THE BULLION COMMITTEE, ETC.
At this period, from our differences with America, which were not yet settled, as well as from Napoleon’s continental system, a considerable commercial depression was felt, together with a derangement in the money-market, arising in a great measure from the necessity that existed of constantly sending specie to the continent. During the preceding year Mr. Horner had obtained the appointment of a committee to inquire into the reason of the high price of gold bullion, and the state of the circulating medium, and of the exchanges between Great Britain and foreign parts. The report of this bullion committee was presented by Mr. Horner on the 6th of May, on which occasion he addressed the house in an elaborate speech, advocating a speedy return to cash-payments, as the only means of saving the credit of the country. The report itself, indeed, tended to recommend this measure to parliament. It stated, that there was an excess in the paper circulation, of which the most unequivocal symptom was the very high price of bullion, and, next to that, the low state of the continental exchanges; that the cause of this excess of bank-notes was to be found in the suspension of cash-payments; there being no adequate provision against such an excess, except in the convertibility of paper into specie; and that the unfavourable state of the exchanges originated in the same cause, and was further increased by the anti-commercial measures of the enemy. The report added, that the committee could see no remedy for the present or security for the future, except the repeal of the Suspension Act; that they thought this could not safely be done at an earlier period than two years from the time of their report; but that they recommended parliament to make early provision for this purpose. This subject occupied the house four long nights, but Mr. Horner’s resolutions were all rejected. Subsequently, however, a bill was carried in the lords, which declared that bank-notes should be taken only at their professed value, and deprived the landlord of a summary remedy by distress whenever tender had been made in bank-notes. This bill was strongly opposed in the commons; but it was eventually carried by majorities of about four to one. In the lords, the bill was chiefly opposed by Lord King, who argued that it would create additional mischiefs and inconveniences; that landlords would refuse to grant leases; and that the bill could not effect the object which it professed to have in view, or retard depreciation of bank-notes. Lord King had recently issued a circular-letter to his tenants, that he would no longer receive bank-notes at par, but that his rents must for the future be paid either in English guineas, or in equivalent weight of Portuguese gold coin, or in bank notes amounting to a sum sufficient to purchase such an equivalent weight of gold. In his reply to Lord King’s objections, made in the lords, the chancellor, Eldon, insisted that the claim set forth in this circular to his tenants was oppressive and unjust, and that the bill was necessary to prevent such a grievous oppression. He remarked:—“The restriction act of 1797 interfered so far with individual contracts as to say that a debtor should not be arrested, if he tendered his debt in bank-notes: the justice of that enactment has never been, disputed; and is it now to be said, that a tenant shall have his goods or stock seized, because he cannot pay in gold, which is not to be procured? Let us suppose a young professional man, struggling with the world, who has a rent to pay of £90 per annum, and who has £3,000 in the bank, in the three per cents. His lordship demands his rent in gold, but the bank refuses to pay the tenant his dividend in gold. Would not the tenant have a right to say—’ As a public creditor, I am refused any other payment than in bank-notes; but here is a legislator—one of those by whose act of parliament I am thus refused to be paid except in bank-notes, insisting up on my paying him his rent in gold, which I cannot procure; and because I cannot procure it, my goods are to be distrained?’ Would not this be a grievous oppression? Surely, so long as it should be expedient to continue the cash-suspension act of 1797, this present bill must become a part of it; for otherwise there would be no equality in the situation of different contracting parties, nor would equal justice be dealt out to those who had an equal claim to it; as there could be no justice in leaving the tenant who had tendered bank-notes exposed to be distrained upon by his landlord, whilst the debtor, in other cases, who had tendered bank-notes was exempted from arrest.”