Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

as he did on certain points from the fentiments of the majority of that Committee, he felt himfelf called upon to explain the grounds upon which that difference of opinion was founded. He felt it to be a talk which his public duty likewife imposed to submit to the House refolutions of a criminatory nature against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, founded upon the proofs collected by the Committee and contained in their Report, and which amounted to a charge of guilt and of mifconduct, which the House could not fuffer to pass with impunity. He was aware that the duty of an accufer was always a painful and invidious tafk, and more especially it was unpleasant to those on whom the neceffity was often impofed. In the line of conduct which he felt himself obliged to purfue, he was confcious that he was actuated by no improper or difhonourable motives, and that he gratified no private views. Nothing but an imperious call of public duty could induce him to arraign, as he now did, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of a great and criminal misconduct, by which he had contributed to bring the Bank of England, and along with it Public Credit, into that fituation in which it was placed by the Order of Council, and on account of which, had that never happened, he would contend that he was equally deferving of cenfure. In a queftion which depended fo much upon evidence, and upon confiderations of a very extenfive nature, he was defieous to abftain from preliminary matter to avoid any difcuffion unconnected with the subject, and in what he had to urge, rather state facts for the judgment of the Houfe, referving that privilege ufually allowed of reply, in order to fupply what might be requifite of explanation or of comment. Before he proceeded to open the nature of his propofitions, he should ftate the difference of opinion between him, and, he believed, the whole of the Committee.

The object of its inveftigations comprehended two points, ift, the neceffity of the Order in Council, and 2d, the causes by which it had been produced. It was upon the first point that the difference alluded to exifted. He had thought, and in this he did not know that any one in the Committee agreed with him, that the Order of Council was not proper, and was not neceffary. This opinion was founded upon the closest observation of the state of the Bank, and from a thorough conviction that the interference of power was not the remedy by which its embarraffments could be obviated; that this mode in its operation tended to enhance the evil and to increase the difficulties of repairing it; at leaft he was fure that he would encounter less. oppofition when he afferted that the interference of power ought to have been applied but in the laft extremity. The exact account of the cafh in the Bank had not been before the Commit

tee,

tee, but from the documents it poffeffed, it could be feen that though the run upon the Bank had continued for another month in the fame proportion as during the fame period before, that the cafh of the Bank would not have been fo low as in the year 1783, when no application to Government had been thought neceflary; but when even in the accelerated proportion of the last week preceding the Order, and the two laft days of that week, the cash of the Bank might have been sufficient for another week, and afforded room for employing expedients to procure farther fupplies and to prevent altogether the neceffity of the application, he could not admit the neceffity in which the Committee had concurred.

His opinion of the mischievous tendency of the interference of Government in the affairs of the Bank was fo ftrong, that he could not fubfcribe to the opinion of the neceffity for the Order in Council; and the inconveniences which might have arifen from rejecting this expedient were more easy to be repaired than the fatal effects which he conceived to arise from the principle of the interference of Government to fufpend the functions of the Bank. So much in explanation of his differing from the rest of the Committee. The Committee ftated, that whatever might be the effects of other caufes, whether progreffive or likely to ceafe, the dread of invafion occafioned the drain which reduced the Bank to the neceffity of fufpending their money payments. What he imputed, however, as an article of serious charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this, that prior to this period the affairs of the Bank were fo reduced, that a drain, which, in other circumstances would not have produced this effect, had, in this inftance, occafioned the immediate neceffity of ftopping payment. Inftead of taking measures to counteract this danger, inftead of exerting himself to provide a remedy for the evil which he had rendered probable, he complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had aggravated and accelerated the caufes by which the event was ultimately produced. To fupport this heavy and important charge, he called the attention of the Houfe to the evidence on the table. In the end of 1794 and beginning of 1795 the Bank feeling the bad effects of the drain by foreign remittances which they had already experienced, became seriously alarmed at the consequences which might enfue from a new Loan to the Emperor, and they made ftrong reprefentations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the fubject upon the 15th of January, 1795.

In this representation they likewife ftated the inconvenience they felt from the amount of their advances to Government, efpecially upon Treafury Bills, a fpecies of fecurity new at leaft in the extent to which it had been carried during the prefent 8 K 2 Administration.

