LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK.

HL Deb 04 July 1834 vol 24 cc1116-8

The Earl of Wicklow

begged leave to call the particular attention of their Lordships, to a petition from the several persons whose names were subscribed, being Directors of a Company called the London and Westminster Bank, which set forth, that a Bill had passed die Commons House of Parliament, and was now in their Lordships' House, for enabling the said company to sue and be sued, in the name of one of the directors, or of the trustees, or any of them, or of the manager or managers, or any of them, of the company. The petitioners stated, that it was clear that, by the 3rd and 4th of William 4th, such facilities might be granted by Parliament to such joint-stock banks without any infraction of the exclusive privileges possessed by the said Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and if any unwritten contract had been made in order to bind Parliament against granting such a facility, such a contract would have been a violation of the rights of the public, and would have given to the Bank of England privileges which it never before possessed, and which were not secured to it under any Act of Parliament. They went on to observe, that on the 9th of August last, previously to the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitting the declaratory clause to Parliament, the following letter was addressed to him by the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England:— Bank of England, August 9, 1833. My Lord,—We have to acknowledge your Lordship's letter of this day, enclosing a clause prepared by your Lordship's legal advisers, in lieu of the clause we had the honour to submit to your Lordship on the 7th instant Your Lordship's letter, and its enclosure, have been considered by the Court of Directors, and we beg to state, that although it is our opinion that the clause proposed by your Lordship does not carry into effect either literally or substantially the agreement entered into by his Majesty's Government and the Bank of England, and that, contrary to the intention declared in your Lordship's last letter, it does take away the exclusive privileges, yet, considering the importance of concluding the transaction, and of relieving commerce from the inconvenience of further delay, it is the determination of the Directors to submit to the terms now proposed by his Majesty's Government. The petitioners respectfully submitted that this letter and the declaratory clause alone formed the bargain made by the Bank of England, and that such letter was an unqualified acceptance of the declaratory clause, and they asserted that it would be a violation of the rights of the public to allow it to be set up, and alleged that there was a certain other contract, not in writing, differing from this clause and this unqualified acceptance of the same, and of which no record was or could be produced. The petitioners therefore prayed, that their Lordships would be pleased to direct that witnesses should be ordered to attend at their Lordships' bar, or in a Committee of their Lordships' House, to give evidence on the subject of the alleged contract, and that counsel and agents might be allowed to attend such examination of witnesses on the part of the petitioners. He was not surprised that noble Lords opposite, who had so many important matters to attend to, should have forgotten what had taken place with reference to the Bank Charter Bill; but here the petitioners came forward and offered to prove at the bar, that the provisions of the Bill which was then before their Lordships' House were not inconsistent with the rights and privileges of the Bank of England. When the proper time arrived, he should move, if necessary, that the petition should be taken into consideration. For his own part, he had only one wish on the subject—namely, that justice should be done to all parties.

Earl Grey

said, that the understanding which at the time of renewing the Charter had been come to with the Bank of England was not at all altered by the letter which the noble Earl had read. The Bank of England was not satisfied with the arrangement originally proposed by Government, and therefore a declaratory clause had been introduced by his noble friend in the other House. Whether the introduction of that clause was inexpedient or not was another question. He did not, however, understand it as in any degree breaking in upon the contract with the Bank,—that contract which provided that their exclusive privileges, within sixty miles of the metropolis, should be preserved to them. On that, as well as on other grounds, which he would explain hereafter, he should feel himself obliged to object to proceeding further with the Bill then before their Lordships. It should be recollected that this subject was at present under discussion by the learned Judges, who would in due time give their opinion on it. Until that opinion was given, he thought it was premature to entertain the question.

Petition to lie on the Table.