Lords Sitting of 3 February 1818

BANK RESTRICTION.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he would trouble their lordships with some motions connected with a question of the greatest moment. The time was fast approaching when the subject of the resumption of cash-payments by the Bank must come before their lordships. He trusted that parliament would not consent to continue the restriction without a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case, which done could enable them to come to a right decision on the whole of this question, upon which more than upon any other the welfare of the country depended. He concluded by moving for accounts of the weekly amount
120
of bank notes in circulation in the years 1815, 16, and 17; the average amount, the highest and lowest amount in each year, distinguishing the notes of different sums, the rates of exchange, the number of licenses granted for the issue of notes, & c.; all of which were ordered.
Lord Kingsaid, he felt himself called upon to advert to the subject of the Bank, in consequence of having heard, with the greatest regret, from official authority in another place, that doubts existed whether payments in cash could be resumed at the bank at the period pointed out for that purpose. The reason assigned for this apprehended delay was so extraordinary in itself, and so unintelligible to the country, it being impossible to conceive how in reality the negotiation of foreign loans could tend to prevent the resumption of cash payments by the bank of England, that it could only be considered as the ostensible reason, and not the real one. He could not but consider this postponement as a measure the most detrimental to the interests of the country. Without a metallic currency there could be no certainty, no stability in any contracts or dealings, and speculation was let loose upon the country in all its most injurious forms. What would be said if the minister of France were to tell the legislative body of that country that the bank of France could not pay in cash, because there was a loan negotiating there for England or any other country Would not such an assertion be laughed at as a mere subterfuge? and was it to be expected that such an assertion here would not be considered in precisely a similar light? If, indeed, the negotiating of loans here for foreign countries was to be a cause of preventing the bank of England from paying in cash, then he could conceive no time in which that return to a healthy circulation could take place. This was most alarming to the country, nor could he conceive any line of conduct more calculated to produce the most serious injury. Were they to understand, that the government was unable to pay its debts to the bank, and that thus the latter were unable to pay in specie? He deprecated such a system as the most impolitic that could possibly be acted upon, convinced, as he was, that there could be no security whatever but in the return to the sound and healthy circulation of a metallic currency.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he

121
should not enter into any discussion of the topics on which the noble lord had touched. They were, it was true, questions which had given rise to much difference of opinion in that House and elsewhere, and he was also aware, that there still existed great difference of sentiment as to the policy of the financial measures pursued in the course of the last war. He was not, however, called upon to vindicate that policy at present. With regard to the particular measure to which the noble lord's inquiry was directed, he had uniformly held, and still did hold, that it was the interest of this country and of the bank that cash-payments should be resumed as speedily as possible. In stating that he always felt the force of this principle, he must also remark that he was equally convinced that the particular moment when the bank ought to resume the regular course of payment was a consideration of the greatest delicacy and importance. Whatever might have been stated during the war as to the resumption of cash-payments on the return of peace, still the question as to the precise period for the adoption of that measure was always understood to be left to the decision of parliament, on a full consideration of the circumstances which might exist at the time. Having said thus much he should only add, that he had ground for believing, and indeed knowing that the bank had made every necessary preparation for answering the demands which might arise by the expiration of the restriction bill, and he saw nothing in the domestic situation of the country, or in our foreign relations, that was calculated to produce any undue delay in the resumption of cash-payments. It was possible, however, that there might be circumstances in existing pecuniary arrangements of foreign powers which would render it adviseable for parliament to consider whether the act ought not to remain in force, as long those circumstances, which were not likely to recur again, continued to operate. If any supposition was entertained of the delay being occasioned by financial transactions between the government and the bank, he could assure their lordships it was perfectly groundless.
Lord Kingsaid, that he did not impute the continuance of the restriction to any improper understanding between the government and the Bank. He merely meant, that if the Bank were limited in
122
their issues of paper, they could not afford such extensive accommodation to the government as they are at present enabled to do in the taking of exchequer bills.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he should consider himself wanting in duty, were he to allow what had fallen from the noble secretary of state to pass unnoticed. The noble secretary had stated, that the particular period for the resumption of cash-payments was a question of expediency, which required great consideration. Now, only two years ago, the noble secretary had treated with great derision all those who ventured to doubt that the Bank would pay in cash within two years from that time. For his part, he had never expected that the Bank would pay in cash at the period promised, nor could such an expectation be entertained by any one who fairly considered the nature of the connexion between the Bank and the government. The noble secretary had declared, that notwithstanding the intended delay, there was nothing in the situation of the country to prevent the restriction act from being allowed to expire, and that the Bank was perfectly prepared to pay its notes in cash at the time fixed by the act of parliament. He knew not on what information the noble earl had found-ed his opinion as to this ability of the Bank. He derived it, perhaps; from some of the directors, but there might be different opinions among them. But though the Bank had made ample preparation, the noble secretary hinted, that still there might be something in the relations subsisting among foreign powers, which ought to retard the resumption of cash-payments; but what that something was, he had not chosen to explain. From what he had said, however, this much appeared—that this most important of all measures to the welfare and prosperity of the country, no longer depended upon the decision of the British parliament on what might be done by the government of France, or of any other foreign country. The noble lord stated, such a circumstance was not likely to recur; but what security could be found for this assurance? Could the noble lord pledge himself that the governments of Russia or Prussia might not choose to negotiate a loan, as soon as the effect of the one now making for France might cease to operate? Would not a loan for any of these powers be as good a reason for postponing the day of paying in cash, as that now nego-

