The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-14 00:00:00

BANK COMMITTEE.

Mr. SPOONER claimed the indulgence of the house
while he endeavoured to do justice to a most
respectable gentleman, an o'Al and esteemed friend of
his own, who was rather unfairly dealt with last
night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; he alluded
to Mr. Twells. The right honourable gentleman read
part of Mr. Twells' evidence before the Committee
on 131nking, but the way in which he quoted' that
evidence was calculated- to give a wrong im-
pression of the views hell by him. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer read a long series of leading ques-
tions—he should rather call them misleading questions
—which bad been put to Mr. Twells by himself, and
their answer, but he omitted to read over questions and
answer', in connection with them, which changed the
whole cbaracter of the evidence. He did not read the
ques ions consecutively, but omitted many interesting
()nee, and thus prevented the house from fully under-
staocling the effect of the whole. The right hon. gentle-
man began by saying that he had been led into the error
of eupposing that he (Mr. Spooner) was the advocate of
an unlimited issue of invertible paper, but that he had
been male sensible of his error by a statement which he
bad made t) the house that he held no such views. He
said he had been led into the error by the evidence of
Mr. Twells, whose sentiments he supposed him (Mr.
Spooner) to hold. Now,
he begged to say that be con-
curred in all that Mr. Twells said before the committee,
but not in the construction put upon it by the Chan-
callor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman
a,ked this question—
" You recommend the issue of 20,000,000/. of bank notes
not payable in gold on demand, but receivablo by the Govern-
ment in payment of taxes.—Yes."

But the next question and answer were omitted, viz.

" Do you understand that those notes would be issued by
the Bulk of England or by the Government ?—I think it is
perfectly immaterial. I should say by the Bank of England,
on account of the completeness of its machinery. In order to
avoid as ranch as possible violating the feelings of the people
with regard to that to which we have been so long accus
to tied, it would be merely altering the words, and inserting,
instead of promise'l something of the same kind as
is inserted iu an Exchequer Bill, payable for receipt of taxes.'
It would of course be sanctioned by Government, but whether
the notes were issued by the Government or by the Bank of
England I think would be very immaterial."

The views of Mr. Twells were that we should have two
torts of currency—one for our own island and domestic
purposes, and the other to carry on our foreign trade.
Toe Chancellor of the Exchequer also put the following
question:—

"Of curse, it would be necessary to omit the words,
promise to pay,' because these notes would not, in fact, be
promises to pay on demand I-- Quite so."

But he omitted to put the next question, which was one
of great importance—

" What do you conceive to be the advantage of an incon-
vertible note of that kind over a convertible note payable
to bearer on demand ? —lt would prevent a drain of bullion
when it is required for foreign trade, and it would give us
what is so very essential,
influenced by aty foreign tara(uls°amerietniesnot
or America wants a quantity of gold it ought not to inter-
fere with our domestic currency. Our merchants
_and all
currency which
If
Francei