The Sun. — 1856-05-10 (London, England)

THE BANK CHARTER ACT. Mr. MALINS reminded the house that when the Bank Charter was under discussion in February the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted the importance of the question, and stated that he would not object to appoint a select committee, but the time was inopportune. Since then the stock of bullion and the reserve of notes had considerably diminished, and it was the duty of the Government to guard against the recurrence of the crisis of 1847. He begged to ask the Chancellor of the Ex chequer whether, seeing that the bullion in the Bank of England continued to diminish, it:was the intention of the Government to allow the present session of Parliainent to expire without taking any measure to relax the strictness of the provisions of the act of 1844 which regulated the issue of Bank notes ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, with the Permission of the house, would answer the question in reference to the present state of things only; the amount of bullion in the Bank on the sth January last was 10,537,0001. ; on the 26th March it was 9,723,000/. ; and On Saturday last, the 3d May, 9,807,000/. ; showing a decrease since the beginning of the year of 730,0001. This drain of bullion was owing, in a great degree, to remittances on account of the Turkish loan. The residue of that now in the Bank was about 650,0001. Against a Portion of that bills would be drawn, so that only the sum of 200,0001. would be remitted in specie, and the drain on account of the commissariat chest would be conOiderably lessened. Under these circumstances it was likely the stock of bullion would increase ; and in answer to the question he could only say it was not the intention of the Government to propose any such measure as he hon. gentleman referred to.  ter, that he felt himself bound, as an act of justice, to express his opinion upon the subject. There cauld not be the slightest doubt that he had properly exercised hi. discretion, and this opinion was strengthened by the judgment of the Queen's Bench on a late occasion, in a case in which an application was made fora mandamus to compel him (the Attorney-General) to issue his fiat for a writ of error. That was a case in which the prisoner wished to bring error upon the ground that the place where the offence was proved to have been committed was not within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, where the prisoner was tried. The Court of Queen's Bench held that, as that was an objection of which the prisoner might have taken advantage at the trial, and as he had had substantial justice done to him, the AttorneyGeneral was right in refusing his fiat, and that he had exercised a wise discretion. The man was charged with a foul murder, and had the right of challenge. A juror was discharged, on the ground of illness ; another man was added, and the jury were re-sworn. The prisoner's counsel took their chance of a verdict ; and now they came upon a purely technical point, and wanted to have the objection argued in a court of error. He considered that the right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland was to be admired for the moral courage of refusing to sign the fiat ; and he hoped that after the full discussion which had taken place on the subject, in this and the other house of Parliament, no blame whatever would attach to him for taking that course. Mr. WHITESIDE observed that in the present case the prisoner admitted that he had no objection to the 12th juror sworn in the room of the juror who was discharged, but he was not told that he had the privilege of challenging the others. He (Mr. Whiteside) thought, under all the circumstances, it would have been well if the Clerk of the Crown had given the same intimation to the prisoner with respect to the 11 jurors that he had done with respect to the 12th. At the same time he thought the right hon. gentleman was quite justified in refusing the fiat. Mr. NAPIER agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last as to the advisability of having given the prisoner an intimation that ho had a right of challenge, but considered that the Attorney-General for Ireland was justified in withholding the fiat.  Mr. M‘