he was voting for the appointment of these Gentlemen. The fact was, he had been so much led away by the clever and brilliant speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that he would on the instant have followed him anywhere. But reasoning calmly and quietly over the matter next morning, and seeing the upshot of the debate, and that it had all ended in the appointment of this Committee, his views were altered, and he greatly regretted he had not followed the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) into the other gallery, because he now thought the House would have exercised a sounder discretion, and have given greater satisfaction to the public, if they had entered into the subject in a Committee of the whole House. He had no criticisms to offer on the nomination of Gentlemen to serve on the Committee; but he maintained, that if they wished to get a fair judgment on the Act of 1844, it would have been better to have selected twenty-six Gentlemen who had not expressed any opinion on the subject, and who would be much more likely to arrive at a clear conclusion if they had never read any books or pamphlets about it. As it was now constituted, every hon. Member would be busy fighting for his own theory; and it was nonsense to suppose the Committee would have any weight with the public out of doors. The public knew, in fact, that the appointment was merely made to shelve the question. Although he knew it was perfectly useless to do so, he meant to propose an Amendment to the nomination of the Committee. As far as in him lay, he would endeavour to do that justice to Ireland of which they heard so much from some hon. Members in the House. When an hon. Member from that country displayed so great a talent for business, and so great a knowledge of this subject, as the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), it was not fair he should be omitted from the Committee; and he would propose, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's name be added to it, in place of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and would certainly divide the House upon the question. He entertained the greatest respect for the business capacity of the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), and no one could more highly estimate his services; but that hon. Gentleman had confessed to him in private his belief that the Committee would be quite futile. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the name of Mr. Reynolds be substituted for that of Mr. Hume.


concurred in a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex. Looking at the question in a practical point of view, he considered that the alterations proposed by the noble Lord beside him and the hon. Member for Finsbury were requisite to ensure a due investigation of the effect of the Act of 1844 upon prices in this country. He (Mr. Newdegate) had asked the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1844 what would be the effect of that Act; but though the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly courteous, it told him nothing, which induced him (Mr. Newdegate) to come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman had not made up his mind upon the subject of his own measure, and that he scarcely contemplated its result. He (Mr. Newdegate) was most anxious, therefore, for an impartial Committee on the present occasion. The misfortune attending former Committees was, that they one and all approached the ques- tion for examination with a strong bias. He trusted that it was not now about to be shelved by the appointment of a Committee with a similar view, who would evade the great practical point at issue—namely, the effect of the Bill upon prices. Some of the hon. Gentlemen proposed were certainly men of great experience; but the hon. Member for Birmingham was largely connected with the home and foreign trade and manufactures of the country, while the hon. Member for Dublin had a practical knowledge of the effect of the Act of 1844 in Ireland; and, therefore, their exclusion was not only to be regretted, but was unjustifiable. Then, with all possible respect for the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, he could not conceal from the House the fact that the hon. Member for South Lancashire had a larger practical knowledge of the operation of that measure upon the trade of the country; while, as regarded the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, all he should say was, that there were so many persons entertaining the opinions of that hon. Member already on the Committee that few would deny the substitution of the name of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire would be for the general advantage. It was the same with respect to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets. In his opinion, the names proposed to be substituted by his noble Friend and the other hon. Members would give more confidence in the Committee to the country at large than was likely to be given if they stood as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose the change sought to be made on it. The Committee were to take into consideration the commercial distress of the country, and he hoped that they would not be cramped by the assertion and maintenance of individual theories. He hoped that the Committee would not only decide upon the standard of value, as suggested by the hon. Member for Surrey, but that it would also decide on the number of standards required by the country. The real practical difficulty to be dealt with was the limitation of the standard to gold. The Act of 1816 excluded silver, and constituted gold as the standard for all practical purposes. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth said, that this country would not go to the expense of enlarging the currency: if that was the case, the Committee ought to report it. He hoped the House would not trifle with the question; and he could assure it that the country would not be satisfied if any attempt was made to shelve it. The House might exclude all discussion of the effect of the Act of 1844 upon prices from the functions of the Committee; but it might rest assured that it could not exclude them from taking place outside its walls; and he moreover assured them that Her Majesty's Government would forfeit the good opinion of the country if it took any steps to suppress such discussion with the view of shelving the question really at issue. He, therefore, hoped there would be no effort made to blink the operation of the Act of 1844 upon prices; and that the House would support its own credit by insisting on the fullest inquiry.


It was not my intention to have attempted to address the House until my proper turn came, and the name of Mr. Labouchere should be proposed as a Member of the Committee; but I feel that I may be consulting the convenience of the House if I rise now and endeavour to draw back its attention to the real matter under consideration—and, if possible, prevent the debate from running into one of the general currency question. It is not my intention, from any thing which has fallen in the course of this discussion, to be tempted into saying a word upon the currency question, but I shall address myself entirely to the construction of this Committee. And, perhaps, I shall also suit the convenience of the House by discussing at once the whole question of the alteration I propose in the Committee; and, although it may be necessary to take several divisions, I will not again trespass upon its indulgence.

