The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-29 00:00:00

hon. gentleman had said not an iota as to the monetary
system of the country; he had not said that ho would con-
firm the Act of 1844, but that he would inquire into it.
Bat what was all-important was that he should inquire in-
to the general monetary system of the country. No remedy
had heenlproposed but that of going before a committee ;
but what was the use of a committee for inquiry unless
something was recommended to that committee to be in-
quired into? What was it they had to inquire into? Whe-
ther the act of 1844 had answered the purpose for which
it was passed, as expressed by Sir R. Peel to the house
namely, prevented a change in the value of money, and
the recurrence of panics. Was not that a fair matter for in-
quiry ? Had the act prevented a change in the value of
money, and the recurrence of panics? In 1815 there were
no less than eight alterations in the rate of discount charged
by the Bank of England,—the amount beginning at two-
and-a-half and going to four per cent., and downwards
again to two and-a-half and rising to three, six, and seven
par cent., and yet they were told that there was no need
of inquiry, because no case had been made out showing that
the act had completely failed in its object. There never
were such panics as those of 1844 and 1845. In 1325
there was a considerable panic, but a much wove one oc-
curred in 1847 and 1848, and iethey traced the whole his-
tory of panics they would find that the Act of 1814, so far
from preventing them, had tended to bring them about. It
was said that no acts of Parliament or recommendations of
a committee could puts stop to panics. Ile, however, knew
' no law of nature whioh could account for them, and he at-

tri buted them entirely to our present monetary system, un-
der which they compelled the bank to buy gold whether
it wanted it or not at a given price, and to sell it at a given
price, however much might be wanted. It would, perhaps,
be answered that the bank might only give notes ; but by
doing so they might increase the amount of notes in the
market without any regard to whether the demands of
trade required more or not. What would be the effect of
that? It would lower the general rate of interest; and, as
soon as the rate of interest fell, all sorts of speculations
would start up in the country. Tuere could be no doubt
that very serious evils arose from that hollow state of pros-
perity which was caused by this forced, unnatural, and un-
called-for issue of notes. The motion of the hon. member
for Birmingham pledged the house to no opinion—it as-
serted no theory either as to convertible or inconvertible
currency. That was a question which he should be sorry to
argue with the house, for very few members took the trouble
to understand it ; and on such a subject it was utterly im-
possible, therefore, to make one's-self intelligible ; and,
moreover, th ,se who made the attempt were sure to have
imputed to them opinions very diff.rant from those which
they held. All they asked now was to have the operation
of the act of 1811 submitted to the calm consideration of

