Page:Lombard Street (1917).djvu/58

30 Department was empty. Before the Act was broken—


 * In 1847, the Banking Department was reduced to £1,994,000
 * &emsp;1857&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;"&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;"&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;1,462,000
 * &emsp;1866 &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&ensp;"&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;"&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;3,000,000

In fact, in none of those years could the Banking Department of the Bank of England have survived if the law had not been broken.

Nor must it be fancied that this danger is unreal, artificial, and created by law. There is a risk of our thinking so, because we hear that the danger can be cured by breaking an Act; but substantially the same danger existed before the Act. In 1825, when only coin was a legal tender, and when there was only one department in the Bank, the Bank had reduced its reserve to £1,027,000, and was within an ace of stopping payment.

But the danger to the depositing banks is not the sole or the principal consequence of this mode of keeping the London reserve. The main effect is to cause the reserve to be much smaller in proportion to the liabilities than it would otherwise be. The reserve of the London bankers being on deposit in the Bank of England, the Bank always lends a principal part of it. Suppose, a favourable supposition, that the Banking Department holds more than two-fifths of its liabilities in cash—that it lends three-fifths of its deposits and retains in reserve only two-fifths.