The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-30 00:00:00

of the Marquis of NORiVIANBY, to pronounce
them wholly innocent. Even the Tories must
be satisfied with his declaration; its effect on the
masses time must show.

After Lord BROUGHAM had reminded their
Lordships that the Judges were not unanimous
on the technical question mooted at the trial,
their Lordships adjourned till Monday.
In the Commons the SPEAKER reported her
MAJESTY'S Answer to the Address, which ran
in the usual complimentary strain.
The petitions presented, and the notices given,
are scarcely susceptible of abridgement ; and we
refer for them to our report, merely adding, that
a motion of Mr. DIVETT to print a petition from
Mr. SALOMONS to repeal the disabling oaths im-
posed on the Jews, was adjourned till Monday.
Mr. MAcKINNON seems, looking to the Report
from the Lords, to have been too late for the
fair, in giving notice of his intention to call the
attention of the House to the Report on the
health of towns. He seems time enough, how-
ever, in proposing to move for a Committee to
inquire into the necessity of importing labourers
(slaves, qy.) into the West India Islands.
Captain POLHILL, with that petty fussiness
which now distinguishes the Tories, asked whe-
ther Lord JoHN RUSSELL was aware that a letter
had been written, signed G. E. ANSON, return-
ing thanks, on behalf of PRINCE ALBERT, for
an Address of Congratulation from the Loyal
REPEAL Association. Lord JoHN replied, No.
Mr. PoLHILL said he would repeat the question
on Tuesday ; but Ile was told by Lord JOHN
that Ministers would be prepared to reply to a
question concerning any act done by their ad-
vice, but not to reply to a question touching an
act done by Prince ALBERT. The Prince may-
learn from this what a tyrant whip the Tories
would hold over him 'had they the power. A
Society sends him a loyal, hearty congratulation
on the birth of his first child ; his Secretary, by
his order, returns a civil answer; and this gentle-
manly act, because the Tories dislike the Society,
is construed by them into an act of treason against
their high mightinesses, their bigotry and politi-
cal fanaticism. So be it.

The formal step of going into a Committee of
Supply was taken, when Mr. HUME announced
his intention of bringing the finances of the coun-
try under the consideration of the House, and
Mr. O'CONNELL announced his of asking a ques-
tion on Monday about the treaty with Texas.
The adjourned debate on the Copyright Bill
was resumed, lid Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD
moved for leave to bring in his Bill, which he
said was justified by the previous sanction
of large majorities of the House.
Mr. WARBURTON opposed the motion in a
long speech, in which he made the astounding
declaration that he acknowledged no natural
rights, but only Nights growing out of conveni-
ence and expediency, which pretty doctrine
places the lives and properties of all men and
women at the mercy of the fancies of the Legis-
lature. Because the Hon. Member could quote
many instances, unhappily, of legislation and
of the constitution of society violating the
natural rights of men, he jumped to the conclu-
sion that they do not exist. According to this
doctrine, a babe has no right to the breast of its
mother, though nature, not the Legislature, has
prepared that for its nourishment. Mr. WAR-
BURTON'S doctrine is Toryism, essaying to do all
things, even to eradicate sin, by legislation run
mad. There are, however, many of his observa-
tions which will disturb the stagnant pool of the
public mind. We commend them to the atten-
tive consideration of the reader. He denied the
WAT TYLER doctrine, that whatever a man pro-
duces by the labour of his hands is his. He de-
nied, therefore, that men have an absolute right
of property in the production of their own minds.
He spoke for the public, and in their behalf re-
sisted the motion.

After a few words from Mr. HUME, the motion
avas carried by, 142 to 30,, and leave given to bring
in the Bill, which was brought up and read a first
time.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to continue the Poor-law Commis-
sion for ten years.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH objected to the motion, be-
cause the Noble Lord had before promised that
he would not renew the power of the Commis-
sioners without first altering the law.
Mr. WAKLEY declared that he would oppose
the Bill in every stage, if the power of the Com-
missioners was to be continued as at present.

➢lr. HODGSON HINDE concurred with Mr.
WA KLEy, and thought a Committee should ex-
amine the rules and regulations made by the
Commissioners, before continuing their power.
To re-appoint them for ten years, was to appoint
them for life.

After several short speeches of little import-
ance Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the new law,
and took a rapid view of the faults of the old law
and the opinions expressd against it. He was
for preserving the Guardians and Commissioners
as at present, but he thought the number of As-
sistant-Commissioners might be reduced to
twelve. He believed that the Report before the
House supplied all necessary information, and
should deceive the House if he held out any hope
of a relaxation in the law. Leave was given, and
the Bill was brought in and read a first time.
On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, the Factories,
Committee was re-appointed.
The House adjourned at Half-past Seven.