Administration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thanked them for this communication, and particularly promised to re-. duce the amount of advances on Treasury Bills, but that this could not be done till after the firft payment on the Loan. The mischief of advances on Treasury Bills had been felt by the Bank; they wished to be indemnified for the fums they had advanced contrary to their original conftitution, and to the wife regulations of the ftatute of King William. Inftead of an indemnification, however, a claufe, repealing the whole of the exifting limitation, was introduced into a Loan Bill without notice, without explanation, without any thing to direct the attention of the Houfe to its nature and object. The fum to which the limitation was defired by the Bank was 500,000l. but instead of this, every reftriction was removed by a claufe, which in paffing might have juftified a charge of remiffness against the Houfe. Did they not find an excufe in the extraordinary manner in which the bufinefs had been managed. It was important, however, to obferve the period at which the reprefentation of the Bank for repayment of their advances was made. It was a month before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his arrangements for bringing forward his Budget, and when he had full time to fettle every thing neceffary to the accomplishment of the object which the Bank had folicited, and which he had promifed to perform. Upon the third of February the Budget was opened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the pompous parade of our refources, refted the hopes of fuccefs in the unfortunate and difaftrous conteft in which we are engaged, upon the rapid decay of the French finances. The arguments upon which he fupported this conclufion, were drawn from ftatements of the cafh and paper circulation in France, and the ruin which the difproportion would produce. The cafh, at the utmoft, he stated at 90 Millions, and the paper at 130 millions. When fuch were the reasoning upon which he proceeded in viewing the ftate of our enemy, he was particularly bound to attend to our domestic fituation. The reprefentations of the Bank were before him. On the principles and arguments he then employed it was more particularly his duty to have provided against evils which were held out to him, and which threatened ruin to public credit, upon the very reafonings which, with regard to France, he fo ftrongly preffed. He did no fuch thing, however. Though in answer to the reprefentation of the 15th of January, he had promifed to pay off part of the advances due by Government; by a new reprefentation, on the 16th of April, he was reminded of his promife of payment from the first inftalment on the new Loan. What excufe then is he to make for this new breach of faith? It was contained in his written answer to the last repre

fentation,

fentation. He admits the propriety of the demand, but he fays, "that in the multiplicity of bufinefs it was forgotten." A promise so material as this, to an important body, fo repeatedly and earneftly urged, was forgotten! The Chansellor of the Exchequer, who boafted of more accurate estimates and more complete provifion for the public expence than any of his predecesfors in office, quite omits an article of more than two millions; he neglects the demands of the Bank; he exposes to hazard the interefts of the nation, and the excufe for all this is, that it was forgotten!

He begged to call the attention of the Houfe to the minutes, containing the anfwer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in converfation upon the fubject with the Directors of the Bank. These minutes had been talked of in the Houfe, as what were called the answers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were taken indeed without his knowledge, after the converfation had taken place, but by those who were not likely to represent them to his disadvantage. That they were not evidence on a trial, was a plea that would be admitted; but would the Right Honourable Gentleman deny that they contained the fubftance of his anfwers? Till this was formally denied, all the arguments on their informality would have very little weight. But it was unneceflary to dwell on this point, because the written anfwers were fufficient. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, writes that the demands of the Bank fhould be complied with out of hand, and that he fhould immediately give directions for partial payments to be made. The debt on Treafury Bills, however, continues to increafe, and on the 5th of June, 1795, the Bank reprefent their Debt on this head amounted to 1,200,000l. and on the 30th of July they reprefent their determination to order their Cafhier to refufe payment of these Bills when they exceeded a certain amount, but that they depended upon his promises to reduce its amount. In answer to this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer fays, "that the warrants are nearly ready." Though the Bank represented on the 30th of July, that the drain upon them was fuch as made it delirable for them to reduce their Credits; with the danger of all this before him, and the affurance of the Bank that they would be compelled to narrow their accommodations, they receive a letter containing a new demand for advances on the Confolidated Fund. The Bank return an answer, ftating the inconveniencies under which they laboured, in confequence of these advances, their determination to limit their amount, but agreeing to wait till November, on condition that meafures fhould then be taken for their repayment. To this the Chancellor of the Exchequer returned an answer, ftating that

he

he agreed to the conditions, and that he fhould take care they thould be complied with. Notwithstanding this promife,

the Bank were obliged, on the 8th of October, to repeat their complaint, as the fums due to them were not discharged. They ftated the drain in gold and bullion which had taken place; that the last advances had been made with great reluctance; and that if measures of caution were not purfued, the most fatal confequences were to be apprehended. They reprefented the Loan to the Emperor as a drain which could not be fuftained; and when, in anfwer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer faid he had no intention to bring forward an Imperial Loan, the intimation was received with the utmost fatisfaction by the Governor of the Bank, who faid that if another took place it would go near to ruin them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer likewife added that the Bills from abroad would continue two months longer and no more.

Amidst repeated representations, renewed promifes, and uniform breach of faith on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the meeting of Parliament on the 29th of October, 1795, arrived. The Bank again ftate their alarms, and prefs the neceffity of payment. In November they reprefent their fears from the drain which had taken place for foreign remittances, that they would be obliged to refufe any advances even upon the Vote of Credit. To this the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, that there was no intention of any Imperial Loan, and that he fhould abandon every confideration that was inconfiftent with their fecurity. On the 7th of December, the financial arrangements for the year were brought forward. Again the diftrefles of France are contrafted with our flourishing fituation. Upon that occafion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer juftly obferved, "that our prosperity rested upon a fteady adherence to the financial principles which our ancestors had established, and by accompanying the vigorous efforts we were bound to exert at prefent with falutary provisions for the future." Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer then bound to make fome provifion for the demands of the Bank, and for the fecurity of our regular fyftem of Finance, which his negleet threatened to overthrow? He had failed in his former promifes of payment; here again he had neglected to make any provilion for the Bank. In confequence of another application, however, he informs the Bank that he fhould make a payment of a furplus to a certain extent, out of funds which he had deftined for other purposes. Laft year he had charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having diverted the grants of Parliament in contempt of the Act of Appropriation; here, in anfwer to the Bank, he avowed his neglect in making provision,

and

« ZurückWeiter »