In proposing to exclude the names of different Gentlemen from the Committee, I can assure those Gentlemen I do not mean the slightest disrespect or discourtesy towards any of them. I am, by the circumstance that the House stands already pledged to put twenty-six Members and no more on the Committee, reduced to the invidious necessity of excluding the names of certain Members. Addressing myself to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), I can assure him that if I had my choice of all the Members of Her Majesty's Government whose names are placed on this Committee—if he were not fettered by the obligations which I think properly attach to him of submitting his judgment to that of the Government to which he belongs, there is no name which I would so willingly retain as his. I, in common with other Members of the House, hold in the highest estimation the talents and honour of that right hon. Gentleman. And so, in addressing myself to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, I say the same to him. No man can appreciate more fully than I do the great talent and ability of that hon. and learned Gentleman; but, seeking, as I do, to reconstruct the Committee in the least invidious and personal manner, I thought the best course which was open to me was to select for exclusion the two hon. Gentlemen on either side whose names stood lowest down in official rank. This was my sole inducement for selecting the names of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool. In proposing the exclusion of other Gentlemen, I may say in like manner, in addressing myself to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, that I have selected him for exclusion, as representing the least large commercial or manufacturing interest in this country. In proposing to exclude the name of Sir William Clay, I selected him because I thought that both sides ought to be represented, as regards the city of London; and, whilst the noble Lord the Member for the city of London ought to be placed on this Committee, it was proper that some other Member, representing the commercial interests of the city of London, and one not fettered and tied down as the author of a work upon the subject for consideration, should be placed upon the Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that, as far as he can dissect the Committee, there will be fourteen Gentlemen who will take the same views with myself, and only five the opposite view, I confess I am disposed to think differently on the subject. First of all, as the Committee now stands, we have nine Members or ex-Members of the present and late Governments. Now, we know perfectly well that every Member of a Government goes into a Committee with his mind fettered—that he is disabled from exercising his own judgment—and that he must adopt the course pointed out to him by his loader. I rather think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the lead in that Committee, and then all the other Members of the Government will, of course, abstain from any inconveni- ent cross-examination—and, of course, will vote, through thick and thin, with their leader. And, when my right hon. Friend speaks of past, present, and future Governments, I beg to say that there is a great difference between such Gentlemen as my friends the Protectionists, who act independently upon their own judgment, and who are not bound in any way, except so long as they may approve, for the day, of the course which may be recommended to them—and those who have eaten the king's salt. The right hon. Baronet who framed the Bank Charter Act, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are intimately agreed on this subject; indeed, I might almost say that, for all practical purposes, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth is the Government on this question. Nothing was done, we remember, in the way of relaxation until he came to London; and we have learnt in the course of that debate which, for us, was inconveniently burked, that he also entirely approved of everything that was in the letter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Were such facts to be brought before a jury, I do not say that such a jury would not even find that the right hon. Baronet had actually dictated that letter. Well, Sir, I repeat, it strikes me as being a fundamental vice in the construction of this Committee, that it is overwhelmed and swamped by nine Gentlemen who, on all disputed questions, will be banded together as one man. Why, Sir, my friends the Protectionists, and the opponents of the Bank Charter Act, have all their peculiar and different views on the various questions which will arise. They are not pledged to particular views on those questions, as are the two parties who are bound up in the maintenance of the law. What the country desires is, not to see the question referred to a Committee composed so largely of old Members. They want to see some new blood infused into it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he has selected the Committee in the hope of obtaining an impartial judgment from them. Now, it is precisely because I do not expect such a judgment, that I object to the construction of the Committee. The line of the Government is quite decided. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Premier have pledged the Government to stand or fall by the Act of 1844; but this I do know, that the Government must be so disposed. It is true that the noble Lord did consent to break through the bulwarks of that Act; but when did he do so? Not until houses had failed to the amount of fifteen millions. He had refused the deputation from Liverpool; and here, though it is out of the order of my remarks, I may take leave to state the reasons why I propose to nominate the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown) instead of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell). As the Committee stands at present, there is no representative of the cotton manufacturing interest. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cardwell) cannot be considered to represent the cotton interest of Lancashire; and although no man thinks higher of the interests of Liverpool, or that it ought to be represented on the Committee than I do, still I may be permitted to doubt whether the hon. and learned Member does entirely represent the feelings of Liverpool on this subject; and I do not think I am doing any unkind-ness to the hon. Member in excluding him. I am sure he must feel the great difficulty in which he would be placed. As a Member of the late Government he is attached, bound hard and fast, to the opinions of his leader—I say nothing against such attachments—no man admires such attachments more than I do. Still, how would the hon. and learned Member be placed, nominally representing Liverpool on the Committee, and yet holding opinions such as those he has expressed? See how he would be situated—divided between the worship of God and mammon, and how strong the temptation to follow his old leader! But I have another reason. When that deputation waited on the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, although the hon. and learned. Member was dragged up to attend it, he was in fact nothing more than the master of the ceremonies, doing the ornamental part, while the hon. Member for South Lancashire was the spokesman doing the useful and business part. Therefore I think I am justified in saying that, as far as the commercial interests of Liverpool are concerned, Liverpool has by anticipation selected the county Member, in preference to their own Member, to represent the true causes of the commercial distress there. I hope the hon. and learned Member will see that I mean no disrespect or discourtesy of any kind to him. Let us now look a little to the constitution of the members of this Committee. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of any of the other members of the Committee, for my own name stands at the head of those of whom I am speaking. When you appoint on a Committee a Prime Minister, an ex-Prime Minister, three ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, and an ex-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who have sat upon such Committees before, and who are accustomed to extract evidence, other independent Members of the House, who have not been accustomed to sit upon such Committees, and who have not the advantage of the experience of the evidence given on former Committees, will be a very bad match for Gentlemen having that experience, and who are bound together as one man to a particular view of this subject. So that, even if the numbers proposed were equal, still the constitution of the Committee would not be fair. I believe the rest of the House is represented by one ex-Cabinet Minister, and, therefore, I say, that we shall be most unequally matched in quality, even if we were not very much overmatched in quantity. But I think there is another view that may be taken of this matter. I find upon this Committee six Gentlemen who were stated the other night to be Peelites. Eleven more are strong Whigs, and are generally united with the Peelites as one body. Therefore, as the Committee is now constituted, you have seventeen Members who, generally speaking, are of one way of thinking. One of those seventeen—the hon. Member for Montrose—does not mean to sit upon the Committee. I am not disposed to bind the hands of the Committee. A Committee with its hands bound would be of no use. I have now explained why the interests of Lancashire, the cotton interests, and the commercial interests of Liverpool, would be better represented by the hon. Member (Mr. Brown)—a Gentleman who differs as much as possible from me. At the same time, out of the four new names I have suggested I have named but one hon. Gentleman who usually holds the same opinions, and goes as I do. I now come to the case of Scotland. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has taken care to name among those said to be impartial, those hon. Gentlemen who had not taken a very stirring part in politics. But I think I may name, as those who have taken a stirring part in politics, the hon. Member for Perthshire, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. I may also say that their opinions do not coincide with those of the people of Scotland on this subject. The hon. Member the representative of Perthshire is the representative of a chartered bank, possessing a degree of monopoly, and is rather in opposition to the general feeling of the people of Scotland. When I name the hon. Gentleman the representative of the city of London, every man here will feel that no man understands better than he does the business and interests of the city of London. But there is another reason why Mr. Pattison should be on the Committee, and that is, the Bank of England is on its defence. The Bank of England, as the Committee is now constituted, is represented by one Member only, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland. We have strong reason to feel how necessary it is that the Bank should be represented on that Committee, and how necessary it is to have some Gentleman on that Committee who is himself cognisant of the Bank affairs. But for the hon. Member for the city of London, we should have been led to suppose that there had been an entire agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Bank of England as to the division of the profits of usury. And but for the appointment of the one single member of the Committee, to whom I have before referred (Mr. Alderman Thompson), we should have taken as a matter of course the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no one on that Committee would have thought of asking any questions on the subject. This shows how necessary it is to have on the Committee Gentlemen who will represent the Bank of England. Both the late and present Government concur in making that Bank the scapegoat of the Bill of 1844—imposing upon it a great portion of the blame due to that measure. How necessary is it, therefore, that the Bank of England, as well as the commercial interests of the city of London, should be adequately represented in this Committee. And I have an especial right to say the commercial interests of the city of London, for it was the banking and commercial interests of the city of Loudon which at the last moment prevailed upon the Government to take off the restrictions of the Act of 1844. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool and his deputation went up to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly told that deputation that there was no hope for them. Then there came another deputation from the town of Birmingham, headed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Mr. Muntz, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire. The Government were not quite so obdurate on that occasion. They did not say, "There is no hope for you." The noble Lord made a sort of willy-nilly answer. "I do not say I will, or I will not," was the noble Lord's reply. It was not till the Saturday, when the bankers and merchants of the city of London paid a visit to the noble Lord, that Her Majesty's Government at last relented. Happily they came in upon the noble Lord at the time when, unprotected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord was without his chaperon, and, thus abandoned to himself the noble Lord had nothing left but to imitate the example of Donna Julia, when, resisting the warm advances of Don Juan— A little still she strove, and much repented, And whispering 'I will ne'er consent'—consented. This was the way the bankers of the city of London at length prevailed upon the Government to take off that restriction; and we have the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was no sooner taken off than the difficulty passed away. One and all said, "Pray do something for us—pray take care of us—only say you will take care of us—only shed the divine light of your countenances upon us, and all will go right with us;" and so at last he yielded and told us "he felt he should not have done his duty unless he consented to remove those restrictions, and that the moment he did so that tens of thousands of bank notes came out of tens of thousands of tin boxes, and there was an end of the panic." Finding, then, that it was the city of London which at last succeeded in taking off the restriction, I ask whether it is right that the city of London should go altogether unrepresented in this Committee? I think clearly not, and therefore propose to insert the name of Mr. Pattison instead of that of Sir William Clay, whom I respect very much for his independence and straightforward conduct; but I think he is so bound down by the book he has written that he is not fitted to exercise an unshackled judgment. I also propose to exclude the name of Mr. Ricardo. He has no connexion with the commercial and manufacturing interest. The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, a stockbroker, and as such can have little sympathy for the commercial distress of the country. I do not consider that the interests of a stockbroker can be considered a national interest in this country. The hon. Gentleman is, by hereditary right, the representative of the strongest opinions on the subject of currency. It will never be erased from the recollection of the country that it was in a great measure owing to the opinions given by the father of that hon. Gentleman, the late Mr. Ricardo, that the change took place in 1819. I have, therefore, to propose that, instead of the name of Mr. Ricardo, the name of Mr. Henley be inserted. The noble Lord concluded by moving the exclusion of the name of Mr. Labouchere, and the insertion of Mr. Hastie instead; to leave out Mr. Card well, and substitute Mr. William Brown; to leave out Mr. Ricardo, and substitute Mr. Henley; to leave out Sir William Clay, and substitute Mr. Pattison; and, in the room of Mr. Wilson, to substitute Mr. Muntz.


said, that in his opinion the resolution of the House for the appointment of the Committee ought to be rescinded. He was quite sure that that would be the best course both as to the business of the House and the feelings of the country at large. His hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex had said the truth, the simple and naked truth, when he stated that out of doors it was the universal opinion that this Committee was proposed for the purpose of shelving the question, and shirking a full, complete, and efficient inquiry into the operation of the Bank Charter Act of 1844. Practically the right course to pursue would be to rescind the resolution they had agreed to, and appoint a Committee of impartial, unpledged, and uncommitted men, to inquire into the operation of that Act. That was the right course; but necessarily, because it was so, the House would not adopt it. It never did. The chance of adopting the right, or, in fact, any course in that House, was in the inverse ratio of its propriety. He was quite sure the House would not take that course. The Committee was appointed, and in nominating it the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a most difficult duty to perform. It was difficult to prescribe for a disease; but the right hon. Gentleman had been placed in the painful position of having to select the doctors who were to prescribe. The patient, in this case, was almost moribund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called upon to name the doctors. Did they come to their patient as they ought? Did they come to him free from prejudice—free from bias—free from convictions which would not be changed whatever facts might be presented to their view? No. The right hon. Gentleman had selected doctors who had already prescribed for the patient, and they had pretty nearly killed him. The poor patient was John Bull. One set of doctors said there was something the matter with his head; another set said his spine was out of order; another said it was a difficulty of breathing—a shortness of breath; and another said there was something wrong with regard to the circulation—that the circulating medium was out of order. Those doctors had already prescribed their course of treatment, in defiance of facts that ought to have convinced all impartial and philosophical men that they were wrong; they were committed, and so committed and pledged that there was no hope of any investigation they might make with regard to the condition of the patient altering their opinion. They would prescribe their old remedies. One would be for probing the spine; another be for working with his digestive remedies; another for attacking the stomach; another for trying the ordinary gold remedy; whilst another would advise his caustic and silver anti-sudorifics. Their treatment would be diversified—diversified as to opinions and actions—when they were sitting in conclave upon the patient; but they would have their old prescriptions at last, because there was a majority in favour of them. Why, then, that waste of time? Why occupy many months in such a process of incubation? What would the House gain by it? An old hen sitting in a farmyard in assiduous attention to her duties would do more for the farmyard than the labours of this Committee, if they sat for six months, would do for the House. He therefore proposed that the Committee should not sit at all. He trusted the Government would see the objection to it, and give up the intention of engaging the attention of twenty-six hon. Members in pursuing such a fruitless inquiry. He knew that the hon. Member shrank from an investigation into the facts or the effect of the Act of 1844. They said that that would occupy many weeks, but they were to inquire into the causes of commercial distress. When would they come to the Bank Charter? Probably next June, or Juno in 1849. The doctors had been already at work; some had received their fees, others had not been called in and had not received their fees. But there was another party besides the ins and the outs—a party to which he had the honour and pleasure to belong—the Radical party. Upon that Committee there was one Radical Member, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and he declined to serve. In the place of his hon. Friend, he proposed to put another Member of that party—a hardware Gentleman, who had got a very hard head, with some brains in it, and, speaking physically and physiologically, they were of the right sort, and it was only necessary to look at the hon. Gentleman to see that he understood this question. There could be no doubt that it was one which had necessarily engaged much of the hon. Gentleman's attention. He proposed, therefore, to insert the name of Mr. Muntz, instead of the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. It was not necessary that he should offer any apology to his hon. Friend, because he had declined to serve. No person would more value his services upon this Committee; but he had a great regard for his hon. Friend's health, and at his period of life he ought not to be placed in such a situation. His hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) might, he thought, withstand the difficulty in which he would be placed. That hon. Member was a manufacturer—an employer of labour—he had investigated this subject; and he was also a very large foreign merchant, and understood the question of exchanges, though he believed the Government imagined that there was but one man in England besides the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth who did understand that question, and that was a very wealthy man; but he was also told that that individual was very desirous of increasing his wealth. He wished not to speak disrespectfully of an hon. Gentleman who was not in that House to answer for himself; but upon a question of this kind, which affected the industry of the country and the condition of millions of the poor, a wealthy and covetous man was the last he would appeal to. He hoped that the Gentleman was not covetous. For his own part, he mentioned no names. Surely, if a Gentleman presumed to advise Her Majesty's Government on matters of such high importance as the currency and monetary affairs of this kingdom, and if the Government thought it right to adopt the advice of that Gentleman, there was no reason why persons should refrain from all allusion to Mm. It was with great regret that he made any personal reference to that Gentleman; but he had been told that actually he would not incur the legal expense which was necessary to procure him a seat in that House. He might be quite wrong, and the hon. Member for Westbury seemed quite shocked at the idea. It was with pain that he made reference to any one that could be displeasing; but in a question of such great importance, involving as it did the welfare of millions of poor people, he felt bound to say that rich men were not in his opinion the first who ought to be consulted. Generally speaking, they had a morbid desire not only to retain their wealth, but to get as much more as they possibly could. The constitution of the Committee was, in his opinion, most objectionable; but that point had been so fully discussed by the noble Lord, that it was unnecessary to enter upon it now. The right hon. Gentleman had not made the selection he ought with reference to the industry of the country. It was true the right hon. Gentleman had selected two railway directors and employers of labour; but they were employers of labour by their connexion with a public company, and he wished to see those on the Committee who were employers of labour on their own account, single-handed, and who consequently knew the wants and condition of the labouring classes. He had selected Mr. Muntz for the Committee, as a gentleman who had conducted his own business with great credit and repute; as a man of business, as a gentleman much respected in private life, and as one who was believed by a large class of persons to be as well acquainted as any man in the kingdom with the currency question. He had put down the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham without having consulted him; and afterwards that hon. Gentleman had expressed his regret that it had been done, expressing his intention not to serve on the Committee. However, he believed the hon. Member had since changed his mind, and it was to be hoped that, the country would receive the benefit of his services; for he would be both useful and ornamental as a member of such a Committee.


