The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-01 00:00:00

198 assume the duties and the character of statesmen. What a piece of business you have made of it, with your life peerages, your Crimean reports, and your boards of generals, to remedy the blunders and investigate the conduct men whom you were bound in honour and policy to have supported 1 (Loud cheers.) But this is not all. Not satisfied with attacking the constitution of the hereditary peerage of England, not satisfied with creating all this scandal about the officers of the army, you must take this occasion, of all others, to assail the municipal Institutions of the country. (Loud cheers.) But this was not all. Another measure unfriendly to the system of local self government had been introduced. Was this a proper season for bringing forward such a measure?— Yet, night after night, these dangerous courses are adopted by the Government; and now we have a striking example of the consequences to which such conduct inevitably leads. Parliament has sat only for about a month ; on both sides of the house there has been but one anxious desire to veil the weakness of the Government, if, unhappily, they are weak ; and yet at a most important crisis in the history and fortunes of this country her Majesty's Government have so skilfully managed their affairs that they have secured for themselves a startling defeat in both Houses of Parliament. (Cheers.) Mr. LIBOUCHERE defended the course taken by the Government. He could see no inconsistency in Lord Palmerston first asserting that the Govern ment had, previous to bringing the measure under discussion, seriously considered its principles, and then proposing to refer a part of the question to a select committee. The forbearance of the Opposi tion was not required by her Majesty's Government. After a few remarks from Mr. HEADLAX and Mr. HADFIELD, the order was discharged, and the bill was withdrawn. THE WENSLEYDALE PEERAGE. Lord REDESDALE on Monday night brought up the report of the Committee of Privileges upon the Wensleydale peerage. Lord GRANVILLE, though expressing the disincli nation of the Government to receive the report, stated that it was not their intention to d►vide the house again on the question. He admitted that the Govern ment found itself in a position of no ordinary diffi culty, and trusted that the question would now be calmly considered without party or political feelings. Lord CAMPBELL expressed his satisfaction at Lord Granville's statement. The Earl of DERBY also expressed his satisfaction. The house had no other alternative but to admit or reject an unlimited exercise of the royal prerogative. The matter had been forced upon them, for nothing could be more painful to the house than to come into collision with the Crown. Attar the large majority against the measure, he thought it would have been more satisfactory if her Majesty's Government had conferred an hereditary peerage upon Baron Parke. The discussion upon the question of life peerages would be facilitated by such a step. The main ques tion of conferring lite peerages was of considerable importance, and the Government should give some explanation of their object for desiring to establish so novel a precedent. The two points, conferring an honour upon an individual and insuring the more efficient conduct of the business of the house, widely differed. As to the point of limitation, that was a mere question of degree, and did not remove any ob jection to the principle of the measure. Of those classes on whom these peerages might possibly be conferred, he believed that the independence of thought of literary and scientific men would be im perilled, that naval and military officers would not value such second-rate rewards, and as to lawyers, if they were admitted to strengthen the judicial func tions of the house, which he was not prepared to declare altogether satisfactory, the remedy would, he feared, be worse than the disease. He was not going then to enter into a discussion upon the existing condition of the house as a court of appellate juris diction, but would give notice of his intention to move on Thursday for a select committee to consider the expediency of making provisions for the more effi cient discharge of the duties of the house as a court of appea'. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE anticipated a satis factory termination of the question now before the house. For his own part be did not regard the exercise of the prerogative, as shown in the creation of a few peers for life, as attended with any danger to the pnvileges of the house. The Earl of Malmesbury, Lords Brougham, Camp bell, Grey, Granville, and other noble lords further discussed the question, when the report of the com mittee was received, and Lord Derby having given final notice of his motion for Thursday, the house adjourned. