Page images
PDF
EPUB

produced an equally speculative rise in the prices of American products, such as tobacco and cotton

37. Speculation in these productions was favoured by an expected narrowing of the sources of supply; circumstances of an opposite nature came to excite still further perturbations in the usual course of trade. The entry of the French into Spain and Portugal had paralysed their power over their colonies, and the Great South American continent became from this time virtually independent. It had been hitherto rigidly closed against British commerce. On the 13th November, 1807, Napoleon published a decree in the Moniteur, deposing the House of Braganza from the throne of Portugal, and Junot took possession of Lisbon, and the Royal Family immediately embarked for the Brazils. These events opened up the whole of the South American trade to the British, and the speculation of the merchants swelled in a proportion commensurate to the vastness of the markets that were thrown open to them. A complete phrenzy of speculation seized upon the nation. It spread from commerce to joint stock companies. The infatuation of 1720 was reproduced. Joint stock companies of all descriptions, for canals, bridges, insurances, breweries, and multitudes of others, started up like mushrooms. At the same time, the Bank of England fanned the flame of speculation to an extent far beyond the bounds of ordinary rashness. It is stated by Sir Francis Baring, in his evidence before the Bullion Committee, that since the restriction he knew of many instances of clerks not worth £100, who had started as merchants, and had been allowed to have discount accounts of from £5,000 to £10,000, which demand, he said, was caused by the Bank, and not by the regular demands of trade, and which could not exist if the restriction were removed. The paper discounted by the Bank, which had been £2,946,500 in 1795, rose to £15,475,700 in 1809, and to £20,070,600 in 1810

38. Along with this extravagant speculation, partly caused by it, and partly fanning it, a multitude of country banks started up in all directions, and inundated the country with their notes, exactly as had happened before 1793. In the year 1797, they had been reduced to 270; in 1808, they had increased to 600;

and in 1810, when the Bullion Committee was appointed, they amounted to 721, and the quantity of paper they had put into circulation was supposed to amount to £30,000,000. At the same time, the Bank of England had increased its issues to £21,000,000, a quantity declared by some of the most eminent witnesses far to exceed the legitimate wants of the country

39. Concurrently with these extravagant speculations and issues of notes, the price of gold bullion rose rapidly, and the Foreign Exchanges fell with equal rapidity, exactly the same symptoms as had been manifested in Ireland in 1804. The following figures, taken at intervals, are sufficient to shew the rapid rise of the price of bullion and the fall in the Foreign Exchange:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

40. Under these circumstances, Mr. Horner, on the 1st February, 1810, moved for several accounts relating to Currency and Exchanges. Mr. Baring stated that guineas then brought 26s. or 278. The Bullion Committee were then appointed

41. Before proceeding to analyse this famous Report and the evidence produced before it, we may observe that what has so frequently happened when two or more persons or occurrences have contributed to any result, if one of these persons or occurrences has been much more prominent than the rest, the others come, in course of time, to be forgotten, and the whole merit or blame is attributed to the one which has attracted most public attention. So it has been in this case. The Bullion Report of 1810 has, from various circumstances, attracted so much public attention to itself, as to have thrown completely

into the shade the Report on the Irish Currency of 1804; and that Report seems to have been so soon forgotten, that the directors of the Bank of England in 1810 had little or no knowledge of it. The circumstances, however, of the derangement of the Irish Currency, upon which the Committee of 1804 sat, were precisely identical with those of the English Currency in 1810, which caused the appointment of the English Committee. The same sets of opinions were delivered and adhered to stoutly by the professional witnesses in both cases, and the Report of the Committee in each case was precisely identical; in each case they condemned the doctrines and policy of the Bank directors in the most emphatic manner. The Report of the Committee of 1810 is written in a more methodical and scientific form, and is superior as a literary performance, but the principles adopted and enforced in it are absolutely identical with those of the Committee of 1804

