It must, we think, be conceded, that under the present point of view, the state of the English paper issues is liable to very grave objections. In Ireland, where the number of issuing banks is only eight, all of which are public banks, the cases of forgery are comparatively few, and a very high degree of confidence in the currency, is entertained by the public generally. Even in Ireland, however, that confidence is not so implicit or so universal as it would unquestionably be, if there were only one description of paper. A similar observation, though with some qualification, may be applied to the issues of the banks in Scotland. But in England, where, as has been said, the number of issuing banks amounts to about 250, and where at least 150 of these are private banks, it is obviously impossible that adequate safeguards can be provided against either the occasional dissemination of fictitious paper, or the not unfrequent infliction of severe pecuniary losses, through the failure of some of the banks of issue. We are fully aware of the high reputation which a vast majority of the country banks in England deservedly bear, both for stability and integrity; but the failure of several issuing and non-issuing banks, _since_ the passing of the Act as well as previously, suffices to prove that this high character cannot be predicated of all of them indiscriminately. And when a single bank of issue fails to meet its liabilities, it always tends to throw a partial discredit over the whole paper circulation of the kingdom. Whatever may be the other qualities desirable in a paper currency, it appears to us to be almost axiomatic, that it should, if possible, be rendered as secure as a currency purely metallic--as stable as the Government itself. But this we contend can never be accomplished, so long as the privilege of issue is conceded to any very considerable number of separate banking companies. The evils requiring to be guarded against, have been shown to be two-fold; the circulation of counterfeit notes, and the insolvency of some of the banks of issue. The former of these, in such a case, appears to admit of no infallible means of prevention; the latter can only be provided for by the State’s becoming the guarantee of all the paper money in the hands of the public. But this is a course which few, even of the most sanguine advocates of a plurality of issuers, would be bold enough to recommend. The amount of evil which it would generate, through acting as a bonus upon every species of mismanagement would be far greater than any which it could remove. But the principle itself, involved in the adoption, would be altogether inadmissible. It assuredly forms no part of the functions of Government to guarantee the solvency of an indefinite number of banking companies. At the same time, we consider it no less demonstrable, that the Government has not the right to authorize the issue of notes, without fully guaranteeing their payment in cases of insolvency.