The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-25 00:00:00

censure .
We formerly took occasion to point out that the
rule, said to be adopted by the Bank to regulate its
issue::, so as to make the whole quantity of paper
and metallic money exactly equal to the quantity of
t7retallic money alone, which would be in circulation
were there no paper, was unscientific, false, and
absurd. Mr. GILBART shows with great clearness
that another maxim which the Bank follows, that
of regulating its issues by the state of the exchanges,
is most mischievous. When the exchange is un-
favourable the Bank contracts its circulation, the
contraction renders money more scarce, an advance'
takes place in the rate of interest, and so the Bank
assists the adverse state of the exchanges, whenever
that arises from commercial causes to distress the
mercantile community. When the exchanges are
favourable and money comes in from abroad, then
the Bank lets out its issues, and also conspires with
circumstances to make money abundant and cheap.
The rule avowedly followed demonstrates that the
Bank must injure the community.
But Mr. HORSLEY PALMER and other gen-
tlemen who have endeavoured to make a scientific
theory out of the bad practices of the Bank, have
laid it down that the Bank is to be quiescent under
the operation of the public, and allow the demands
made on it to regulate its issues. It is an excellent
principle that bankers should allow their customers
to decide how much money they want, the bankers
taking care to advance none on fictitious bills, or
on any but bona fide commercial bills, which, ac-
cording to all human probability, will be paid.
Bankers should only discount those bills which are
drawn against commodities on their way to
the market, and which, when they arrive, will
suffice to pay the bills. But the Bank of England
has by no means adhered to this rule. It con-
tinually makes advances to the Government, or puts
money into circulation on bills drawn against
the • produce of the taxes, not against com-
modities yet to be brought into consumption.
If a man have a ship-load of wine which is to be
sold to the wine-merchants, he may draw and dis-
count bills against the whole value of the cargo,
including the duty, which he will get from the
purchaser or the consumer. Before the tax goes
into the hands of the Government all the credit
has been taken on the wine which its value war-
rants ; and for the Government also to get a credit
for the taxes is the fact to put two sets of bank-
notes into circulation, representing the same goods
or the same values. The Bank does that when it
advances its notes against the produce of the taxes.
When it lends notes, not gold, on Exchequer bills,
and those notes are put into circulation, it does
something similar ; the Exchequer bill in fact re-
presents money borrowed by the Government ; and
the bank-notes put into circulation on its security
constitute a fictitious currency, which represent, not
values or commodities, but debts. If the theory of
Mr. HORSLEY PALMER and the Bank advocates
be good, it is a complete condemnation of the Bank
practice, which is notoriously the reverse of the
theory.
Mr. GILBART supplies us with two notable
examples of the same truth. In the spring of 1838,
he says the Directors of the Bank of England sent
nearly a million of gold to America. To send away
gold is entirely contrary to the principle of allowing
the demands of the public to regulate the issues of
and bullion in the Bank. In 1839 the Bank did the
very reverse, and probably the false step in 1838
made the other false step in 1839 necessary. In-
stead of allowing the public to replenish or exhaust
its stores, it was obliged to borrow 2,500,0001. of
the Bank of France, or do what was equivalent to
bringing back twice and a half times as much gold
as it sent out the year before. In what manner
any individuals connected with the Bank may have
profited by this attempt to hide its insolvency we
are not aware, but when gold was sent to America,
the then low rate of interest caused large sums
of money to be invested in American securities.
" Several of the Directors of the Bank of Eng-
land," says Mr. GILBART, " in their individual
character of merchants, became agents for the dis-
t! ibutiort of these securities." This specimen of
the manner in which the Directors profited by
their own act in making money plentiful, points to
the conclusion that the Directors depart from
principle, act adverse to their own theories, and
work the circulation, now injuring money-lenders
by beating down the rate of interest, and then
ruining money-borrowers by enhancing it to their
own private advantage. We shall return to Mr.
GILBA RT.S useful pamphlet.

The proceedings at the meeting held on Thurs-
day at the Freemasons' Hall, are well calculated to
rouse the latent energies of the friends of civil aid
religious freedom throughout the country. The
man who cmn see a member of the Royal Family
come forward, as the Duke of SUSSEX has done,
to heart a public meeting, called to protest against
the extravagant claims of the dominant sect, and
will not bestir himself in the same cause, deserves
all that Ecclesiastical tyranny can inflict upon him,
deserves to have his property plundered, his mind
enslaved, and his body imprisoned. Often has the
Duke of SUSSEX distinguished himself as the ad-
vocate of the civil and religious rights of his coun-
trymen, but never did he render a more signal ser-
vice either to the Church of which he is a member,
or to the Churches unconnected with the State,
than that which he performed on this occasion.
He will, as usual, be assailed by the virulent
abuse of a factious press for opposing what they
call Church-extension, but which is in reality
Church-extortion. The honest and reflecting
part of the community—those alone whose
opinions are worth a moment's considera-
tion to an honest man—will, however, give
him due credit for using all his efforts to pre•
vent, on the one hand, the perpetration of an act
of so disgraceful a nature, that it would weaken
the Church by exposing her to obloquy and
hatred, and on the other, to protect those who are
not of her communion from the unjust and oppres-
sive infliction of additional burdens for her support.
One of the most unpopular features of the State
Church is her covetousness. Though she is wal-
lowing in wealth, she is never satisfied. We can
more easily forgive her lust of power, excessive as
it is, than her avaricious spirit. There is at least
something imposing in the one, the other is insepa-
rably associated in the mind with all that is mean
and base. Who then are her true friends ? Those
who foster this degrading propensity, or those who
endeavour to check it ?

Like all other beggars, the Church pleads poverty
in excuse for her importunity. She would do an
immense deal of good—that she would—if she had
but the means. Now this may be a very cogent
reason for the wealthy members of her own com-
munion to bestow their charity, if they believe
her story ; but it is no reason why those who not
only receive no benefit from her, but regard
her as a nuisance, should be compelled to con-
tribute to her wants, real or imaginary. Such
compulsion, were there no religious considera-
xons. involved in the question, would not savour
ch.. of justice ; but when the matter is viewed in
oitsof the
rtehleigio pousckeastpsect, when money is to be taken out
of h
the Presbyterians— tforemiCthnagaollairegs,e tmhea
jDoriitsyseonftetrhse,
people—to extend a system of faith which they
conscientiously hold to be anti-scriptural, then re-
ligious is added to civil injustice. To civil wrong
men may often be bound, oroi may think themselves
P
bound to submit ; but, in
a ntsof religion, in mat-
ters where the conscience of
Submission
in concerned,such
there can be no compromise.
casesispritnrneiapsioen
ofa against Christianity, Cishrtihstai: every
nity,the funda-
mentalman must
be " persuaded in his own mind."
Even allowing that the Church is s
she has not wherewithal to cover her nakedness,poor that
would that be any reason for stripping other
Churches to clothe her—for oppressing other
Churches to minister to her self-indulgence ? She
boasts of comprising within her pa-le all that is
great and wealthy in the Kingdom. If her boast
be well-founded, it is a double shame for her to
look for support beyond her own communion.
But the truth is, that although she sues in
forma pattperis, she has more wealth than she
knows how to make a good use of. Her plea of
! poverty is altogether a sham plea• This was very
, clearly shown to be the case by Mr. B. HAWES,