held. After 1877 it ceased publishing the London bankers'
balances. After 1880 the separation formerly made between
notes issued by the branches and in London was no longer
made. To an American banker accustomed to the rigid
supervision given to the affairs of the banks of the United
States by State and Federal governments and to the lime-
light of publicity which is turned on the affairs of our banks
the lack of such supervision in Great Britain and the failure
to require publicity is a surprise. It is because of such failure
to enjoin any uniform system of accounting or of reporting
that it is so difficult to make a really thorough and scientific
study of English banking. Apropos of this the London
Economist in its Banking Number issued May 17, 1919, says:
"The figures published weekly by the Bank are at all times
full of snares for the unwary investigator, and are more so
than ever in wartime, owing to the very complicated business
that has to be done by the Bank, and the consequent cross
currents that are concealed behind the inarticulate reticence
of the items in its return. Any future historian who relies too
closely on the Bank's figures for information is thus likely
to flounder up to his neck."

Recurrent commercial crises, and especially the crisis of
1836-1839 which brought the Bank to the verge of ruin, led
English bankers and economists of the time to make ex-
haustive studies of the causes of such events. The rule which
had been formulated by the Bank for the conduct of its
business was as follows: First, the reserve kept, composed
of bullion and of securities, was to be equal to its liabilities.
Second, the regulation of the note circulation was left to the
public through the natural movement of the foreign ex-

-195-