§ On the order of the day for the third reading,
Lord Kingsaid, that a more foolish 1299 measure had, he thought, never been introduced into parliament. It was, it seemed, intended to complete the bill which was brought in last year. That bill was not understood in the city. It had been to the Jews a "stumbling block;" and certainly to the ministers "foolishness." The effect of this bill would be in any case to give an advantage to the Bank. Particular eras required specific designations. Some were called years of scarcity; some years of improvement; but this might be called the year of dupery; for ministers had, in the course of it, been duped both by the Bank and the Bourbons. If the principle of the bill were good, why not carry it further? Why should not ministers borrow ten millions a year from the Bank, and defer the payment? That would be pushing the principle a little further, and would surely afford a great present relief. To show its merit properly, he would conclude by moving, that, after the word "whereas," the following words be added, "the present generation and posterity may derive great benefit from extending the principle of the aforesaid act, wherein the principle of a sinking-fund is properly sustained by combining the same with the system of loans, be it enacted, that the lords commissioners of the Treasury may have power, in order to increase the revenue, to raise from the Bank any sum not exceeding ten millions a year, for the period of a hundred years, by the sale of deferred stock, the interest to commence from April 1923." [A laugh.]
§ Lord Bexleysaid, he had no objection to the noble lord's practical joke against the bill, as it was a proof that no substantial argument could be urged against it. He contended; that the bill was both equitable and expedient. Together with the burthens imposed upon posterity by the bill, would be bequeathed a peace founded on the acknowledged ascendancy of the British arms and councils, He contended, that the arrangement with the Bank was made with a due reference to the advantage of the public. The Bank undoubtedly took the chance of events; and he would ask noble lords opposite whether there was such a certainty of the continuance of peace, as to make this undoubtedly a good bargain for the Bank?
Lord Ellenboroughthought the Bank had overreached ministers in this transaction. The noble lord who spoke last, had expressed his hope, that the peace, 1300 founded on the ascendancy of the arms and councils of this country, would last so long, that we should reap a sufficient equivalent for all our exertions and expenses; but, though the noble lord had thus spoken of peace as if it were to be preserved for an indefinite length of time; he had put a question to that side of the House which showed that he had no confidence in its continuance.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the real question was, whether the terms were such as the government ought to have made; and on that point he would observe, that they were the same as had been offered by government in the last year, and the noble lords opposite would allow that the continuance of peace was as likely then as now. On an average of years, it appeared that 4 per cent was the fair rate of interest. He contended, therefore, that the arrangement was a perfectly equitable one.
The Marquis of Lansdowncontended, that this was a measure which could not be advantageous to both parties, unless the government were prepared to show that they had overreached the Bank, it could not be advantageous to the public. The gravamen of the objections to the bill was, that it did with one hand what it counteracted with the other.
§ The amendment was negatived, and the bill passed.