In such cases the experience of a few years’ operation of the measure, suffices to explode the fallacy, and when, at the succeeding expiration of the Bank of England Charter, the subject is presented to parliament for reconsideration, our legislators are enabled to disentangle themselves from the errors which had previously misled them, and to bring their enactments into greater conformity with the principles that should regulate a well conducted currency. And were it not for this arrangement, there is great reason to apprehend that our banking laws would present as many obstacles to their amelioration, as now unfortunately oppose themselves to the reform of so many other departments of our legislative system. There is a second beneficial purpose no less eminently subserved by this arrangement. At present, the privilege of issuing paper money, unrepresented by bullion, is a highly profitable and closely protected bank monopoly. Now the undisturbed enjoyment of a monopoly, as is well known, has sometimes the effect of impressing its possessors with a conviction, that they hold their privilege by a sort of inalienable right, irrespective of the public welfare. And were it not for the provision which subjects our whole monetary system to a periodical investigation and revision, the existing banks of issue might naturally share in this feeling, and come to regard any interference with their privilege, as an unwarrantable exercise of state prerogative. Under the actual circumstances of the case, however, they can advance no valid plea for the retention of the right of issue, any longer than may be deemed consistent with the interests of the community at large. For if the Bank of England, which has advanced eleven millions of its capital to the nation, for fiscal purposes, is liable to have the right of issue withdrawn upon the single condition of repayment of the debt, with all arrears of interest, how much more is it incumbent upon those banks which have rendered no such service to the State, to hold themselves prepared for a similar surrender. And if they have neglected to make any provision for such possible contingency, it has not been for want of warning, that they do not enjoy their monopoly by any indefeasible claim to its possession in perpetuity.