The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-03 00:00:00

'.s', .sec ....
_ --.- " ',
V
c.:. .
1,4 '-' • 1',.1',
-4 -

'1 4 ,
f.) *
~:glf?
0 -7
aft,/ 11 ,

1/

FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1822.

Bank-note was worth 20s. and that, in the public estimation,
it ,was worth 20s. resolved, that is to say, that the public esti-
mated a 11. rote and a • shilling equal to a guinea : —the same
House of Commons, within two months afterwards, with equal
majority, passed an Act of Parliament to fine and imprison,
those persons who took it for less.—(Hear.)—ln fact, they,de-
. clared the note to be worth 20s. with one breath, and with 'the
next prepared punishment for those who took -it at 14s. At
that very time, the House of Commons—Heaven forbid I
should be speaking of the present House ; I know it too well
toput myself within the scope of its vengeance by saying what
I think of it !—but the former House of Commons, sitting
where we now sit, did do that which no set of men existing,
• I believe, but themselves could have done: with the intimate
knowledge that the market price of their bit of rag was 14s.
or 15s. only, they had the effrontery to come forward, and to
tell the whole world that it was worth 20s. and that thepublic
believed it to be'so—(Cheering)—And two months afterwards
clothed in the white *sheet of their own Act of Parliament, they
came forward to do penance for what they had done before—
,(Excessive cheering and laughtrn—And, after declaring the
note current at 20s. made it penal to purchase it for less. The
Hon. and Learned Aleinber, concluded by observing, that if
ever a House of Commons before hacso stultified its own Act,
that being made out, he would respect the House of Commons
of the year 1812.
Mr. MONCK took the petition to afford a lamentable in-
stance of the frightful consequences of tampering with the cur..
rency of a country, and making money, by legislative enact-
ments, dearer at one time and cheaper at another. He differed,
however, with the petitioner, so far as he attribtited his loss to
the 'difference, in 1814, between the price of paper and the
price of gold (the guinea being at 265., and the note at 14.5.),
because he (Mr. Monck) Was prepared to contend that both
gold and, paper might be equally depreciated : a currency be-
came depreciated, not with reference to the price of gold or
silver, but with reference to the price Of the necessaries of life,
and most particularly of corn.. -
Mr. RICARDO said, that his view only applied itself to
the depreciation which had taken place since the year 1819.

111r.litIONCK said, that all thtise were mistaken who esti-
mated the extent of the depreciation by the value of gold only.
ELLIOE said, there was one fact more extraordinary
than all, and which ought not to be passed unnoticed. It
was, that in the year 1818, when the amount of Bank-notes in,
circulation was greater than any year during the war, there be-
ing,;_then a circulation of Bank-notes of not less than thirty
millions, and the amount of the country bank notes" Was great
in proportion, the market price of gold was £3 las. 6d.
Air. RICARDO observed, it was clear that the value of
money was not to be measured by the price of gold, but by the
currency; for an alteration in the value of money, and an al-
teration in the value of the currency, were two different
things. If we regulated our currency by any particular stan-
dard, we must be subject to all the alterations of that standard.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN TH} BANK AND