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE OE LORDS. The Earl of DERBY, ou Thursday, moved " for a select committee to inquire whether it is expedient to make any, and if so what, provision for more effectually securing the efficient exercise of the functions of this house as a court of appellate juris diction, and to report their opinion thereon." De- THE PRESS. scribing the appellate jurisdiction of the house as a power inherited from the earliest times, Lord Derby said that, notwithstanding its antiquity and the high value he placed upon the privi lege, he did not think it essential to the fit ting discharge of the other functions of the house. The arguments against the manner in which the judicial functions were at present dis charged were seven in number, viz. —first, the small number of the judges; secondly, that their attend ance is not compulsory; thirdly, that their number is uncertain ; fourthly, that there is a chance of the failure of justice from the circumstance of no judg ment being delivered ; fifthly, that in some cases there is an appeal from some individual in one capa city to the same sitting in another; sixthly, that the tribunal sits only during half the year, so that during the remaining half there is (it is said) a denial of justice to suitors ; and, seventhly, that there is no adequate tribunal to decide Scotch appeals. Some of these objections had been exaggerated, but there were difficulties in the way of remedying any of them. The creation of life peers, or creating certain legal functionaries life peers, would not compel their at- tendance in the house, and would only increase the number without adding to the weight or authority of the tribunal. The noble lord then entered into the question at some length, and concluded by suggesting that, in cases of common law, the house should call in the advice of the common law judges; in cases of equity, that of the vice-chancellors; and have the power, in Scotch cases, of summoning to its aid some of the most eminent of the Scotch judges,—all cases to be referred to the legal members of the house, as a judicial committee, which should embody the deci sion of the judges in a report to the whole house, and agreed to es a matter of form, but still presery ing to it the right of tt.s jurisdiction. Earl GRANVILLE moved as an amendment the ad dition to the motion of the words—" and, further, how any such provision would affect the character of this house." He thought Lord Derby's motion the most fitting opportunity of considering the judicial question, and regretted that the subju ct of the constitution of the peers had been introduced in the other house of Parliament. Lord Campbell, Lord St. Leonards, and Lord Brougham supported the motion for a committee, which, as amended, was agreed to. The Earl of DERBY immediately afterwards pro ceeded to nominate the members of the proposed committee, which is to include the noble earl himself, the Lord President, Earl Grey, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord St. Leonards, and several other noble lords. The name of Lord Campbell he had omitted from the list, inasmuch as that noble and learned lord would for some time be absent from town upon circuit. If, however, upon his return the proceedings of the committee should not have been brought to a close, he (the Earl of Derby) felt assured their lordships would be glad to avail them selves of the noble and learned lord's great ability and experience. The first meeting of the committee was fixed for Monday next. OUR MONETARY SYSTEM. Mr. MUNTZ rose to move for a select committee to inquire how far the present monetary system is in accordance with the requirements of the country, and to consider if it cannot be improved and amended. At the outset be denied that he had ever been in fe.vour of inconvertible paper. He only differed with the late Sir R. Peel on the rate of converti bility. He reminded the house that six years had elapsed since he had moved the house in refer ence to this subject, and that was because he wished to see the effect of the gold discoveries upon our monetary system, which he admitted had done much, hut still not all that was required. Mr. Muntz then took a rapid historical survey of the question from the time of William the Conqueror, when the pound represented an actual pound weight of silver, down to the present period, attri buting the various political changes from time to time to derangements of the currency. The frequent crises of the Bank in Iti42 47,5°, were solely because the Legislature attempted to fix the value of gold, which was impossible. They might fix the price but not the value ; and, in conclusion, he asked for a committee to have a full and fair inquiry into the matter, to endeavour, if possible, to put an end to the vacillations of a system so destructive to all. Mr. PEACOCKE observed that Mr. Muntz's speech contained three fallacies,—first, that the price of gold was fixed, whereas, he contended, it fluctuated like that of other commodities ; second, that the rate of interest depended upon the price of gold, whereas it bore a relation and proportion to the supply of capital ; and, third, that bank deposits could control the circulation of the country, which they were im• potent to do. He should support the motion, not upon the grounds put forward by Mr. Muntz, but because he wished for