42. It may be interesting to compare the composition of the two Committees, who at different times came to similar conclusions as to the principles that should govern the Bank in its issues during the restriction of cash payments. The Committee of 1810 consisted of Mr. Horner, Mr. Spencer Perceval, Mr. Tierney, Earl Temple, Mr. Brand, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Magens, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Giddy, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Baring, Mr. Manning, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Foster, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Irving, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Abercrombie. On comparing this list with that of the Committee of 1804, it will be seen that there were only two members, Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Foster, who were on both Committees

43. The witnesses examined before both Committees consisted of the same varieties. 1. Bank directors. 2. Private bankers. 3. General merchants. 4. Independent witnesses. On reading over the evidence by these respective sets of witnesses, we find that the opinions given by the English Bank directors and merchants were precisely similar to those of the Irish Bank directors. The directors of both Banks vehemently rupudiated the idea that the Bank paper was depreciated; they equally maintained that it was the price of specie that had risen; they

both admitted that, while they were liable to pay their notes in specie, they were obliged to regulate their issues by the Foreign Exchanges and the price of Bullion; they both admitted that since the restriction they had paid no regard to their former rules, and they denied the necessity of so doing. They both denied that the issues of their notes had any effect upon the Exchanges, or were in any way the cause of the high adverse Exchange, and they both denied that a limitation of their issues would have the slightest effect in reducing the Exchange to par. They both maintained that there could be no over-issue of their notes so long as they were confined to the discount of paper of undoubted solidity founded upon real transactions

44. Nothing can be more remarkable than the perfect identity in sentiment in every point of opinion and policy, between these two sets of directors, but we must remark a circumstance that will detract considerably from the weight of their opinion, namely, that they were all interested witnesses. In the first place, since the restriction upon paying in specie, and so being relieved of fulfilling their obligations, they had extended their discounts enormously, and their profits upon their extended issues had been proportionate, the dividends to the proprietors had greatly increased; and secondly, they were in the position of semi-defendants; their policy was certainly impugned; the Committee was a species of court of enquiry into their conduct, and it certainly was not likely that they would admit that the principles they were acting upon could be wrong, when they were so very lucrative to the proprietors of the Bank. The same objection of interested testimony equally applies to that of the merchants, for they were interested in obtaining as large an amount of accommodation from the Bank as possible, and a restriction of its issues would have curtailed their operations, speculative or otherwise; consequently their interests were better served by the doctrines and policy of the Bank directors. Both Committees, however, examined witnesses of an independent position, who had no interest one way or the other, and in each case they totally disagreed from the opinions of the Bank directors, and condemned their policy. And in both cases the Committee, having examined all those witnesses of different shades and opposite opinions, presented reports strongly con

demning the opinions and practice of the directors of each bank, and called upon them to alter their policy: the report, in the Irish case, in language of great severity, that in the English case equally strong in fact, though milder in expression

45. As this division of opinion on these financial questions seems to be as permanent and deep-seated as the divisions on political questions, it may be of advantage to state shortly and precisely the points upon which the respective parties were at issue. The facts, of course, were easily ascertained and agreed upon. They were as follows

1. That the Mint price of gold bullion, or the legal standard of the coin, was £3 17s. 10d. per oz.

2. That the market price of gold bullion was then £4 10s. per oz.

3. That the Foreign Exchanges had fallen to an enormous extent; that with Hamburg, 9 per cent.-that with Paris, 14 per cent.

4. That the increase of Bank Notes had been very great during the last few years, and was rapidly augmenting 5. That specie had disappeared from circulation

46. Upon this acknowledged state of facts, the opposite issues maintained by the two parties, were as follows :—

The one party maintained

I. (a) That the Bank Notes were depreciated

(b) That the difference between the Market price and the Mint price of gold bullion, was the measure of the depreciation

II. (a) That the extreme limit to which the Foreign Exchanges could, by the nature of things fall, in any case, was defined, and easily ascertained, and consisted of the expense of freight, insurance, and some other minute causes

(b) That, in the then state of the Exchanges there was a very large excess of depression over and above

that limit, which was not attributed to any of these causes.

(c) That this residual depression of the Foreign Ex

« PreviousContinue »