or many-reserve system of banking. I should only incur useless
ridicule if I did suggest it. Nor can I propose that we should adopt
the simple and straightforward expedient by which the French have
extricated themselves from the same difficulty. In France all
banking rests on the Bank of France, even more than in England all
rests on the Bank of England. The Bank of France keeps the final
banking reserve, and it keeps the currency reserve too. But the
State does not trust such a function to a board of merchants, named
by shareholders. The nation itself--the Executive Government--names
the governor and deputy-governor of the Bank of France. These
officers have, indeed, beside them a council of 'regents,' or
directors, named by the shareholders. But they need not attend to
that council unless they think fit; they are appointed to watch over
the national interest, and, in so doing, they may disregard the
murmurs of the 'regents' if they like. And in theory, there is much
to be said for this plan. The keeping the single banking reserve
being a national function, it is at least plausible to argue that
Government should choose the functionaries. No doubt such a
political intervention is contrary to the sound economical doctrine
that 'banking is a trade, and only a trade.' But Government forgot
that doctrine when, by privileges and monopolies, it made a single
bank predominant over all others, and established the one-reserve
system. As that system exists, a logical Frenchman consistently
enough argues that the State should watch and manage it. But no such
plan would answer in England. We have not been trained to care for
logical sequence in our institutions, or rather we have been trained
not to care for it. And the practical result for which we do care
would in this case be bad. The governor of the Bank would be a high
Parliamentary official, perhaps in the Cabinet, and would change as
chance majorities and the strength of parties decide. A trade