123
tiating for France? Let the case be reversed, and suppose a French minister were to say, to any assembly in that country, that the Bank of France could not be allowed to pay, because a small Joan was negotiating by this country, would he not be laughed at for giving such a reason? In fact, the cause of delay assigned by the noble earl was of so extraordinary a nature, that it called for the most serious consideration their lordships could give it. A full and complete investigation was necessary. The proper course would be to examine the Bank directors; and indeed he thought that nothing short of an inquiry of that kind could satisfy parliament and the country. If the noble earl and his colleagues persisted in their present course, without any efficient investigation, they would expose themselves to a more serious responsibility than any ministers had ever ventured to encounter; for they now placed the country in this situation—that the resumption of cash-payments was no longer to depend on the wisdom of parliament, but on measures which any continental despot or foreign assembly might choose to adopt. Nothing could be more alarming to the monied interest, the landed interest, and indeed to all classes in the country, than such a state of things as this presented.
The motions were agreed to.

SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Lord Sidmouth Lord Sidmouth moved, that the Papers which, by order of the Prince Regent, he had yesterday laid on the table, should be referred to a secret committee, to be chosen by ballot.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that when he considered what had been the nature of the early proceedings on the subject to which the papers proposed to be referred to a committee related, he thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to the course now proposed to be adopted by the noble secretary of state. As the papers were unaccompanied by a message from the House, he thought their lordships were entitled to some explanation from the noble viscount, of the reasons on which his conduct was founded. The papers laid on the table must have one of two objects: either it is meant to found on them some prospective measures, which however he hoped would not be the case; or else it is intended to make them serve to the House and to the country as a justification of the past. If
124
either of these objects were in view, or both of them, it was equally important that their lordships should have the opportunity, not only of examining witnesses, but of investigating every circumstance connected with them, which might be necessary to elicit the truth. The mode of selecting the individuals to whom the papers were to be submitted, was therefore a question of great importance: for it was most essential, with a view to any measure that might be adopted, that the investigation should be full and complete. That was the only inquiry which could be satisfactory either to the House or the country. It was, therefore, an important question for their lordships, whether, in choosing a committee, it ought not to be one so constituted as to ensure a full investigation of all the parts of the subject submitted to their consideration, and thereby to lay a foundation for measures which could not fail to be satisfactory. For this reason he submitted to the noble viscount, whether he ought not to state to the House the reasons which had induced him to propose the course of, secret investigation which his motion implied.
Lord Sidmouthreferred to the proceedings in the appointment of the two former committees of secrecy, on which occasions no measure was previously suggested, but it was left to the committees to recommend whatever measures they thought necessary, from the nature of the information laid before them. The same course was intended to be pursued with regard to the present committee. With respect to the precedents, there were several of communications of this nature being made, without the intervention of messages from the Crown; one, for instance, in 1801. He had no hesitation, however, in stating, that the object with regard to the present measure was, to lay before the committee documents with respect to the state of the country since the report of the last committee of secrecy, and also repecting the mode in which the powers entrusted to the crown had been exercised. It would be for the committee, on the investigation of the evidence before them, to say whether any, and what measure was necessary. With regard to the powers given to the committee, it should be recollected, that the practice differed in that House from that of the House of Commons. It was not the practice of their lordships' House to