did not wish to appear in the attitude of shrinking from his duty, in declining to serve on this Committee. It was true he was not so young as he had been; but it was not on account of age that he had refused, for he was as well able to serve on a Committee as ever he had been. His refusal had been induced by the conscientious conviction that the appointment of this Committee was placing the important concerns of this country in abeyance, as it were, and handing them over to a Committee to devise means and to ascertain the causes of the distress, instead of the House itself entering upon the inquiry whether the course which had been followed for the last forty years with respect to banks of issue and for the regulation of the currency—when they might as well attempt to regulate the stars—had been beneficial or injurious to the country. The Members proposed for that Committee were men who had fixed their opinions upon these matters, as he himself had done; and their opinions were adverse, as he believed, to the principles that ought to regulate the commercial affairs of this country. Twenty-five years ago he had complained, not of the conduct of the Bank of England, but of the system under which it had been placed; a system under which it could not do its duty. The right hon. Baronet had remarked the other night that certain of the houses which had recently failed ought to have ceased to do business long before, for they had not the capital; and that was just one of the great objections he had to the constitution of the Bank of England and to the currency system of the country, for the Bank was constituted a great bill-broker, and when there was a pressure upon the market it could not come forward to support credit and relieve the distress; for what did they do with the Bank? They took away the whole of its capital. It was shameful that under the present system a great commercial country like this, with the command of so many millions, should be obliged to borrow money to pay the dividends at the Bank. There was another objection which he had formerly made to the present system, and which involved a point that the House itself could decide upon much better than any Committee—it was whether there was anything peculiar in the trade of banking which should take it out of the scope of those rules which ought to regulate all other trades. The House had now come to the conclusion that commercial restrictions were bad, and ought to be removed; and, having so decided that point, and having determined that monopolies were the bane of commerce, he wanted to know what there was in the trade of banking that should take it out of the category. Why were the principles upon which banking was regulated to be different to those of any other trade? He made these remarks with reference to the banks of issue. As to the Committee itself, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had selected Members whose opinions upon the subject were predetermined; but, after all, it was a common-sense question, resolving itself into this—whether there was anything in banking which should exempt it from the ordinary rules of trade. He objected to going into Committee altogether, for they would be going away from the root of the evil. For thirty years they had been trying to regulate their trade and commerce by Acts of Parliament, and, after all their labour, what had been the result? In 1825 the country had lost 250,000,000l. during the crisis; and he believed that 150,000,000l. would not cover the loss during the panic in the present year. And who could tell the amount of private loss and distress that had occurred during the same period? He contended that the constitution of the Bank was wrong in principle, and nothing that a committee could do would cure the evil. What was the state of the Bank when the Government interfered in October last? There were 20,000,000l. of deposits, and the reserve of bank notes which the Bank had to pay those deposits was 1,150,000l.; and let the House observe that those notes were not all in London, but were divided amongst thirteen banks of issue, one of which he had heard had lent 40,000l. or 50,000l. in one transaction to keep up a bank that was in danger in the north. An advantageous contrast to our system was presented by the systems of banking in Scotland and America. In the former country, notwithstanding the great issue of paper, there had been scarcely any variation in the circulation during the whole of the panic. He had no hesitation in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth, and the whole of our recent legislation of banking, had been under the orders of Mr. Jones Loyd. He was prepared to show that there was no man in existence who had offered opinions to the Committee of that House more absurd or more contrary to common sense than that gentleman. On the 17th of July, 1840, Mr. J. Loyd was asked— What in your opinion are the sound principles according to which the circulation should be regulated?—A metallic currency, according to its in- trinsic value, will regulate itself; but a paper currency, having no intrinsic value, ought to be subjected to some artificial regulations respecting its amount. He was next asked what he included in the term "circulation." And his reply was, "Metallic coin and paper money payable in metallic coin on demand." The answers of Mr. Loyd were most deliberate, and he had reason to believe had been duly considered before his examination. He (Mr. Hume) had been requested by hon. Members on that Committee not to interfere with the main inquiry; he had accordingly allowed Mr. Loyd to be examined from first to last, until he was exhausted, and then he begged to be allowed to examine him. Hon. Members would allow him to explain—he meant when Mr. Loyd's voluntary course of examination was over. He would ask any hon. Member to read the questions put by him, and answered by Mr. Loyd, on that occasion, on which that gentleman attempted to fence off from that important principle which he wanted to bring out, viz., that deposits were most important to be taken into consideration, whereas Mr. Loyd held that deposits had not the same power as money in circulation. He (Mr. Hume) put this question— I have 4,000l. in my pocket at this moment. Let us suppose at least that this is the case. I have an account with the Bank of England, and also an account with Drummond's bank. I lodge in Drummond's bank 1,000l., and in the Bank of England 2,000l., and I keep the other 1,000l. in my own pocket. Is there any difference in the value of those notes? Cannot I give a check upon the Bank of England for 2,000l., and a check upon Drummond's bank for 1,000l., and is there any difference between those notes, therefore, and the notes in my own pocket? Oh, yes! it was said, there was a great difference; because, in giving an account of the circulation of the Bank of England, the deposits formed no part of that account, and were never published as part of the circulation. Why, that was his great ground of complaint. He would beg the House to read Mr. Loyd's examination, and judge for themselves how far his opinions were opinions by which they ought to be guided. He would show at a proper opportunity that the great operation had not been on the ordinary circulation, but on the deposits; that in proportion as the gold was withdrawn from the Bank of England, the deposits were lessened, showing that it was through the deposits, and not through the circulation, that the result was brought about. He would ask the House to consider this, that if, with deposits to the extent of 20,000,000l., and only 1,100,000l. to meet those deposits—if this was sufficient to create alarm, what would have been the result if the deposits had been withdrawn from all the private and joint-stock banks in the country, which were understood to have five or six times as much deposits as the Bank of England? They knew that the whole circulation of Scotland was only 3,000,000l. of bank notes; but the deposits were 30,000,000l. The bank directors of Scotland were blamed for keeping up the rate of interest; but who knew what was doing in the way of withdrawing deposits? The bank directors were the best judges, and if they did keep up the rate of interest to 7 or 8 per cent., it should be remembered that they had a circulation of only 3,000,000l. of currency. It was impossible for that House to form any opinion of the cause and extent of the recent pressure, unless the Committee should ascertain what proportion of the deposits had been withdrawn from all the private and joint-stock banks. He was only mentioning those things to show the situation in which the capital and property of every man in the country were placed by the Bank Charter Act. There was not a question of more vital interest than free trade in banking. The question of the corn laws was nothing as compared with the immense importance of the question of free trade in currency; and if they should go blindly acting on a principle which the whole world elsewhere repudiated—which common sense repudiated—and which was contrary to the practice of the last five years, when they had been liberating commerce from its former shackles, and allowing every man to carry on his own affairs in his own way—if they did this, what could they expect but the most lamentable consequences? He gave the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) credit for having established a separate bank of issue. The bank of issue, it was said, would regulate itself. He admitted that it had answered that purpose; and if there had not been a separate bank of issue, he questioned if, by this time, there would have been a bank at all. In conclusion, he begged to say, that he saw no good to be derived from this proposed Committee; but he saw great advantage in keeping the question before that House.


