A Single Bank of Issue. 
877 
general admiration, mark the chronological boundaries within 
which the discussion was carried on. The change from repub¬ 
lican to imperial government, which took place in 1852 and 
1853, was thoroughly supported by those of the merchant and 
monied classes who were in dread of ultra-republicanism and 
felt their only safety to be in Louis Napoleon. The monarchis¬ 
ts party and its sympathizers were willing to see the govern¬ 
ment strengthened, and the part which the Bank of France had 
been made to play for Napoleon I was not an insignificant one. 
The growth of centralization was a marked tendency in politics 
at this time. 1 It was felt that a single central bank with which 
the finance department could have direct relations would add to 
the strength of both. Certain it is that the government itself 
steadily exhibited a prejudice in favor of such an institution. 2 
The record of the Bank of France was pointed to and the 
great immunity which France had always enjoyed from commer¬ 
cial panics. The disadvantages of the system of local banks 
had been felt both before and during its short trial in 1848, and 
the bar it had placed to the transaction of business between one 
part of France and another was felt to be happily removed by 
an issue, good in all places, and regulated at numerous points by 
branch establishments in close connection with the central bank. 3 
A very integral part of the discussion upon the freedom of 
banking is the connection it had with the doctrine of free com¬ 
petition. The orthodox school of economists, who nowhere held 
sway with higher hand than in France, believed in the so-called 
“ economic harmonies. ” Those who advocated a monopoly of 
note issue took good care to admit the general rule of competi¬ 
tion and to fortify themselves for claiming this exception to it. 4 
1 Hellwald “Culturgeschichte,” Band II, 2 aufl., pp. 561-2. 
2 Courcelle-Seneuil “Traite des Operations de Banque,” p. 21T. 
3 G. du Puynode “De la monnaie, du credit, et du I’impot,” 2d ed., 
Tome I, p. 354. 
4 Wolowski frequently fortified himself by an enumeration of those 
writers whose views corresponded more or less closely with his own. In 
Journ. des Econ., Tome 41,1864, p. 165, footnote, he mentions Sir Robert 
Peel, Rossi, Blanqui, Leon Faucher, Lord Overstone, Francois Barthol- 
ony, d’Eichtal and Victor Bonnet. In Journ. des Econ., Tome 3,1866, p. 
363, he adds Adam Smith, J. B. Say, Sismondi, Ricardo, Torrens, Nor¬ 
man and Gladstone. Elsewhere he repeats parts of these lists. 