MT. DANIEL HARDCASTLE, alias Mr. PAGE,
the great Currency Doctor of the Times, put
forth yesterday in that journal a curious theory,
which, as the journal says that his &lucubrations
always excite much public attention, is worthy
of notice. The purport of the communication is
to " show that gold is in fact a much cheaper
medium of circulation than paper." This para-
doxical assertion, so contrary to the received
opinion, would have been more satisfactorily
made out had the said learned DANIEL proved,
in the first instance, that the prime cost of the
metals and of paper respectively has no infiu-
ence on the subsequent coSt. But this is a
point which is—we think most unfortunately for
Mr. HARDCASTLE'S argument, as the whole
theory hinges on it—postponed for future dis-
cussion. The writer says :
Besides the argument we have disposed of in the fore-
going observations, that paper money saves the expense
of coinage and the loss by wear on metallic money, others
are brought forward, as-
1. That the material of which paper money is constitu-
ted being of little value, while gold and silver are very va-
luable, by using the former instead of the latter, we gain
all the difference in the cost of the material, and this
gain, they say, is measured by the annual interest on the
amount of the difference in the value of the material.

2. That paper is much mute convenient in the making
of payments.
3. That it is impossible to carry on the large transac-
tions of the country by means of metallic money.
These points we will discuss on a future occasion, and
show that they have no sure holding, but arc all vanity,
and less than nothing,
Now, the prime cost of the instrument of cir-
cnlation is the main consideration in the dispute
as to the comparative cheapness or dearnesS of
the two species of currency, and, till we see
that branch of Mr. HARDCASTLE'S argument, we
can give no opinion whatever on his curious
theory. He has certainly brought together a
great number of facts to show that the relative
expense of keeping in circulation an equal quan-
tity of paper money and metallic money, looking 1
only to the wear and tear of the latter—making
no estimate whatever of losses for sinking ofships,
burning of buildings, destruction by war, care-
lessness, &c. &c , is much greater for the former
than the latter. But the highest estimate of ex-
pense for the former is 21 per cent, while the in-
terest of capital varies from 3 to 10 per cent., and
the advantage of the use of paper is that it
substitutes an absolutely valueless material, the
loss of which is. of no consequence, for one of
great intrinsic value, which bears interest in the
market. The 22 per cent. represents the wilole
cost of a paper currency ; to the expense of coin-
age for a metallic currency, and wear and tear,

