Peel to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Treasury Chambers
13th January 1865
Sir
With reference to your letter of the
19th Ult
transmitting copy of a Bill presented to the Governor of
British Columbia by the Legislative Council of that Colony
entitled "An Ordinance for the regulation of Banks," I
am directed by The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's
Treasury to acquaint you for the information of
Mr
Secretary Cardwell that My Lords approve of the general
principle of the proposed Ordinance.
Their Their Lordships
however doubt the expediency of the 8
th and 9
th
Sections—the former giving a limited power to the
Colonial Secretary or other Officer, of inspection of the
books of the Company; and the latter imposing a penalty
in case of refusal to allow such inspection.
It appears to My Lords that the exception made "of
papers securities and documents relating to the current
Accounts of the Customers of the Bank" would defeat the
object in view. The exception is a proper one in itself,
because no Bank could carry
on business if the transactions
of the Customers were subject to official supervision; but
on the other hand as the insolvency of Banks generally
arises from the insufficiency of its securities, and
incautious dealings with individuals, a power of inspection
which excludes the examination of Securities would not
only be of no use; but would serve to deceive the public
by giving a false Official guarantee for the sound condition
of a Bank which might in reality be on the brink of insolvency.
My Lords are of opinion that the inspection should
be confined to the
examination examination of the Stock of Coin and
Bullion, power for which is generally given to Local Governments
in Royal Charters for Colonial Banks.
For the rest, no better security can be given to the
Public than is afforded by periodical publication of Assets
and Liabilities, for the truthfulness of which the Managers
of the Banks should be made legally responsible.
My Lords have only further to observe with reference to
the 10
th Section that the payment of Notes at the
principal Establishment, as well as at the place of issue, is
generally required, and although there may be difficulty in
enforcing
such such a Regulation in the case of
British Columbia,
My Lords think that there are no reasons for rendering the
contrary practice imperative. They would suggest that
instead of requiring that the notes "shall be made payable
on demand at one place only within the Colony," they should
be made payable at the place of issue only, unless they be
made payable also at the Principal Establishment.
I am Sir
Your obedient Servant
F. Peel
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
Accepting the views of the T-y on banking matters as
conclusive, though not infallible, I presume that this
Bill must be amended in the respects mentioned. Sir
F. Rogers will see that there is a question of
Govr Seymours about
reserving Bills which will require a distinct ans
r.
Enclose copy of this Letter and instruct the Govr
to submit to his Council the amendments sugggested by
the Treasury. State however that as a matter of form
it will be better not to submit them in the shape of
an amending Orde, but to allow the present Bill
to drop—and to pass assent a fresh Ordce with
the requisite alterations—that this will be preferable,
both because it is convenient that the Law shd be
embraced in a single enactment, and because the
course pursued in respect of the original Ordce
has not been quite correct.
The form of reserving Bills for the signifn
of HM's pleasure is a form established by express Law
or by usage in certain Colonies possessing Representative
Legislatures—but has no existence in Crown Colonies
& is not provided for in the Charter of 11 June to
wh all Legislative proceedgs shd be conformable.
The proper course wd have been to have required
that the Orde shd contain a clause suspending
its operation till the Queens pleasure shd be known,
& then to have assented to it.
Mr Elliot
I circulated the Order in Council of
11 June/63 in
the first instance—& it is now with the Papers—
Sir
F. Rogers mentions the "Charter"—but I know of no
other Documents than the Order in Council, & the
Commission & Instructions which you will find attached.
Other documents included in the file
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
You will see that at page 3 of this draft
Mr Jadis has substituted
"the order in Council &c" for the "Charter."
Vide his explanation in separate Memo. I suppose that it is right?
Yes. The fact is that an Order in Council giving a
Constitution is constantly called a Charter—perhaps incorrectly.