hoped the House would indulge him with a single observa- tion, which, after the reference which had been made to the great mercantile community of Liverpool, and to the course which hon. Members were expected to take in this Committee, his sense of respect for that constituency rendered it imperative he should offer. He really did not feel at all embarrassed by any personal consideration in offering that observation; for, to the noble Lord who proposed to substitute another name for his, he owed nothing but the fullest acknowledgments for the consideration and courtesy of the manner in which that proposal had been made. His object in rising was to read to the House an extract from a speech made in that House by Mr. Horner in 1811. A charge had been made against Mr. Horner that he had entered upon the Bullion Committee of 1810 with preconceived opinions. After that inquiry was over, he was able—submitting himself respectfully to the judgment of the House—to deliver these words:— If it shall be charged against me that I entered into the consideration of this subject with opinions preconceived, to that charge I was liable; and, indeed, I believe every member of the Committee might be charged with equal justice upon the same score. But, without considering whether it be possible to commence any such inquiry free from any such preconceived opinions, I shall venture to say, not only for myself, but for the rest of the Committee, that no investigation ever was begun with a firmer determination to make the most ample, accurate, and impartial scrutiny into the subject, and to suspend judgment till that scrutiny was accomplished. He hoped, when the present inquiry which the House had determined upon should be made, that every member of the Committee would be able—submitting himself to the judgment of the House—to say, as Mr. Horner had said, that the inquiry had been entered upon by the Committee with the greatest determination to suspend their judgment until such inquiry was concluded. For himself, he only wished to say, that if his hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Brown) should be preferred to him, he should make way with the greatest pleasure for one so admirably qualified to take part in the proceedings of the Committee. If, on the other hand, the House should include his name in the list of the Committee, he hoped he might be allowed to claim credit for the motives with which he entered it; for, indeed, the experience of the last three months and the knowledge which had necessarily come to him of the intense suffering which the commercial community had endured, had not been lost upon him; and he hoped, therefore, he might, without too much presumption, be allowed to have credit for no other than this one desire—that they might be enabled to do something to give security in future to commercial transactions, and prevent, by the determination to which they should arrive, a recurrence of these great calamities.


could not permit the House to go to a division without protesting in the strongest manner against the terms in which a previous speaker (Mr. Wakley) had thought fit to allude to a gentleman who was not a member of that House. The hon. Member for Finsbury had stated that Mr. Jones Loyd had been in constant communication with the Members of the present and past Governments in regard to their banking legislation. Now, he (Mr. Stafford) had been informed by an authority which left him no room for doubt—but the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) could contradict him if he was wrong—that on the subject of the Bank Charter Act of 1844, Mr. Loyd had had no communication with Government whatever when that Act was brought forward. But the hon. Member had not stopped there. He had imputed to Mr. Jones Loyd feelings and motives which he (Mr. Stafford) considered to be equally uncalled-for and ungenerous. If it were un-parliamentary in Members to impute motives to each other, surely the case of persons who were not Members of that House, and who could not, therefore, be present to defend themselves, ought to be included in the rule, especially if hon. Gentlemen knew nothing more than the hon. Member for Finsbury appeared to know in this case. As a Member of that House he protested against these imputations, and as a Member for Northamptonshire, and having the honour of Mr. Jones Loyd being one of his constituents, he was happy to inform the House that the character given of that gentleman by the hon. Member for Finsbury was not the character he bore amongst his own neighbours. As one who was intimately connected by property with Ireland, he also begged to remind the House that Mr. Jones Loyd was the Chairman of the British Association for the Relief of Distress in Ireland and Scotland—an association whose charitable exertions redounded not only to the honour of the nation, but to the city in which the work was carried on; and to say that the chairman of that Committee was the last person to whom a charge so unfounded could apply.


complained that so large a majority of persons in the proposed list should be of one opinion. He then proceeded to say, that he believed the appointment of the Committee of 1840 was mainly owing to a report which had been published by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, of which he was president; in which report it was stated that a loss of 40,000,000l. had been occasioned by the mismanagement of the Bank of England in consequence of the expansion and contraction of the currency. He was the first witness who had been examined before that Committee—two thirds of whom, he begged to premise, were disciples of Mr. Loyd, and whose examinations were directed to bring out and establish his views. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was president of that Committee, took in. his hands the report of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and asked if he agreed in the statement that 40,000,000l. had been lost, as there described, by the contraction and expansion of the currency? He replied that he did. He had then placed in his hands a statement of of the issues of the Bank of England; and he was asked what was the circulation of the Bank at such a period, and what at such another period? [Cries of "Divide!"] If it were not the wish of the House to listen to him, he would be happy to sit down; but, as a young Member, addressing the House for the first time, he did hope they would bear with him for a few moments. His reply to the several questions that had been put to him with respect to the circulation of the Bank at different periods was in each case 18,000,000l.; and he well remembered the air of triumph with which the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) tossed his head.

An HON. MEMBER asked what was the precise question before the House?


The question is, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer be appointed a Member of the Committee.

The question was then put as to the appointment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was agreed to. The names of Sir R. Peel, Lord J. Russell, and Lord G. Bentinck were put seriatim, with the same result. On the name of


being put, the right hon. Gentleman rose and said, that he had been very reluctant to allow his name to be placed on the list of the Committee, but had been induced to change Ms mind on its being represented to him that it would be considered a dereliction of duty if he shrank from obedience to the House, should they agree to insert his name.


had no wish whatever to be on the Committee, which he considered to be a very unfair one. It was so considered out of doors, as it was also by many in that House. He was convinced that no good could possibly result from such a Committee, and that no fair inquiry could take place. He had no doubt that there were names on that Committee—such as his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and others, who would be disposed to do the subject justice; and the fact being that they were not known of old as bigoted to their opinions, they would no doubt be disposed to admit their error, and what was better to correct their error. If he lived to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth again at the head of the administration of affairs, he had no doubt that he would see him the first to propose an alteration of the Act of 1844. He said so with the profoundest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He was grateful for what that right hon. Gentleman had already done, and he trusted that in this matter he would add to the other services he had already conferred upon the country. With regard to what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said about his being excluded from the Committee because he was unfavourable to the Act of 1844, he did not know on what grounds his right hon. Friend had come to that conclusion. He certainly, at the time of the passing of the Bill, when asked by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey for his opinion of that Bill, had stated that he thought it would do very well for fine weather, but that when a storm arose it would go to pieces. But he had had no conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and he thought he had no sufficient grounds for the statement he had made. He had been asked during the recent crisis to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and represent the real state of matters to him; but he said he would do no such thing—others might go if they chose, but he knew the right hon. Gentleman better. He knew that his mind was made up, and that they might as well attempt to kick down the Nelson Column or the Duke of York's Pillar with their feet as to move the resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.

The name of Mr. Herries added to the Committee.

On Mr. Labouchere being proposed,

LORD G. BENTINCK moved as an amendment, that the name of Mr. Hastie be substituted.


hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion, because he was satisfied that, if a division took place, and the result should be that Mr. Labouchere was not to be upon the Committee, it would neither be satisfactory to the House nor the country. The right hon. Gentleman occupied the position of President of the Board of Trade; and if an inquiry was to take place as to the influence the present system of banking had upon the interests of the country, then, he thought, it was essential that the head of the department of the Board of Trade should be a Member of that Committee. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion.


would trouble the House with a very few words on this question. In the first place, he begged to make his acknowledgment to the noble Lord for the gratifying expressions he had used towards him when announcing his intention to move the present Amendment. He could assure the House that he had no personal feeling on the subject. He thought the Motion of the noble Lord a perfectly fair one; because if the noble Lord thought the Committee was improperly constituted, and that there was in it too great an infusion of Members holding the same opinions, it was perfectly right in the noble Lord to move the omission of any person who had been proposed. He could therefore assure the House that he had no feeling on the subject. On all occasions of this kind, when it was proposed that the names of Members should be struck off and others inserted, he had always held that such a course was perfectly fair. He said so with the most perfect sincerity; and on the present occasion he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House. When his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him to consent to his proposal that he should become a Member of this Committee, he thought that, holding the official situation he did, he was bound to accept. All he would say was, that if the House placed him on the Committee, he would endeavour faithfully to do his duty. If, on the other hand, they were pleased to elect the hon. Member for Paisley, he had no doubt that that hon. Gentleman would prove a most useful Member of the Committee.