an inquiry into the working of the Bank Charter Act. SATURDAY, Mr. Dknumortn said this was a most difficult question to discuss in that house, because it was question of pure science, and it was easy to bring forward an array of insulated facts ; but, unless it was borne in m►nd that, in speaking of value, the precious metals must be held to be a fixed and un alterable quantity, all would be confusion. To talk of the rise and fall of the precious metals was down. right nonsense. They must be the sole measure of value. When Arthur Young was asked by the French Convention what law they should pass to fix the price of corn, he said, " My advice to you is to direct your clerk to thrust his inkstand down the throat of the first man who talks about the corn." It would be well if the clerk in this house would do the same with the first man who talked about the currency. Mr. Mauss thought the present system induced constant fluctuations in the currency. Its principle was that every note issued by the Bank was by law convertible into gold, but be insisted that this was not really the case, and that the effect of the act upon commercial transactions was to disorder them, producing unsteadiness in the value of money, the act declaring that the quantity of gold plus the magical sum of 14,000,0001. should be the limit of the amount of Bank-notes issuable by law, whatever might be the exigencies of the country. He sup ported the motion for an inquiry whether some re laxation of the act of 1844 was not expedient. Mr. Pollard Urquhart, Mr. Glyn, sir W. Clay, Mr. Baillie, and Mr. Wilkinson, severally opposed the motion. Mr. CAYLEY regretted to see the matter introduced at that moment, as he did not believe that a division would be any criterion of the merits of the question. Mr. HEYWORTH justified the limitation of Bank issues. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not understand the nature of the inquiry the committee was to undertake. If the Bank Act of 1844 was meant to be considered, it would be better to move for a committee to inquire into the operation of that act. There was nothing perilous in the condition of the Bank of England. The returns showed that the circulation amounted to 19,254,0001.; that of bullion to 10,575,000/.; the notes to 24,890,000/.; and the reserve to 5,848,0001. Much hoetile criticism, he observed, had been passed upon the ordinary limit of 14,000,0001. for the issue of notes, added to the amount of the bullion. Supposing that there was a valid objection to this limitation, the question was whether anybody was prepared to propose a scheme preferable to the fixing an arbitrary amount. The plan suggested by Mr. Tooke was not, in his opinion, preferable to the present arrangement. He should vote, he said, against the appointment of a committee at the present moment. Nevertheless, he was of opinion that there were parts of the Bank Act of 1844 which did require investigation when a proper time arrived for the prosecution of such an inquiry before a competent tribunal. Mr. SPOONER thought, if anything was wanting, to prove the necessity of an inquiry into the Act of 1844, it would be the Chancellor's speech. Sir C. WOOD accused Mr. Spooner of confounding currency with capital, and of error in supposing that the rate of interest fell with a high circulation, and rose when the circulation was low; whereas Sir Charles maintained that the two were in no degree coincident; that a high rate of interest co-existed with a high circulation, and vice vend. The ques tion had often been asked, what was a pound ? He replied simply, a given quantity of gold. Although there might be a time for inquiring into the Act of 1844, he hoped the house would not sancuon this motion, the avowed object of which was to upset, not only the Act of 1844, but that of 1519, leaving no standard at all. Mr. MUNTZ, in reply, complained of misrepre sentations of his speech, especially by Sir C. OA denying that he had said he wanted to destroy the Acts of 1844 and 1819, although he did say that the former act had not answered its object. Upon a division the motion was negatived by 115 to 68. THE CASE OF TALBOT v. TALBOT. Mr. J. PHILLIIIOnE, on Thursday, moved for copies of the judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Torrens, one of the judges 0f the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, in the case of " Talbot v. Talbot," before the 11 1 0 Court of Delegates in Dublin, in 1855 ; and of the written proceedings and depositions taken in the same cause before the Consistory Court of Dublin, from which the appeal was made to the Court of Delegates, and which were laid before that court. He did not propose, he said, that that house should act as a court of review or appeal, nor did he appear as the advocate of Mrs. Talbot or her friends ; but he brought the subject before the house because the dignity and reverence due to the judicial Seal were lost it charges of this kind, not anonymous, were to be passed over without notice. The charge ha brought against the judge was incapacity, followed by moat terrible and tragical coneequences—a charge 4