HC Deb 20 April 1875 vol 223 cc1358-60
MR. M'LAREN

moved that the Select Committee do consist of 23 Members. He maintained that the Scotch banks had a close monopoly, and a monopoly which was getting closer, in proof of which he stated that while their business had been doubled within the last 30 years, their number, which in 1841 was 30, had been reduced in 1843 to 23, and at the present time was only 11, the other 19 having been absorbed in these. He thought that Scotch bankers were well enough represented; but he wanted some representation for the public outside banks. He accordingly proposed that the Select Committee do consist of 23 Members, and that Sir Windham Anstruther and Mr. James Barclay be added to the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Banks of Issue do consist of Twenty-three Members."—(Mr. M'Laren.)

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

, by way of replying to the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, said, the Scotch banks were always found willing to accommodate any man who could give adequate security. It was for the hon. Member to show that they did not do so, and he could bring evidence to that effect before the Committee.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the question was whether the Scotch public were to be represented? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the number of the Committee from 17 to 21; but the four Members he added were English Members, and thus the balance was turned against Scotland.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

remarked that the question of the number of the Committee had been discussed fully before, when he had shown the inconvenience that would result from making it any larger. Besides if this application were granted, there would probably be requests for the representation of other districts—say, the Northern Counties of England or Ireland. He thought the suggestion a good one which was made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Graham Montgomery)—namely, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh should prepare any evidence he thought desirable and bring it before the Committee.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The remarks of the hon. Member were quite uncalled for, and ill-timed. The Committee ought never to have been appointed; but if appointed, its numbers should have been smaller; and to place two additional Members, merely because they were Scotchmen, was unreasonable. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred to what he termed the trades-unionism and monopoly of the Scottish banks, and that the interests of the public consequently suffered. He (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) denied that assertion, and said, that from an experience as a bank director extending to nearly 20 years, he had never known of banks declining to give credit where that could be reasonably expected; but he had heard of people becoming bankrupt complaining that banking facilities had contributed to their ruin. The Committee having now been fixed for good or for ill, he thought they had heard the last of it in that House until its Report came to be presented. The hon. Member seemed to fear that the interests of the Scottish people would not be looked after, because its four Scottish Members were connected with, or were presumed to be favourably disposed to, the banks; but the hon. Member might keep his mind easy on that score, for with the feeling shown by the English bankers, some of whom were on the Committee, those English bankers would take very good care that any defects or shortcomings on the part of the Scottish banks would be prominently brought out. For these and other reasons, which the lateness of the hour forbad him from entering upon, he opposed the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

MR. M'LAREN

disclaimed having any feeling in the matter, and said he only wished to express to the House his belief that there was a deep feeling in Scotland in regard to this monopoly, and his feeling that the outside public should be represented. He would never think of going before the Committee and giving evidence. He had no hobby to ride, and simply moved in this matter, because he was in favour of free trade, and opposed to monopoly.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 119: Majority 71.