The House divided on the question that Mr. Labouchere be a Member of the Committee:—Ayes 194; Noes 77: Majority 117.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Fortescue, C.
Adair, R. A. S. Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Anson, hon. Col. Fox, R. M.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Freestun, Col.
French, F.
Baines, M. T. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Baring, H. B. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Godson, R.
Barrington, Visct. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bellew, R. M. Gower, hon. F. L.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Grace, O. D. J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Grattan, H.
Bernal, R. Greenall, G.
Birch, Sir T. B. Greene, J.
Blackall, S. W. Greene, T.
Blewitt, R. J. Grenfell, C.W.
Bowring, Dr. Grey, R. W.
Boyd, J. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Boyle, hon. Col. Hall, Sir B.
Brockman, E. D. Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Brotherton, J. Hardcastle, J, A.
Brown, H. Hay, Lord J.
Bunbury, E. H. Hayter, W. G.
Busfeild, W. Headlam, T. E.
Buxton, Sir E. N. Heald, J.
Callaghan, D. Heathcote, Sir W.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Herbert, H. A.
Cardwell, E. Heywood, J.
Carew, W. H. P. Hornby, J.
Clay, J. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Clay, Sir W. Ireland, T. J.
Clements, hon. C. S. Jermyn, Earl
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Jervis, J.
Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B. Keating, R.
Cockburn, A. J. E. Keogh, W.
Cocks, T. S. Keppel, hon. G. T.
Coke, hon. E. K. Langston, J. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Coles, H. B. Lemon, Sir C.
Compton, H. C. Lennox, Lord A.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Lewis, rt. hn. Sir T. F.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Lewis, G. C.
Craig, W. G. Lincoln, Earl of
Currie, R. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Deedes, W. Lushington, C.
Divett, E. Mackinnon, W. A.
Drummond, H. Macnamara, Maj.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. M'Gregor, J.
Duff, J. M'Naghten, Sir E.
Duncuft, J. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Dundas, Sir D. M'Tavish, C. C.
Dundas, G. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Dunne, F. P. Mahon, Visct.
Ebrington, Visct. Maitland, T.
Elliott, hon. J. E. Marshall, J. G.
Evans, J. Marshall, W.
Fagan, J. Matheson, A.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Matheson, Col.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. Maule, rt hon. F.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Melgund, Visct.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Mitchell, T. A.
Monsell, W. Smith, J. B.
Morpeth, Visct. Somerset, Lord G.
Morison, Gen. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Mulgrave, Earl of Spearman, H. J.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Strickland, Sir G.
Nugent, Sir P. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
O'Brien, J. Stuart, Lord D.
O'Flaherty, A. Talfourd, Serj.
Ogle, S. C. H. Tancred, H. W.
Ord, W. Tenison, E. K.
Ossulston, Lord Tennent, R. J.
Paget, Lord C. Thesiger, Sir F.
Parker, J. Thicknesse, R. A.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Thompson, Col.
Peel, Col. Thornely, T.
Peto, S. M. Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Pigott, F. Towneley, J.
Pilkington, J. Townley, R. G.
Raphael, A. Turner, E.
Reid, Col. Turner, G. J.
Rendlesham, Lord Vane, Lord H.
Repton, G. W. J. Wall, C. B.
Reynolds, J. Walmsley, Sir J.
Ricardo, J. L. Ward, H. G.
Ricardo, O. Watkins, Col. L.
Rich, H. West, F. R.
Robartes, T. J. A. Westhead, J. P.
Russell, Lord J. Williams, J.
Russell, F. C. H. Wilson, J.
Salwey, Col. Wilson, M.
Scholefield, W. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Scrope, G. P. Wood, W. P.
Scully, F. Wyvill, M.
Seymer, H. K. Young, J.
Shelburne, Earl of TELLERS.
Sidney, T. Tufnell, H.
Slaney, R. A. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C. Hall, Col.
Archdall, Capt. M. Harris, hon. Capt.
Arkwright, G. Hastie, A.
Bankes, G. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Bennet, P. Hildyard, R. C.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hood, Sir A.
Blackstone, W. S. Hume, J.
Boldero, H. G. Ingestre, Visct.
Bremridge, R. Knox, Col.
Broadley, H. Lacy, H. C.
Broadwood, H. Law, hon. C. E.
Buck, L. W. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Burghley, Lord Lockhart, A. E.
Cabbell, B. B. Lockhart, W.
Cayley, E. S. Long, W.
Clive, Visct. Lowther, H.
Codrington, Sir W. Mackenzie, W. F.
Deering, J. Manners, Lord G.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. March, Earl of
Disraeli, B. Masterman, J.
Duff, G. S. Maunsell, T. P.
Duncan, G. Meux, Sir H.
Duncombe, hon. G. Neeld, J.
Du Pre, C. G. Neeld, J.
Edwards, H. O'Connor, F.
Ewart, W. Osborne, R.
Farrer, J. Packe, C. W.
Floyer, J. Pattison, J.
Forbes, W. Prime, R.
Fordyce, A. D. Renton, J. C.
Fuller, A. E. Robinson, G. R.
Goring, C. Sibthorp, Col.
Gwyn, H. Spooner, R.
Halford, Sir H. Stephenson, R.
Thornhill, G. Waddington, H. S.
Tollemache, J. Wakley, T.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. Willoughby, Sir H.
Urquhart, D. TELLERS.
Vyse, R. H. R. H. Newdegate, C. N.
Waddington, D, Beresford, Maj.

Main question agreed to, and Mr. Labouchere placed on the Committee.

On the name of Mr. Cardwell being proposed, it was moved that the name of Mr. W. Brown be substituted; and the House divided on the question that Mr. Cardwell be a Member of the Committee:—Ayes 167; Noes 101: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T, N. Fortescue, C.
Adair, R. A. S. Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Hanson, hon. Col. Fox, R. M.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Freestun, Col.
French, F.
Bailey, J. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Baines, M. T. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Baring, H. B. Godson, R.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Barrington, Visct. Gower, hon. F. L.
Bellew, R. M. Grace, O. D. J.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Greenall, G.
Bernal, R. Greene, T.
Birch, Sir T. B. Greenfell, C. W.
Blackall, S. W. Grey, R. W.
Boyd, J. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Boyle, hon. Col. Hall, Sir B.
Brockman, E. D. Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Brotherton, J. Hardcastle, J. A.
Bunbury, E. H. Hay, Lord J.
Busfeild, W. Hayter, W. G.
Buxton, Sir E. N. Headlam, T. E.
Callaghan, D. Heathcote, Sir W.
Carew, W. H. P. Herbert, H. A.
Clay, J. Heywood, J.
Clay, Sir W. Hornby, J.
Clements, hon. C. S Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Ireland, T. J.
Clive, Vict. Jerymn, Earl
Cochrane, A. D.R.W.B. Jervis, J.
Cockburn, A. J. E. Keog, W.
Cocks, T. S. Keppel, hon. G. T.
Coke, hon. E. K. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Langston, J. H.
Coles, H. B. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Compton, H. C. Lemon, Sir C.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Lennox, Lord A.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Craig, W. G. Lewis, G. C.
Currie, R. Lincoln, Earl of
Deedes, W. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Divett, E. Lockhart, A. E.
Drummond, H. Lushington, C.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Mackinnon, W. A.
Duncuft, J. Macnamara, Maj.
Dundas, Sir D. M'Naghten, Sir E.
Dundas, G. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Ebrington, Visct. M'Tavish, C. C.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Evans, J. Mahon, Visct.
Fagan, J. Maitland, T.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. Marshall, J. G.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Marshall, W.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Matheson, A,
Matheson, Col. Slaney, R. A.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Somerset, Lord G.
Melgund, Visct. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Mitchell, T. A. Spearman, H. J.
Monsell, W. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Morpeth, Visct. Stuart, Lord D.
Morison, Gen. Talfourd, Serj.
Mulgrave, Earl of Tancred, H. W.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Tenison, E. K.
O'Brien, J. Thesiger, Sir F.
Ord, W. Thicknesse, R. A.
Paget, Lord C. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Parker, J. Towneley, J.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Townley, R. G.
Peel, Col. Turner, E.
Peto, S. M. Vane, Lord H.
Pigott, F. Verney, Sir H.
Raphael, A. Waddington, D.
Reid, Col. Wall, C. B.
Repton, G. W. J. Ward, H. G.
Ricardo, J. L. Watkins, Col. L.
Ricardo, O. West, F. R.
Rich, H. Wilson, J.
Robartes, T. J. A. Wilson, M.
Russell, Lord J. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Russell, F. C. H. Wood, W. P.
Scrope, G. P. Wyvill, M.
Scully, F. Young, J.
Seymer, H. K. TELLERS.
Shelburne, Earl of Tufnell, H.
Sidney, T. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C. Halford, Sir H.
Archdall, Capt. M. Hall, Col.
Arkwright, G. Harris, hon. Capt.
Bankes, G. Hastie, A.
Bennet, P. Heald, J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Blackstone, W. S. Hildyard, R. C.
Blewitt, R. J. Hood, Sir A.
Boldero, H. G. Hume, J.
Bowring, Dr. Ingestre, Visct.
Bremridge, R. Keating, R.
Broadley, H. Knox, Col.
Broadwood, H. Lacey, H. C
Brown, H. Law, hon. C. E.
Buck, L. W. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Burghley, Lord Lockhart, W.
Cabbell, B. B. Long, W.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Lowther, H.
Cayley, E. S. Mackenzie, W. F.
Codrington, Sir W. M'Gregor, J.
Deering, J. Manners, Lord G.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T. March, Earl of
Disraeli, B. Masterman, J.
Duff, G. S. Maunsell, T. P.
Duff, J. Meux, Sir H.
Duncan, G. Neeld, J.
Duncombe, hon. O. Neeld, J.
Dunne, F. P. Nugent, Sir P.
Du Pre, C. G. O'Connor, F.
Edwards, H. O'Flaherty, A.
Ewart, W. Osborne, R.
Farrer, J. Ossulston, Lord
Floyer, J. Packe, C. W.
Forbes, W. Pattison, J.
Fordyce, A. D. Pilkington, J.
Fuller, A. E. Prime, R.
Goring, C. Renton, J. C.
Grattan, H. Reynolds, J.
Greene, J. Robinson, G. R.
Gwyn, H. Rufford, F.
Salwey, Col. Urquhart, D.
Scholefield, W. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Sibthorp, Col. Waddington, H. S.
Smith, J. B. Wakley, T.
Smollett, A. Walmsley, Sir J.
Spooner, R. Wawn, J. T.
Stephenson, R. Westhead, J. P.
Strickland, Sir G. Williams, J.
Thompson, Col. Willoughby, Sir H.
Thornhill, G. TELLERS.
Tollemache, J. Newdegate, C. M.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. Beresford, Maj.

Main question agreed to, and Mr. Card-well placed on the Committee.

