The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-04 00:00:00

THE CURRENCY.

Mr. MUNTZ moved for a select committee to inquire half
far the present monetary system is in accordance with the re'
quirements of the country, and to consider if it cannot be /M ;-
proved and amended. He commenced by a distinct dews,
that he was an advocate of an inconvertible paper circa'
lation. He then entered upon a rapid historical survey of our
monetary system from so early a period as that of William the
Conqueror (when, he observed, the pound sterling was
pound weight of silver), the dryness of which was relieved bf
reflections upon the various crises and panics which the sYe-
tem had experienced, especially during the last half century'
His object, he said, was to inquire—nothing more—whether
it was not possible to devise honest means by which the great
vacillations of this system, the effects of which had been 6°
destructive, could be prevented; so that justice might be done
to all classes and all parties.
Mr. PEACOCK supported the motion for an inquiry, but net
upon the grounds put forward by Mr. Muntz, whose speech,
he remarked, 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 de;
pended upon the price of gold, whereas it bore a relation ant'
proportion to the supply of capital ; and third, that bank
deposits could control the circulation of the country, which
they were impotent to do. He supported the motion because
he wished for an inquiry into the working of the Bank Char'
ter Act.

Mr. DRUMMOND said this was a question more difficult t 0
discuss in that house than any other, because it was a question
of pure science, and it was easy to bring forward an array of
insulated facts; but, unless it was borne in mind that, in
speaking of value, the precious metals must be held to be $
fixed and unalterable quantity, all would be confusion. xo
talk of the rise and fall of the precious metals was downright
nonsense. They must be the sole measure of value.
After a long discussion, in which several members took
part, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be had been
desirous before he expressed his own opinion upon this motion
of hearing whether there was a general and prevailing senti-
ment in favour of a committee. He did not understand what
was the nature of the inquiry which the committee was to
undertake. He put it to the house whether the inquiri,
should be into matters of a speculative and philosophical
character. The ground upon which the question had been
argued was, that the subject of inquiry should be the Bank
Act of 1844. If that was the object, it would be better, in"
stead of couching the motion in vague terms, to move for a
committee to inquire into the operation of that act. As;
suming that to be the object of the motion, he repeated what
he had stated upon a preceding night, that, in his opinion,
the present moment was not peculiarly well suited for such
an inquiry. The circumstances of the country were er
ceptional and extraordinary, and, if a committee was nevi
appointed, the investigation would be to a great extent
directed to the extraordinary circumstances of last autumn, and
not to the general operations of the Act of 1844. There was
nothing perilous in the condition of the Bank of England-
The returns showed that the circulation amounted to
£19,254,000; that of bullion to £10,575,000; the notes to
£24,890,000, and the reserve to £5,848,000. Much hostile
criticism, he observed, had been passed upon the arbitrarY
limit of £14,000,000 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 any'
body 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 appoint'
ment 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 com-
petent tribunal.
Upon a division, the motion was negatived, by 116 to ea
THE IRISH JUDGES.
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE moved for copies of the judgment pro-
nounced by Mr. Justice TonßaNs, one of the judges of the
Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, in the case of Talbot v•
Talbot," before the High 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, froo
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 seat were lost.if
charges of this kind, not anonymous, were to be passed oar
without notice. The charge he brought against the judge
was incapacity, followed by most terrible and tragical muse'
quences,—a charge which, if true, made it the duty of the
House to interfere for the protection of the subject. 'Mr'
Phillimore gave a copious narrative of the facts of the case,
which, he said, appeared on the face of the depositions, and in
conclusion, accused the judge of admitting hearsay evidence
of a witness whose direct evidence he had rejected, of misre-
presenting the testimony of other witnesses, and of interne'
lating his judgment after its delivery.
Th motion was seconded by Mr. J. Eivenr.
Mr. WHITESIDB entered into a counter-statement of facto,
by which he contended that the judgment in question was
borne out, observing that Mr. Justice Torrens was only
one of five judges of which the Court of Delegates consisted;
and the judgment he delivered was that of the Court'
Why, he asked, did not Jr. Phillimore assail the
whole court? The motion, if successful, would, be
said, be fatal to the independence of the bench. The
case was now before a competent tribunal, and this motion
was calculated to forestall and prejudice it. After examining.
the charges preferred against Mr. Justice Torrens, he declared
them to be either groundless or trivial, and asked n'i°
the house was going to do, whether it intended to proceed in
the career of summoning judges before it upon garbled
tracts of evidence. The motion he characterned as a n 05,...
chievous one, and he trusted to have the support of bed
Majesty's ministers in defending thejudges of a court appointe
by their own Lord Chancellor,

I

...r........._.•

Mr. WA
treater pai
of Commo
luestion.
fire with
that the m

110 Use he t
of a Court
➢erform.
The mot

The Dra
third time

The Sec
'as read a
,The Am
/Igo that
extend to
The hou

The Lo
lead a sect
Tint Po'
be co
oo this bi'
War estimz
be able to
astimates
to defer it

to the m
Was in 1
that it t(
regard tc
tigation.
duty wa
these im
time, he
the gove
the grai
omission
the coin
the gen
'rase of
tion, 114
givin

Mg an
Promotil
result o
Manner
report
ineulpat
leave hi
the sam
Mr. F
forward
then tali
Year, wl
been lai
of the c
this col
life.

In th
Eve.Ns

Mr. I
Which I
to this
Was sor
opinion
Whate'
conclud
charge
port of
the bo.

Thl
Bill p

etie,