The absurdity of the attack on the Act must now be apparent, inasmuch as the only reform it could possibly effect was a currency reform, which was certainly badly needed. Viewed in that light it must surely be acknowledged that the Bank Act of 1844 is one of the soundest financial Bills that has ever become an Act of Parliament. The fact that, in spite of the great change in our banking system--which may be said to have been revolutionised since 1844--the Act has successfully stood the test of time, is also proof positive (if proof were required) that it was framed with great skill and judgment. Had the Act further decreed that every bank should maintain a ratio of, say, at least eighteen per cent. of legal tender against its public liabilities, even panics might have been avoided. At any rate, the banks would have been better prepared to meet drains upon their resources, though even then--as has been pointed out is the case with the Act itself--the law would have to be broken directly a run was made on the banks by their customers. For all that, such a regulation would keep the banks in a fair state of preparedness during normal times, and consequently every bank in the land would be ready to face a panic. Our system of credit is based on a small cash reserve; and it would be impossible to devise any workable scheme which would afford bankers absolute security, because it would prove too costly both to the banks themselves and to their customers, who would have to pay much higher rates in proportion as the depositors' money was secured. The most prudent banker can only insure his business up to a certain point, as, if he kept more than a certain proportion of cash in hand, he would conduct his business at a loss; so if a panic take possession of his customers and they rush for gold, he is lost if the demand should drain his reserve and encroach on his till-money. No system in the world could possibly save him then. The most our banks can do, therefore, is to be prepared to a certain extent, and, viewed in the light of past history, it is criminal of directors not to take the ordinary precautions. A clause in the Act, as already suggested, would at least ensure a fair state of preparedness in all our banking companies, and beyond that it is impossible to go.