The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-11-17 00:00:00

f

. „
A rather decent looking woman, named Bridget Dug:
gan, was charged for having attempted to steal a gold
ring from the shop of Mr. Thomas, Dale:-street. The
prisoner went into the shop on Thursday and asked to
see a " keeper " ring, and on being shown one she put it
into her mouth, and attempted to swallow it. One of
the,young,men,in the shop said he "throttled" her, and
had a great, deal of difkaty toga, the ring out of her
month. The prisoner, in, aSVIct to the charge, said
sonic friends gaye, her' brandy, and She 14ris.in stich
state that she did not know what ,she was doing. It
appeared that she was very drunk at the time. She
received a good' character, and one of the detective
officers said he knew her to be a decent woman, keeping
a standing in the market, and never heard anything to
bor prejudice before. She was discharged' with a
madden

(liefoie Mesdid. and MEtiit.)
,lIEE4IIOIISt .CASES.
~,,,,,
Thomas Braithwaithe, Tarlton-street, was summoned
for Sunday trading. Fined ss.
Matthew Martin, Chisenhale-street; for Sunday
trading fined 205.. and costs.
James Munroe, Tatlow-street, was charged, for Sun-
day trading. The .defenge was that the ale was given
for a sick person. Acquitted.
Itobett Cain, Craven-street, was charged for doing
4,
nitsiness at illera. Dismissed,
1: e
Catharine ther, Epsom-Street; .*as, charged for
doing business at prohibited hours. Acquitte.d.
Michael Scott, Grafton-street, was charged for doing
business at illegal hours. Fined ss.
John Quayle, Gregson-street. was charged for doing
business at prohibited hours. Fined 40s.
Charles Smith, Jasper-street, was summoned for re-
fusing to admit the police. Fined 20s. and costs.
John Wools, Thurlow-street, was charged for selling
ale at tirchiljited.hdarS, and for allowing drunkenness.
Fined 10s. and costs:

Isaac Jones, Dansie-street, was charged for &ridgy
;railing. Fined ss. and costs.

LIVERPOOL AND HER BANKING SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY TIMES.'
sen,—lnTesuming the consideration of the system of the
rediscount bf bills, aria the recent disaStrous illustration
of the results in Liverpool, I may notice its extremely
pernicious and ruinous reiults, when accompanied by
the prineiple 'of unlimited liability of shareholders in
joint stock banks. In the Case of the institution- to
which I have referred it' is Only necessary to observe
that, if the liability of its prdprietota had been liraited
to the value of the shares held, its practice of redidcotint
could never have been carried to such an unwarrantable
extent as it was. It must have met its difficulties at a
much earlier period; and,
.had it done so, there can be
no question that the losses sustained either by its pro-
prietory or the public would have been materially less-
ened, whilst the shock to Liverpool credit would have
been less damaging in effect, and infinitely more transient
in character. _ _ _

It will; perhaps, admit. of proof, that the system of
rediscount, even when carried beyond all fair, reason-
able, and legitimate limits, will, and does, under
special circumstances, confer some public advantages,
and that our own to*n has in tidies past 'derived such
cannot .perhaps be _denied; but it requires_ Very_ little
argument to shoW that these were ptirdhaeed at a fearful
price—a price out of all proportion to their valde. In
estimating this we have to consider the full effects
produced' by an explosion of the system—the undue
contraction of credit it creates ; and the enormous
abridgment of the available means of , trade by
which it is followed. One • extreme inevitably
and nattirally begets the other. It was so in 1857,
when we, as a community, lapsed frdni extreme credit
to absolute distriist. Whether the evils then inflicted:
upon theivereantile community have, even yet, been
in any appreciable degree, 'much less wholly compensated
for, is more than questionable. It is also doubtful
whether? the losses sustained during the past three years
by the undue contraction of our banking capital and
credit, has not far more than absorbed any profit made,
during the previous ten years, by its unsound expansion
from the undue and indiscriminate rediscount of bills.
In leaving this. part of the piestien, it may be remarked
that the adoption of the practice of rediscount *as the
natural' resillt of a deficiency of banking capital; it has
been perpetuated by the same cause, and it will only cease
with the introduction of free banking institutions that
shall concentrate and render available for commerce,
that large amount of dormant capital,now acknowledged
to exist, and to be in the possession of that class of our,
community who are excluded from the use of banks by
the commission-tax of a quarter per cent.
But this qUestipri of rediscount hAs to be considered
frdm another point of vie* i a point; too, • involVing
results.even more important than any I have yet noticed.
It affects the 'very foundation of our whole banking
systern,-and effectually perpetuates that 'dependent
monetary position of Liverpool which is so detrimental
to hdr commerce. It effectually crushes that indepen-
dence which should grow with age and increasing
wealth, and is the parent of the practice of domiciling
all Liverpool bills of exchange at London bankers. In
small communities, and Acre dOtrinierdial transactions
of magnitude are few and far between, one can well
understand that some advantages may attend the practice
of making bills'payable in London; and it is not too
much to: admit that. there. was a time when. it was
beneficial to Liverpool, but certainly that has long since
passed away, and the practice would have naturally
passed with it had it not been for the rediscounting
practice of her bankers. ft continues still because no
adeqiiate provision has yet been made to meet Liverpool's
requirements. Let the reader consider. Who that is
engaged in trade does not know that when a bill of
exchange is 'handed to a banker here, almost the first
point noticed is whether it is payable at S. London bank,
and one, too, having a recognised agency in Liverpool,
All bills of a certain class, to ensure their discount, must
be made So payable. True, this does not prevail now to
the full extent it once did, but the exceptional cases even
now are rare. A bill 'of exchange payable in Liverpool is
always less current in Liverpool than one payable in Lon-
don. The reason is obvious. Under our present restricted
system of banking, when w banker advances money upon
a bill :of exchange he has to look to its convertibility ;
or, in other words, he has to see whether it is such an
instrument as he can raise money, upon in London ; and
he knows it Would be utterly useless to send there any
paper that_ was only redeemable in Liverpool. This is
the real key-stone of our monetary dependence. and here
we may trace the Ain force of that crushing tyranny of
London capitalists, which has so often placed Liverpool
in so unenviable and dangerously critical a position.
Now let us consider the cost at which we purchase this
dependency and tyranny. Virtually, nay, practically,
and certainly the effect of domiciling our bills in Lon-
don, is to transfer to London bankers. one-half the
banking commissions paid in Liverpool, and which
should, and might, be kept at home to enrich our own
'community. It, is not necessary even to estimate the
losses which Liverpool bank shareholders sustain from
this transfer of profit from themselves. There does
seem something so ridiculously and marvellously absurd
in the *aide of A Selling to B £5OO worth of produce,
and taking his acceptance for the amount payable in
London, when buyer, seller, produce, and money are all
in Liverpool. The system of rediscount is the only
necessity that now exists for such an anomaly. Why
should London participate to the extent of 255. upon
every £l,OOO of produce sold in Liverpool,
when the payment is made through the me-
dium of a bill of exchange ? Let a bank once
be established that ' should be independent of
the practice of rediscount, and instead of giving
a' preference in the disecunt of bills of exchange
to those payable in London, give the preference to those
payable at any Liverpool bank, and we should soon see
a change effected so far as regards home bills, and the
commissions now paid. to the London bankers would
soon be saved, and more than compensate for any slight
advantage of rediscount. Let the rediscount ofbills- by
bankers be exceptional, not the rule, and let a preference
be given to all paper payable on the spot. This, with
other means would soon render Liverpool independent.