On the question that Mr. Hume be a Member of the Committee,

MR. WAKLEY moved as an Amendment, that the name of Mr. Hume be left out, in order that the name of Mr. Muntz might be substituted. The hon. Member added: I wish to take this opportunity, on the first occasion of again addressing the House, to express my great regret that I made a reference to a gentleman who is not a Member of this House, which reference I sincerely feel that I was not justified in making. I acknowledge that in making it I was guilty of an offence towards the House as well as towards the individual; I am sorry for it, and will not commit the same offence again.


was sorry to hear that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), who had left the House, was unwilling to serve on the Committee. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had a strong opinion that the hon. Member ought to be on the Committee; perhaps the fairest way would be for the House to express its opinion whether he ought to serve; and if, being appointed, he should decline, one of the other names proposed could be substituted.

The House divided on the question that Mr. Hume's name stand part of the question:—Ayes 188; Noes 97: Majority 91.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Bramston, T. W.
Adair, R. A. S. Broadley, H.
Anson, hon. Col. Brockman, E. D.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Brotherton, J.
Bruce, Lord E.
Baines, M. T. Bunbury, E. H.
Baring, H. B. Busfeild, W.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Buxton, Sir E. N.
Bellew, R. M. Callaghan, D.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Campbell, hon. W. F.
Birch, Sir T. B. Cardwell, E.
Blewitt, R. J. Carew, W. H. P.
Bouverie, E. P. Clay, J.
Bowring, Dr. Clay, Sir W.
Boyd, J. Clements, hon. C. S.
Boyle, hon. Col. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cockburn, A. J. E. M'Naghten, Sir E.
Cocks, T. S. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Coke, hon. E. K. M'Tavish, C. C.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Coles, H. B. Mahon, Visct.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Maitland, T.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Manners, Lord G.
Craig, W. G. Marshall, J. G.
Currie, R. Marshall, W.
Damer, hon. Col. Masterman, J.
Deedes, W. Matheson, A.
Divett, E. Matheson, Col.
Drummond, H. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Melgund, Visct.
Duff, G. S. Mitchell, T. A.
Duff, J. Monsell, W.
Duncan, G. Moody, C. A.
Dundas, Sir D. Morgan, H. K. G.
Dundas, G. Morpeth, Visct.
Ebrington, Visct. Morison, Gen.
Elliott, hon. J. E. Mulgrave, Earl of
Evans, Sir De L. Mure, Col.
Evans, J. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Ewart, W. Nugent, Sir P.
Fagan, J. O'Brien, J.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. O'Flaherty, A.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Ord, W.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Osborne, R.
Fordyce, A. D. Paget, Lord C.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Parker, J.
Fox, R. M. Pattison, J.
Freestun, Col. Peel rt. hon. Sir R.
French, F. Peel, Col.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Peto, S. M.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Pigott, F.
Godson, R. Pilkington, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Raphael, A.
Grace, O. D. J. Reid, Col.
Grattan, H. Ricardo, J. L.
Greene, J. Ricardo, O.
Greene, T. Rich, H.
Gregson, S. Robartes, T. J. A.
Grenfell, C. W. Romilly, J.
Grey, R. W. Russell, Lord J.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Russell, F. C. H.
Hall, Sir B. Scrope, G. P.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Scully, F.
Hardcastle, J. A. Shelburne, Earl of
Hastie, A. Sidney, T.
Hay, Lord J. Slaney, R. A.
Hayter, W. G. Smollett, A.
Herbert, H. A. Somerset, Lord G.
Heywood, J. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Hood, Sir A. Spearman, H. J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Strickland, Sir G.
Jermyn, Earl Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Jervis, J. Stuart, Lord D.
Keating, R. Sutton, J. H. M.
Keogh, W. Talfourd, Serj.
Keppel, hon. G. T. Tancred, H. W.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Tennent, R. J.
Langston, J. H. Thesiger, Sir F.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Thicknesse, R. A.
Lemon, Sir C. Thompson, Col.
Lennox, Lord A. Thornely, T.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Towneley, J.
Lewis, G. C. Townley, R. G.
Lincoln, Earl of Turner, E.
Lockhart, A. E. Vane, Lord H.
Lushington, C. Verney, Sir H.
Mackinnon, W. A. Wall, C. B.
Macnamara, Maj. Walmsley, Sir J.
M'Gregor, J. Ward, H. G.
Watkins, Col. L. Wilson, M.
Wellesley, Lord C. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C,
West, F. R. Wyvill, M.
Westhead, J. P. Young, J.
Wilcox, B. M. TELLERS.
Willoughby, Sir H. Tufnell, H.
Wilson, J. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C. Knight, F. W.
Archdall, Capt. M. Knox, Col.
Arkwright, G. Lacy, H. C.
Bailey, J. Law, hon. C. E.
Bankes, G. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Barrington, Visct. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Bennet, P. Lockhart, W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Long, W.
Beresford, W. Lowther, H.
Blackall, S. W. Mackenzie, W. F.
Blackstone, W. S. March, Earl of
Boldero, H. G. Maunsell, T. P.
Bremridge, R. Meux, Sir H.
Broadwood, H. Neeld, J.
Brown, H. Neeld, J.
Buck, L. W. Newdegate, C. G.
Burghley, Lord O'Connor, F.
Cabbell, B. B. Ossulston, Lord
Clive, Visct. Packe, C. W.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Prime, R.
Codrington, Sir W. Renton, J. C.
Compton, H. C. Reynolds, J.
Deering, J. Richards, R.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Robinson, G. R.
Disraeli, B. Salwey, Col.
Duncombe, hon. O. Scholefield, W.
Duncuft, J. Seymer, H. K.
Dunne, F. P. Sibthorp, Col.
Du Pre, C. G. Spooner, R.
Edwards, H. Stafford, A.
Farnham, E. B. Stanley, E.
Farrer, J. Stephenson, R.
Floyer, J. Stuart, J.
Forbes, W. Tenison, E. K.
Fortescue, C. Thompson, Ald.
Fuller, A. E. Thornhill, G.
Gaskell, J, M. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Goring, C. Tollemache, J.
Grogan, E. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Gwyn, H. Urquhart, D.
Hall, Col. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Harris, hon. Capt. Waddington, D.
Headlam, T. E. Waddington, H. S.
Heald, J. Wawn, J. T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Williams, J.
Hildyard, R. C. Wood, W. P.
Hornby, J.
Houldsworth, T. TELLERS.
Ingestre, Visct. Wakley, T.
Ireland, T. J. Cayley, E. S.

On the main question being put,


hoped this was not an attempt to get rid of the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), by a mode which could not be justified by honourable dealing, under pretence that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had not absolutely declined to serve. It was so irregular to press the name of au hon. Member who had deliberately, both in pub- lic and in private, expressed his determination not to serve, that he felt bound to move that the debate be adjourned.


seconded the Motion. What could the country expect from this Committee, when it was evidently indifferent to the Government whether they nominated live men or dead? Their only determination seemed to be, to override the wishes of independent Members. The sooner the appointment of this Committee was rescinded the better.


thought the hon. Member for Finsbury could not have accurately understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had stated, that as several Gentlemen considered that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had only said that he did not wish to serve, and that he would comply with any order of the House, it would not be right at once to give up his name, as it had been printed in the Votes; but that if, being appointed, he should decline to serve, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be willing to substitute one of the names proposed to be inserted in its place by the hon. Members for Fins-bury and Middlesex (Mr. Wakley and Mr. Osborne). He (Lord J. Russell) could assure the hon. Member opposite, that the Government was not so much frightened as he supposed at the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).


said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had undoubtedly expressed great unwillingness to serve; but it was a sort of nolo episcopari, and when the hon. Member knew that so large a majority had expressed their opinion that it was desirable he should be on the Committee, there need be no doubt that he would give his services with the zeal and industry for which he was so distinguished.


said, that as different versions had been given as to what the real wish of the hon. Member for Montrose was, it would be better to wait till the hon. Member himself came to the House, and stated decidedly what it was his intention to do. If the hon. Member should say that he wished not to serve, then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should not have the slightest objection either to Mr. Hastie or Mr. Muntz being appointed in his place. Indeed, he was not quite sure whether he did not agree more nearly with the hon. Member for Birmingham than with the hon. Member for Montrose on this question. But he did not think a fitter person could, on public grounds, be appointed than Mr. Hume.


hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would not persevere in his Motion. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for Finsbury and his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex would be the last two Members of that House to consent to the exclusion of Mr. Hume from the Committee, if that hon. Gentleman could be induced to servo. He, for one, could not consent to his exclusion; but he had divided against the Motion upon the impression that Mr. Hume had positively declined to serve. He thought this point should be cleared up before any further step were taken for the exclusion of Mr. Hume. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fairly stated to the House, that if Mr. Hume would not serve, he would consent to nominate either Mr. Muntz or Mr. Hastie.


explained, that he had several times heard the hon. Member for Montrose distinctly and emphatically say that he would not serve on the Committee; and when the hon. Member for Finsbury alluded to a statement to that effect made to him in private, he distinctly saw the hon. Member for Montrose move his hat in assent to the accuracy of that statement. The hon. Member having left the House, he should support the Motion for adjourning the debate, to afford an opportunity to that hon. Member to retract his determination; and, should he not do so, then he would move the substitution of Mr. Muntz instead of Mr. James Wilson.


