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

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 1110
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

■

MARCH 1, 1856•

ROEBUCK'S MOTION.

which, if true, made it the duty of the house to in-
terfere for the protection of the subject. Mr. Philli-
more gave a copious narrative of the facts of the
ease, which, he said, appeared on the face of the
depositions, and, in conclusion, accused the judip of
admitting hearsay evidence of a witness whose direct
evidence he had rejected, of mistepresenting the
testimony of other witnesses, and of interpolating
his judgment after ita delivery.
The motion was seconded by Mr. J. EWART.
Mr. WHITESIDE entered into a counter-statement
of facts, by which he contended that the judgment in
question was borne out, observing that Mr. Justice
Torrens was only one of five judges of whieli the
Court of Delegates consisted, and the judgment he
delivered was that of the court. After examining
the charges preferred against Mr. Justice Torrens,
be declared them to be either groundless or trivial,
and asked what the house was going to do—whether
it intended to proceed in the career of summoning
judges before it upon garbled extracts of evidence.
The motion he characterised as a mischievous one,
and lie trusted to have the support of her Majesty's
Ministers in defending the judges of a court
appointed by their own Lord Chancellor.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD and Mr. PACKE opposed the
motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said he had never listened to a mo-
tion with greater pain, and hoped it would be the
last time the House of Commons would be asked to
sit in judgment upon such a question. The last
thing the house might to do was to interfere with the
administration of justice. He recommended that
the motion should be withdrawn.
Lord PALMERSTON joined in this recommendation.
The house, lie thought, ought not to take upon
itself the functions of a court of review, which it was
totally incompetent to perform.
Mr. PitunmosE, after a brief reply, withdrew the
motion.

THE M'NEILL AND TULLOCH REPORT.
Mr. ROEBUCK, on Monday, gave notice that on
Friday next, on the motion for going into committee
of supply, he would move the following resolution :

That to appoint a commission of general officers to
report upon the report of Sir John AV:Celli anti Colonel
To'loch is to substitute an inefficient for a very efficient
means of investigation, anti that such appointment will
tend to strengthen an opinion already prevalent, that the
real purpose of such proceeding is to shelterinco:mpetence,
and to excuse the misconduct of those by whom ♦arious
departments of our army have been subjected to the com-
mand of proved incapacity.

THE CRIMEAN COMMISSION.-MR.

Sir JOHN PANINGION, on Tuesday, gave notice of
his intention to move the following amendment to
Mr. Roebuck's motion on the subject of the Crimean
repurt :

That the house regretted that her Majesty's Government
had not transmitted the report to the Commanderin-
Chief before it was submitted to the house, thereby giving
ground to suppose that there was a want of confidence
between the IVar•otfice and the Horse Guards, and causing
the construction of a military commission, which was in-
adequate in its nature to inquire into the matters contained
in the report: and that the house observed with regret
tha the Government had appointed to responsible posts
officers whose conduct was iropugued, and while the
inquiry into their conduct was still proceeding.
Lord PALMERSTON, on Tuesday, in reply to Mr.
Roebuck, mentioned the names of the board of offi-
cers to whom the Crimean report is to be submitted,
and laid the warrant under which they are to act on
the table.

RECRUITING IN THE UNITED STATES.
Sir DE LACY EVINS, on Thursday, rose to give
notice—

That on the motion for going into committee on the
army estimates 1 shall move a resolution disapproving of
the conduct of the Government in repeatedly refusing offers
from most respectable parties in Canada to raise troops
for service in the Crimea from among our colonial fellow-
subjects, while, at the same time, abortive attempts were
being made to enlist recruits for the same in the ad-
joining territory of a neutral State, contrary to inter-
national law.

THE CASE OF MR. COMMISSARY-GENERAL

FILDER.
Mr. F. PEEL, on Thursday, in reply to Sir J.
Pakington as to whether there was any objection to
lay the written reply of Mr. Filder to Lord Panmure
upon the table, and thereby do that gentleman the
same justice as has been done to the cavalry generals,
Lord Lucan and Lord Cardigan, said :

Should Mr. Filder give any intimation of his desire to
have the statement laid upon the table, there will be no
objection to the fulfilment of his wishes. I may say, at
the same time, that though I do not now enter into the
reasons which led to the recal of Mr. Filder, were I to
enter into a full explanation of the case, 1 have no doubt
that that explanation would be deemed perfectly satisfac-
tory by the house.

MORTALITY OF THE ARMY IN THE CRIMEA.
Mr. PEEL, on Tuesday, in answor to Sir De Lacy
Evans, rspeatad the explanation he bad given on

1