a select committee. The very fact of there being cycles of
property and misfortune, and of their being obliged to
take measures occasionally to prevent a drain of gold emp-
tying the coffers of the bank, was sufficient to convince the
house that an inquiry ought to take place. Was it a right
and fitting state for the currency of a great country like
this to be in—that the bank should be placed in a position
—not by any proceeding of its own, but by an act of that
house directing and controlling its management—which
rendered it necessary for a Miaister of the Crown at cer-
tain periods to break that Act of Parliament by a letter,
and then come to that house for an indemnity? (Hear.)
He regretted that the hon. gentleman the Secretary for
the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) was not present, because he was
going to allude to a book of which he was the author. He
would advise hon. members who had not seen it to send
for " Wilson on Capital and Currency," published in 1-47.
The strongest possible arguments were sot forth in that
work as to the evils of the Act of 1841, and as to its sure
and certain consequences. It was a singular fact that the
contents of the book, which consisted almost entirely of
documents, appeared originally in a weekly publication
without the name of the writer. They were afterwards
embodied in the work to which he now referred, and were
owned by the hon. gentleman. He did not blame the
hon. member for this volume—it did him great credit,
and he (Mr. Spooner) had derived much instruction from
its pages. It was somewhat extraordinary that, in the
ean-e publication in which the articles forming the book
were taken, there appeared, in January last, an article in
which he thought ho could trace a resemblance to the style
of the hon. member. The article summed up by stating
that the two grounds on which the Act of 1841 was de-
fended— viz., preventing panics and balancing the rate of
interest—were proved, not only by argument, but by the
test of experience, to be equally fallacious. It went on
say, " That the act is calculated, at particular times, to
be a serious mischief and inconvenience, no one will deny,
and if it be proved that the only advantage expected from
it is based on error, it will hereafter have to be shown
whether such an act should be left upon the statute-book
in its present shape." Had anything fallen from the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to induce the house to refuse an
inquiry into the co !s Nuances of an act which was so gra-
phicaliy the cibeel—denounced byone holding the high and
important situation of Secretary to the Treasury? The hon.
and learned member for Wallingford had shown good
grounds for an immediate inquiry, for he had proved by do-
cuments that during the last six or seven months the bullion
in the bank had decreased upwards of 8,000,0001., and that
they were now within 2,000,0001. of the point whero they
were inlBl7. Before, then, they arrived at that point, would
it not be better, instead of waiting until it was too late, to
inquire into the subject calmly and quietly, and in such a
way as to carry with them the respect and confidence of
the country ? He maintained that, by the present law, the
bank was obliged to extend its currency to a degree which
was uncalled-fol and unwarranted, and that produced a
prosperity which raised prices and took the gold out of the
country. He believed the house would grievously neglect
its duty if it did not have au inquiry into this question,
which was no speculative idea of his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). He believed that many
bubbles had burst owing to our forcing the bank to raise
its circulation, and that all the commercial difficulties
which had arisen were caused by the fetters imposed upon
the bank. He had not a shadow of doubt that if a com-
mittee were granted they would establish a Case for a good
and sufficient currency, and that a plan could be devised
for securing to the holders of that currency everything
they could wish. This was a question in which the power
of this country to maint,in itself among the nations of the
world was involved, and he therefore trusted the house
would grant a committee to inquire into it.
Sir C. WoOD would detain the house for a very few
moments while he replied to two or three observations
made on transactions in which he had taken a part. Ho
denied that the rate of interest depended xpon the means
of circulation. The means of circulation depended upon
the means of obtaining capital, and the rate of interest
bore no relation to the amount of circulation. The hon.
member for Birmingham had referred to the various panics
that had happened previous to the year 1814, :al those,
therefore, could not have been caused by the act of that
year, and it was only reasonable to suppose that those of
1815 and iBl6 arose from natural causes, such us over
speculation, and not from the operation of that act.
Great confusion had been introduced into the deb ate by
not understanding the meaning of the term " pound,"
which was simply a given quantity of standard gold,
namely, 123 grains, and the bank was bound to give a 5/.
note in exchange for every amount of five times 123 grains
of standard geld deposited with them. Speaking of
31. 171. 9,1. as the price or value of an ounce of gold only
confused the question, and the confusion would be alto-
gether avoided by bearing is mind the true meaning of the
term " pound sterling." The hon. member for York (Mr.
Cayloy) had put, into his (Sir C. Wood's) mouth the ex-
pression that go'd only was "capital ;" he was quite sure
that he had never said anything which could in any way
be so construe-I. 1 t had been said by an hon. member
that the committee which had inquired into the subject
was a packed committee, such as to insure a majority for
the Govcrnmen'n and at the same time he said that it was
only b 7 the accidental absence of two members that the
majority of two was secured. How the hon. gentleman
could reconcile his two propositions, he (Sir C. WooJ) was
unable to say, but he was confident that the committee
was a perfectly fair one, and desirous to arrive at a just
conclusion. The hon. member for Birmingham had said
that he did not approve of the Act of 1841; that that act
was necessary, however, so long as the Act of 1819 was in
existence, but that the Act of 1819. ought to be repealed.
It came, therefore, to this, that in his opinion both the
acts ought to be repealed, and the country reduced to the
state in which it was prior to the passing of the Act of
1819. As the hon. member's motion was founded upon
this principle, which he (Sir C. Wood) believed to be very
dangerous, and likely, if carried out, to entail great misery
upon the country, be tineted that the house would not
agree to the appointment of the committee.
Mr. MUNTZ then replied. He sail that he had good
reason to complain of the manner-in which the question
had been dealt with. Every member who had spoken had
misrepresented what he (Mr. Muntz) had stated—(hear,
bear)—end more especially the' right. hon, baronet who
had just addressed the house. He had never stated that he
wished to get rid of the acts of 1819 and 1841. What he
said was that the Act of 1814 had not answered the expec-
tations which had been held out respecting it. Ono hon.
member (Mr. Drummond) had recommended that the
iukpot should bo thrust down the throat of any one who
brought forward such a question—(laughter)—but it was
not every one who could swallow an ink-pot—(continued
laughter)—and as long as ho (Mr. Muntz) had the honour
of a seat in that house, he should go there as an indepen-
dent man, elected by iudependent men, to do what he
thought right—(hear, hear)—and to bring forward such
subjects as he considered proper. (Hear, hear.) He asked
the house to pledge itself to nothing. He simply asked
for a committee to inquire into the matter ; and when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a committee would
take a long time to inquire, it was only the greater reason
why it should be appointed at once. He hoped, therefore,
that the committee would be granted.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 6B
Against it ll5
Majority against the motion --47
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
._ ..

Major REED said that ho should postpone the motion
which stood in his name for leave to introduce a bill " for
conferring the elective franchise, upon persons (not being
aliens) assessed to the income tax, but not upon a register
of electors for Great Britain and Ireland," for fear, if he
brought it on, he should meet with the fate so narrowly
escaped already this evening by the hon. member for Bir-
mingham (dr. Muntz)—a count oat. He complained that
the Government did not take measures to prevent such a
scandal as that to which he had referred occurring on even-
ings devoted to the private business of the house.
THE CASE OF TALI3O2 V. TALBOT.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE then moved for the docu-
ments connected with the case of Talbot against Talbot,
tried by Mr. Justice Torrens in May Fast. Ho entered at
some length into the circumstances of the case, which was
a charar,o of adultery against Mrs. Talbot, and he con-
tended that the judge had, through incapacity or the
infirmities of age, taken a totally incorrect view of the
case, misquoted the evidence, and misapprehended the
effect of what was laid before him. He contended that if
these allegations were borne out by the facts, this house
ought to interfere, and prevent the judge who tried the
case from committing other instances of injustice through
his incapacity.
Mr. EWART seconded the motion.
Mr. WHITESIDE defended the decision, and went
over the evidence to show that it bore out the conclusion
of the judge. The judgment delivered by Judge Torrens
was the judgment of the whole court, consisting of five
members, but the hon. gentleman opposite chose to ignore
that part, and to attack only the venerable judge who
presided. Tim bill for a divorce was now pending in the
_douse of Lords, where all the witnesses might be examined
over again, but this motion was brought forward to fore
stal the decision of the case. He commented with great
severity upon these repeated attempts to interfere with
the independence of the Irish judges.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND alto ad-
vised the house to negative the motion.
Mr. PACSF: and Mr. WALroLE concurred in advising
Mr. Phillimore to withdraw his motion, as the House of
Commons was no fit tribunal for the trial of such cases.
Lord PALMERSTON also appealed to the hon. member
for Leominster not to press his motion. Nobody could
have listened to his speech without doing justice to the
motives that had led him to bring the case before the
house. It was a dimoult thing to assign limits to the func-
tions that hem. But it was desirable that they should