thought the House ought not to part lightly with the power of expressing its opinion with regard to the duty which hon. Members owed to the public in serving on Committees. If the House thought that any particular Member ought to serve on a Committee, it ought not lightly to decline the duty which devolved upon it of expressing such to be its opinion. He gave his vote for including Mr. Hume in the Committee; but he could assure the House that the last thing that entered into his mind was to intimate a wish to exclude Mr. Muntz or Mr. Hastie from the Committee. He considered that Mr. Muntz, from the attention which he had paid to the subject, and from his position as Member for Birmingham, would be a very fit person to take a part in the proposed inquiry. He also thought that it would be desirable to have the Scotch banking system represented, either by Mr. Hastie, the Member for Paisley, or Mr. Hastie, the Member for Glasgow. But he did not understand that the hon. Member for Montrose had expressed a positive intention to withdraw if he should be appointed; and, considering the long period of his labours, and that he had stated that day that his age formed no impediment whatever—which he was sure it did not—to the faithful performance of his public duties, and considering further the disinterestedness which that hon. Member had always shown in his public character, he (Sir R. Peel) thought the nomination of the hon. Member would be but a just compliment on the part of the House, as testifying that in their opinion the hon. Gentleman was in every respect well qualified to perform the duties required in the Committee. But in case the hon. Member, after being made aware of the opinion of the House as to his fitness for serving, and as to the desirableness of his serving on the Committee, should still express a wish to retire from it, then he should be most perfectly willing to vote for substituting Mr. Hastie, or any other hon. Member who should be considered as representing the Scotch banking interest; or, if the hon. Member for Finsbury should have precedence and should propose Mr. Muntz, he (Sir R. Peel) should feel perfectly inclined to vote for the nomination of that hon. Gentleman. He should, however, advise the House to persist in the feeling they had already manifested in having, on public grounds, chosen the hon. Member for Montrose to serve on the Committee; and if that hon. Gentleman should hereafter signify his wish to withdraw, it would then be competent for the House to substitute some other Member. He could say with regard to his right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford, that he had expressed a personal wish not to serve on the Committee; but, as soon as he saw it was the desire of the House that his name should be included, he immediately withdrew his objection.


considered himself placed in a very unfair position by what had transpired. It would have been the last thing in his thoughts to propose any Member in the place of Mr. Hume. No person entertained for the character of that Gentleman higher respect than he did. He should never have thought of proposing to substitute Mr. Muntz for Mr. Hume, if the latter Gentleman had not again and again declared that he would not serve on the Committee. But, thinking there was this hiatus, he was delighted with the opportunity of proposing Mr. Muntz to fill the vacancy. The House appeared to be perfectly Bewildered with reference to the intentions of Mr. Hume. That Gentleman declared that he would not serve, and he believed the hon. Member for Montrose was a man of veracity, and that he would adhere to his determination; he (Mr. Wakley), could not, therefore, understand why the debate as to the nomination of Mr. Hume should not be adjourned to a future day. The House might go on with the other names till the hon. Gentleman should appear in his place and say whether he would serve or not.


said, that he had asked the hon. Member for Montrose whether he persisted in his determination not to serve, and his answer was, "Certainly." He hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would accede to the advice which had been given him, and not persevere in his Motion for adjournment.

Motion for adjournment withdrawn, and the name of Mr. Hume added to the Committee.

On the name of Mr. Ricardo being proposed,


proposed that the name of Mr. Henley be substituted.


would put it to Her Majesty's Ministers whether they considered they were acting fairly towards the agricultural interest. There was not the name of one country Gentleman representing the agricultural interest upon the Committee. He would ask the Government whether they thought they would obtain credit with the country by the course they were now pursuing? The Act of 1844 was on its trial, and there were fifteen members on the Committee whose opinions were known to be favourable to that Act, while there were only eleven who had expressed an opinion against it.


was quite sure that the public at large would have no confidence in a report coming from a Committee constituted as this evidently would be.

The House divided on the question that the name of Mr. Ricardo stand part of the question:—Ayes 172: Noes 105; Majority 67.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Arundel and Surrey, Earl of
Adair, R. A. S.
Anson, hon. Col. Baines, M. T.
Baring, H. B. Keating, R.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Keogh, W.
Bellew, R. M. Keppel, hon. G. T.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Birch, Sir T. B. Langston, J. H.
Blackall, S. W. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Bouverie, E. P. Lemon, Sir C.
Bowring, Dr. Lennox, Lord A.
Boyd, J. Lewis, G. C.
Boyle, hon. Col. Lincoln, Earl of
Brockman, E. D. Lushington, C.
Brotherton, J. Mackinnon, W. A.
Brown, H. Macnamara, Major
Bruce, Lord E. M'Gregor, J.
Bunbury, E. H. M'Naghten, Sir E.
Busfeild, W. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Callaghan, D. M'Tavish, C. C.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Cardwell, E. Mahon, Visct.
Chaplin, W. J. Maitland, T.
Clay, J. Marshall, J. G.
Clay, Sir W. Marshall, W.
Clements, hon. C. S. Matheson, A.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Matheson, Col.
Cockburn, A. J. E. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Cooks, T. S. Melgund, Visct.
Coke, hon. E. K. Mitchell, T. A.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Monsell, W.
Coles, H. B. Morpeth, Visct.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Morison, Gen.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Mulgrave, Earl of
Craig, W. G. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Currie, R. Nugent, Sir P.
Divett, E. O'Brien, J.
Drummond, H. Ord, W.
Duncan, G. Paget, Lord C.
Dundas, Sir D. Palmerston, Visct.
Dundas, G. Parker, J.
Dunne, F. P. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Ebrington, Visct. Peel, Col.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Peto, S. M.
Evans, Sir De L. Pilkington, J.
Evans, J. Pinney, W.
Ewart, W. Raphael, A.
Fagan, J. Reid, Col.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. Reynolds, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Ricardo, O.
Fordyce, A. D. Rich, H.
Fortescue, C. Robartes, T. J. A.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Romilly, J.
Fox, R. M. Russell, Lord J.
Freestun, Col. Russell, F. C. H.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Salwey, Col.
Godson, R. Scrope, G. P.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Scully, F.
Grattan, H. Seely, C.
Greene, T. Shelburne, Earl of
Gregson, S. Sidney, T.
Grenfell, C. W. Simeon, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Slaney, R. A.
Grey, R. W. Smith, J. A.
Hall, Sir B. Somerset, Lord G.
Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Hardcastle, J. A. Spearman, H. J.
Hastie, A. Strickland, Sir G.
Hay, Lord J. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Hayter, W. G. Stuart, Lord D.
Headlam, T. E. Sutton, J. H. M.
Herbert, H. A. Talfourd, Serj.
Heywood, J. Tancred, H. W.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Tenison, E. K.
Jermyn, Earl Tennent, R. J.
Jervis, J. Thesiger, Sir F.
Thicknesse, R. A. Willcox, B. M.
Thompson, Col. Williams, J.
Thornely, T. Wilson, J.
Tollemache, hon. F. J. Wilson, M.
Turner, E. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Vane, Lord H. Wood, W. P.
Wall, C. B. Wrightson, W. B.
Walmsley, Sir J. Wyvill, M.
Ward, H. G. Young, J.
Watkins, Col. L. TELLERS.
West, F. R. Tufnell, H.
Westhead, J. P. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Alexander, N. Lacy, H. C.
Anstey, T. C. Law, hon. C. E.
Archdall, Capt. M. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Arkwright, G. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Bankes, G. Lockhart, A. E.
Barrington, Visct. Lockhart, W.
Bennet, P. Lowther, H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Mackenzie, W. F.
Blackstone, W. S. Manners, Lord G.
Blewitt, R. J. March, Earl of
Boldero, H. G. Masterman, J.
Bramston, T. W. Maunsell, T. P.
Bremridge, R. Meux, Sir H.
Broadley, H. Moody, C. A.
Broadwood, H. Morgan, H. K. G.
Buck, L. W. Mure, Col.
Burghley, Lord Neeld, J.
Cabbell, B. B. Neeld, J.
Carew, W. H. P. O'Connor, F.
Cayley, E. S. Osborne, R.
Clive, Visct. Ossulston, Lord
Cobbold, J. C. Packe, C. W.
Codrington, Sir W. Pattison, J.
Compton, H. C. Pigott, F.
Deedes, W. Prime, R.
Deering, J. Rendlesham, Lord
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Renton, J. C.
Disraeli, B. Richards, R.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Robinson, G. R.
Duff, J. Scholefield, W.
Duncombe, hon. O. Seymer, H. K.
Duncuft, J. Sibthorp, Col.
Du Pre, C. G. Smollett, A.
Edwards, H. Spooner, R.
Farnham, E. B. Stafford, A.
Farrer, J. Stanley, E.
Floyer, J. Stephenson, R.
Forbes, W. Stuart, J.
Frewen, C. H. Thompson, Ald.
Fuller, A. E. Thornhill, G.
Gaskell, J. M. Tollemache, J.
Goring, C. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Greene, J. Urquhart, D.
Gwyn, H. Verner, Sir W.
Halford, Sir H. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Hall, Col. Waddington, D.
Harris, hon. Capt. Waddington, H. S.
Heald, J. Wakley, T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Wawn, J. T.
Hildyard, R. C. Wellesley, Lord C.
Hood, Sir A. Willoughby, Sir H.
Hornby, J.
Ingestre, Visct. TELLERS.
Ireland, T. J. Newdegate, C. N.
Knox, Col. Beresford, Major

The name of Mr. Ricardo was added.