125
impower any committee to send for persons, papers, and records. But the committee might suggest any evidence that they might consider necessary, and apply to the House upon the subject, when cither witnesses might be sworn at the bar to attend to give evidence before the committee, or the House might order papers to be produced for the information of the committee. He could not anticipate any objection to the appointment of a committee for the consideration of the papers communicated from the crown. It would be for the House, upon the report, to determine whether any and what course should be adopted in pursuance of that report.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that after the House had been told from the throne, that the country was in a state of perfect tranquillity, they could not be acting on the spur of any necessity, or feel the influence of alarm; there was, therefore, full time for deliberation. But if it was to be the province of the future committee to inquire how ministers had exercised the high discretionary powers that had been vested in them, the House must not delude itself or the country, by consenting to go into that inquiry upon such information as should be furnished by ministers themselves: the committee should have power to call for other evidence, and examine other facts. He would not then go into much allusion on the two reports of last session, but he intreated their lordships to compare those reports with the judicial proceedings that had followed upon them, and then to see whether they would still be so enamoured of secret committees, as to be satisfied, from similar documents to produce a similar report. He entreated them to consider, whether such a report, grounded on such evidence, would not be a solemn mockery, from which no benefit could result to the country. The noble lord had referred to the precedent of 1801. That precedent led to a bill of indemnity for all the acts of power exercised by ministers: but after all we had seen and heard, after all ministers had pledged themselves to prove, and the number of verdicts they had subsequently recovered; after it had been repeatedly stated that there was but too great reason to believe that the servants of government had themselves excited the disturbances that had occurred, before they passed such a bill they ought to be well satisfied, whether all the acts of insurrection proved
126
(and there were none proved but at Derby), were not attributable to the very agents employed by ministers. If their lordships should be content, on a secret inquiry, completely to indemnify ministers for all that had passed, and by that means preclude all those who had been injured in fortune, health, and character, who had languished in dungeons, or groaned beneath the weight of fetters, from any hope of retrieving their losses, or establishing their character—if their lordships should be satisfied to give such an indemnity as should exclude these victims of power from all redress of their wrongs—if their lordships should act thus, they would not do their duty to themselves or to their country. He must enter his caveat against instituting an inquiry into the conduct of ministers, upon any mere showing of their own, and thus making them at once their own accusers, witnesses, and judges.
The Earl of Liverpoolcontended, that the simple question for the consideration of the House was, whether they would appoint a committee to examine the information laid before them, and follow the invariable usage on such occasions? He was aware that, in some instances, proceedings of this nature had originated in a message from the crown, and at other times not. But in all cases where the crown had made a communication on the state of affairs, whether foreign or domestic, whenever that communication had been secret, it was usual to institute a secret committee to enter into the inquiry. The proceedings of that House were of a nature peculiar to itself, and the course pursued in them applied to all cases of proceedings on inquiries. Even where those proceedings were public, no power was delegated to committees of that House to call for persons, papers, or records, but they were compelled to come to the House, and through their chairman to name the persons and papers they required, and then move for their production. This was the rule and invariable practice of the House. Under these circumstances, he did not think the House could have any doubt as to the course it ought to pursue. That was not the time to discuss the merits of the two reports, or the measures that had arisen out of them, or the nature of the report that the present committee should make, or whether any or what measures should follow it. He should only say, that if the noble

127
lord opposite thought him ready to admit, from the result of the trials that had taken place, that any facts in those reports had been contradicted, he was so far from making such admission, that he thought the result of the trials strongly confirmed all that had been laid before the committee. Not only had 50 true bills for treason been found by the grand jury, but 36 individuals had been convicted, or had admitted their guilt. He would not now discuss any farther the reports of last year, but those reports had been, in that House at least, the result of unanimous opinion on the part of the committee; and, in the other House, the committee was also unanimous on the report, though there was a difference of opinion as to the measures that ought to be pursued in consequence. Their lordships had now laid before them important information on the state of the country since the period of the last report up to the present time; and the question was, whether the House would refer that information to a committee in the ordinary course? It would be open to that committee to determine how it should act on that information; it would be open to the House, whether it should act on the representation of the committee; and it would then be for them to consider, whether any other measures ought to be pursued?
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he had not opposed referring the papers to a committee of secrecy, oh the contrary, he thought that was the most advisable course to be pursued. What he contended for was, that a large and extensive inquiry was necessary; and whether it was to be effected by creating a precedent, and giving the committee powers to send for persons, papers, and records, or whether they were to apply to the House to order the attendance of such witnesses or the production of such papers as they thought necessary, was immaterial. He was certain of this, that if the inquiry was to be confined to the papers furnished by ministers, the result would not, he should hope, be satisfactory to that House; he was certain it would not be satisfactory to the country.
The Earl of Carnarvonobserved, that he had not stated that the reports of the committee of secrecy had been falsified, but that they had not been borne out by the subsequent judicial proceedings. As to the bill of indictment found by the grand jury at Derby, they had found it
128
upon ex parte evidence; so the secret committees of last session had made their report upon ex parte evidence; and upon ex parte evidence ministers might get what report they pleased, as by making their own case they of course could obtain whatever report they pleased, if no other evidence was allowed to be brought forward.
The motion was then agreed to.