On the name of Mr. Glyn being proposed,

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE moved that the name of Mr. J. Reynolds, the Member for the city of Dublin, should be substituted for that of Mr. Glyn. He did so, not only because Mr. Reynolds was an Irish Member, but because the hon. Gentleman was a man possessing great practical knowledge upon the subject of banking. The hon. Member for Finsbury, when proposing the name of Mr. Muntz, had spoken of the great ability of that hon. Gentleman. He did not deny his ability; but the House had already sufficient evidence of the talent and knowledge possessed by the hon. Member for the city of Dublin. The hon. Member for Finsbury had said, that if they only looked at the hon. Member for Birmingham, they could not fail to understand him. He would say, in reply—if they only looked at the hon. Member for Dublin, they must understand him; for he was sure that the appearance of that hon. Member was quite as much in his favour as the appearance of the hon. Member for Birmingham was in his. He had no objection to Mr. Glyn personally; but, seeing that there was only one Member on the Committee who represented the interests of Ireland, and that Member connected with the extreme north, he felt it his duty to move, "that instead of the name of Mr. Glyn being inserted, it should be left out, and the name of Mr. J. Reynolds be substituted."


felt as strongly as the hon. Member for Middlesex did that the hon. Member for the city of Dublin ought to be on the Committee; but at the same time he must say that Mr. Glyn was not a Gentleman to be set aside and omitted from this Committee. Mr. Glyn was known to be a Whig and a strong party man; his opinions did not, he believe, concur with those which he (Lord G. Bentinck) entertained on the subject of the Bank Charter Act; for he was known to have refused signing a petition got up last June by the merchants and bankers of London, praying for a relaxation of the restrictions of that Act; there were some reasons, therefore, for supposing that Mr. Glyn was not favourable to the views which he (Lord G. Bentinck) took with respect to that measure. Nevertheless Mr. Glyn had more business than any banker in London; he presumed, therefore, that he did more business than any banker in the world. He was a man of strong mind and of great ability, and was well known to everybody as the chairman of the London and North-Western Railway. In every way, there- fore, it seemed to him that there could be no fitter Member than Mr. Glyn to be on this Committee. It was certainly his wish to see Mr. Reynolds on the Committee; but he could not consent to substitute that Gentleman's name for the name of Mr. Glyn.


thanked the hon. Member for Middlesex for the compliment he had paid to his appearance. He begged to state, that although he should be prepared to act on the Committee if nominated, he would respectfully decline serving in the room of so eminent an authority as Mr. Glyn; and therefore he must request the hon. Member for Middlesex to withdraw his Motion. His feeling was so strong on the point, that, on seeing his name proposed in the paper as a substitute for that of the hon. Member for Marlborough, he declared to that hon. Member that he should feel himself placed in a most invidious position if he were to be placed in competition as it were with one who was so much better qualified to act on the Committee than he was; and it was only upon the distinct assurance of the hon. Member that he had made up his mind not to serve on the Committee that he permitted his name to remain upon the paper. He now begged that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. He thought, certainly, that Ireland was not adequately represented in the Committee. Mr. Tennent was doubtless a person most fit to serve on the Committee; but, bearing in mind that Ireland had suffered more than any other part of the kingdom from the monopoly of banking, it was surprising that only one Irish Member had been placed on the Committee. It would have pleased him to see upon the Committee such a man as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Callaghan), who had large claims to the notice of the House. It was, indeed, surprising that the hon. Member could have been overlooked. He begged to state, that when he used the word "large" with reference to the hon. Member for Cork, he applied it to his mental qualifications, and not to his person. The Committee, as constituted, was objectionable, because a large majority of its Members was pledged to support the Banking Act of 1844, and its twin sisters relating to Scotland and Ireland, which were passed in 1845.


requested that the hon. Member would not make use of his name on any future occasion without his permission. The hon. Member had in- dulged in a gratuitous mention of his name. Now that he was on his legs, he would take the opportunity of saying that the Irish and the English public would be better pleaaed to have the Committee constituted as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer than if all the alterations which had been suggested had been made.


withdrew his Motion, and Mr. Glyn was nominated a Member of the Committee.

On the question that Sir W. Clay be placed on the Committee.

LORD G. BENTINCK moved that Sir W. Clay's name should be struck out of the list, and that of Mr. Pattison substituted.


begged to say that he had no wish to serve on the Committee; but if he were nominated, he would do his duty. He would avail himself of that opportunity of stating that in what he had before addressed to the House, he spoke only as the representative of the city of London, and not as a governor of the Bank of England. He was induced to speak as he did, because he believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleagues were ignorant of the extreme sufferings to which both large and small traders were subjected in London. They had not collected sufficient information on the subject.

The House divided on the question that the name of Sir W. Clay stand part of the question:—Ayes 152; Noes 122: Majority 30.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Cocks, T. S.
Adair, R. A. S. Coke, hon. E. K.
Anson, hon. Col. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Coles, H. B.
Coope, O. E.
Baines, M. T. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Baring, H. B. Craig, W. G.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Currie, R.
Bellew, R. M. Divett, E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Drummond, H.
Birch, Sir T. B. Dundas, Sir D.
Blackall, S. W. Dundas, G.
Boyd, J. Dunne, F. P.
Boyle, hon. Col. Ebrington, Visct.
Brockman, E. D. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Bruce, Lord E. Evans, Sir De L.
Bunbury, E. H. Evans, J.
Busfeild, W. Ewart, W.
Callaghan, D. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Cardwell, E. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Chaplin, W. J. Fortescue, C.
Clay, J. Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Clements, hon. C. S. Fox, R. M.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Freestun, Col.
Cockburn, A. J. E. French, F.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Peel, Col.
Godson, R. Pigott, F.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Pinney, W.
Grace, O. D. J. Raphael, A.
Greene, T. Reid, Col.
Grenfell, C. W. Ricardo, J. L.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Ricardo, O.
Grey, R. W. Rich, H.
Hallyburton. Ld. J. F. G. Robartes, T. J. A.
Hardcastle, J. A. Romilly, J.
Hay, Lord J. Russell, Lord J.
Hayter, W. G. Russell, F. C. H.
Headlam, T. E. Scrope, G. P.
Herbert, H. A. Scully, F.
Heywood, J. Seely, C.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Shelburne, Earl of
Jermyn, Earl Sidney, T.
Jervis, J. Simeon, J.
Keogh, W. Slaney, R. A.
Keppel, hon. G. T. Smith, J. A.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Somerset, Lord G.
Langston, J. H. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Spearman, H. J.
Lemon, Sir C. Strickland, Sir G.
Lennox, Lord A. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Lewis, G. C. Stuart, Lord D.
Lincoln, Earl of Sutton, J. H. M.
Lushington, C. Talfourd, Serj.
Mackinnon, W. A. Tancred, H. W.
Macnamara, Maj. Tenison, E. K.
M'Naghten, Sir E. Tennent, R. J.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Thesiger, Sir F.
M'Tavish, C. C. Thicknesse, R. A.
Mahon, The O'Gorman Thornely, T.
Maitland, T. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Marshall, J. G. Vane, Lord H.
Marshall, W. Vivian, J. H.
Matheson, A. Wall, C. B.
Matheson, Col. Ward, H. G.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Watkins, Col. L.
Melgund, Visct. West, F. R.
Monsell, W. Willcox, B. M.
Mulgrave, Earl of Wilson, J.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Wilson, M.
Nugent, Sir P. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
O'Brien, J. Wood, W. P.
Ogle, S. C. H. Wrightson, W. B.
Ord, W. Wyvill, M.
Paget, Lord C. Young, J.
Palmerston, Visct. TELLERS.
Parker, J. Hill, Lord M.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Tufnell, H.
List of the NOES.
Alexander, N. Burghley, Lord
Anstey, T. C. Cabbell, B. B.
Archdall, Capt. M. Cayley, E. S.
Arkwright, G. Clive, Visct.
Bankes, G. Codrington, Sir W.
Bennet, P. Compton, H. C.
Bentinck, Lord G. Deedes, W.
Blackstone, W. S. Deering, J.
Blewitt, R. J. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Boldero, H. G. Disraeli, B.
Bolling, W. Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Bouverie, E. P. Duff, J.
Bowring, Dr. Duncan, G.
Bramston, T. W. Duncombe, hon. O.
Broadley, H. Duncuft, J.
Broadwood, H. Du Pre, C. G.
Brotherton, J. Edwards, H.
Brown, H. Fagan, J.
Buck, L. W. Farnham, E. B.
Farrer, J. O'Connor, F.
Floyer, J. Osborne, R.
Forbes, W. Ossulston, Lord
Fordyce, A. D. Packe, C. W.
Fuller, A. E. Peto, S. M.
Gaskell, J. M. Pilkington, J.
Goring, C. Prime, R.
Grattan, H. Renton, J. C.
Greene, J. Reynolds, J.
Gregson, S. Richards, R.
Halford, Sir H. Robinson, G. R.
Hall, Sir B. Salwey, Col.
Hamilton, G. A. Sandars, G.
Harris, hon. Capt. Scholefield, W.
Hastie, A. Seymer, H. K.
Heald, J. Sibthorp, Col.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Smith, J. B.
Hildyard, R. C. Smollett, A.
Hood, Sir A. Spooner, R.
Hornby, J. Stafford, A.
Ingestre, Visct. Stephenson, R.
Ireland, T. J. Stuart, J.
Keating, R. Thompson, Col.
Knox, Col. Thompson, Ald.
Lacy, H. C. Thornhill, G.
Law, hon. C. E. Tollemache, J.
Lennox, Lord H. G. Turner, E.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Lockhart, A. E. Urquhart, D.
Lockhart, W. Verner, Sir W.
Lowther, H. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Mackenzie, W. F. Waddington, D.
M'Gregor, J. Waddington, H. S.
Manners, Lord G. Wakley, T.
March, Earl of Walmsley, Sir J.
Masterman, J. Wawn, J. T.
Maunsell, T. P. Wellesley, Lord C.
Meux, Sir H. Westhead, J. P.
Moody, C. A. Williams, J.
Morgan, H. K. G. Willoughby, Sir M.
Mure, Col. TELLERS.
Neeld, J. Beresford, Maj.
Neeld, J. Newdegate, C. N.

Sir W. Clay placed on Committee.

Remaining Members appointed.

Committee to be a Committee of Secrecy.