- which alone is considered by Mr. HARDCASTLE,
must be added the current rate of interest for the
whole sum in circulation, and all the losses of the
- precious metals. The substitution, however, of
a valueless for a costly instrument he is after-
. wards to consider, and, till that be considered, Mr.
HARDCASTLE'S arguments, proofs, and theory,
are essentially incomplete and defective.
The proper mode of making the comparison
between paper and gold is to find out the whole
sum of labour required to extract a given quan-
tity of ore from the mine, to convert it into bul-
lion, to bring it to the place where it is to circu-
late, to assay and stamp it, to count it in making
payments, &c. &c. ; and also to find out the whole
sum of labour required to make a quantity of
paper whiCh represents that given value of bul-
lion, to engrave it, write on it, issue it, make pay-
ments with it, &c. &c. ; and, making the compa-
rison now mentally, we have no doubt whatever,
in spite of Mr. HARDCASTLE'S ingenious remarks,
that any given amount of payments, and the
larger the more favourable to paper, may be
made, or commodities be exchanged, at a much
less expense of labour, by means of a paper cir-
culation than by means of a bullion circulation.
Mr. HARDCASTLE, we are afraid, has a new
scheme of paper currency of his own to fall back
on, as subsidiary to his bullion currency. For
example, he says :
At Hamburgh they have no paper money whatever, and
by liquidating the great bulk of their transactions by
means of bars of silver lying in a bank of deposit, they not
only save the expense of paper, but they also save the
loss of. coin by wear, and the expense of
coinage, and they even save the expense of
banking. For the bank at Hamburgh is the bank of the
city; every citizen of good fame and reputation, however
huttible, has a right to open an account with the bank
upon depositing the trifling sum of 100 marks (about 80 ;
the profits of the bank are trifling, and if even they were
more considerable, nobody would virtually pay anything ;
for- part of the profits of the bank are bestowed on the
poor, and the remainder is applied to other expenses of
the city ; and. as if the money which is applied to these
purposes should not be forthcoming out of the profits of
the bank, it must be supplied by a tax on the citizens, so
is it true to say that their banking operations arc carried
on without any expense whatever, and so, that besid, s
saving the expense of paper; the loss by wear on the
coin, and the expense of coinage, the citizens of Ham-
burgh avoid all the risk and expense of banking.
There is not now existing, or ever has been, or can be,
a more simple, cheap, and solid system of currency than
that which obtains at Hamburgh.
But I/E,n the citizens have opened their ac-
counts with the Bank, how do they make pay-
ments ? Of course by means of transferring
credit on the books of the Bank from one person
to another. These transfers are made by order
of the parties keeping deposits, which orders are
virtually and truly a paper currency, though con-
fined to the books of the Bank. Nay, if we are
not misinformed, they are so used by the diffe-
rent merchants who lend each other credits at
the Bank, as our merchants give checks on their
bankers. Whether the banking system of Ham-
burgh be superior to our banking system is a
question we shall not now discuss, though we may
remark that we have it in fact already amongst
us; but it is, we believe, from considering that this
system of deposits and of banking is preferable
to our system, and by proposing to adopt it, that
Mr. HARDCASTLE is to get over the objection to
his theory, that gold costs less than paper. He
would substitute another system of banking,
another species of paper money for that which is
in use amongst us, and show if he can that his
paper money is the cheapest. No European
nation is now without a paper currency ; and the
natural manner in which it has grown into gene-
ral use, and been substituted for metallic money,
is a prima facie reason for believing that Mr.
HARDCASTLE'S theory is unsound.
For one observation the public ought to feel
grateful to Mr. HARDCASTLE, because it places
the wrong practised by the Legislature in giving a
monopoly to the Bank of England in a clear
light. " The promissory note of a banker," says
Mr. HARDCASTLE, " is a debt, and yet upon this
debt he gains interest. Now, that a man should
pay interest on a debt is in many cases plainly
reasonable, but that he should receive interest on
a debt; *atid-rfrandth -every-extension and multi-
plication of his debts his income should increase,
is against all reason, and justice, and honesty, and
common sense." That is admirably true. How
then does the Legislature act with regard to the
borrowing Bank of England? It guarantees to
it a monopoly of borrowing from the public, and
at the same time acting in the name of the pub-
lic, and on behalf of the public, gives to the Bank
interest on the very money the Bank borrows
from the public at no interest. This is a regular
juggle, by which the Bank, through the instru-
mentality of the Legislature, which is constituted
to protect the public, annually juggles the public
out of a great portion of its large income.
We cannot, however, conclude, with Mr. HARD-
CASTLE, " that there ought to be no paper money
whatever, or it should be issued for the benefit
of the Government." On the contrary, we be-
lieve that there must be paper money, and that
it ought not to be issued by the Government.
It originates mercantile credit; and, when .most
genuine and valid, represents commodities on
their way to market, none of which are produced
or possessed by Government. Government re-
ceives revenue, but produces none. Paper money
has, we readily admit, like metallic money, been
much abused both by Governments and indivi-
duals. The proper remedy for the abuse is to
leave it perfectly free, and leave each individual
to borrow from the public, on his own promises to
pay, as much as the public will lend him. Pri-
vate banks, into the credit of which the public of
every locality can inquire, and which may be
made to embrace the whole community as share-
holders, with a perfectly free trade in banking,
are the best means of preVenting the abuses of
the paper-money system. But whether this be
correct or not, the subject is now attracting so
much attention, and so much light is thrown on
it every day, that the law concerning it, by
which one company is now enabled to plunder
the community, cannot be much longer cond.=
nued.

The declarations of' the Tory leaders, on the
first day of the Session, in favour of preserving
peace' with France, have given very general
satisfaction. They have been everywhere read
and admired, particularly the noble assertion
which the speech of Lord BROUGHAM excited the
Duke of WELLINGTON to make. To us they were
doubly welcome, because they not only assured
us that peace would, if possible, be preserved, but
they gave a complete contradiction to the many
sentiments of indignation and wrath against
France to which the Tory journals have lately
given utterance, and which they have endea-
voured to make common throughout the land.
It is now plain that those journals were speak-
ing without communication with their leaders,
and no more expressed their opinions, and were
no more in their confidence, than is the Standard
respected by the Duke of WELLINGTON. They
may be displeased, with this public rebuke, but
the nation at large is comforted and assured by
learning that the Tories, not less than the Whigs,
desire to preserve the peace of Europe, and
continue the most friendly relations with France.
The Tory leaders have not only done honour
to themselves by their declarations, but they
must have strengthened the Ministers in their
determination and desire to cherish, if possible,
the good understanding between the two coun-
tries. That Sir ROBERT PEEL might take a
somewhat different view from the Ministers, as
to the courtesy due to M. G UIZOT and the
French Monarch, seems to us no matter of re-
proach; nor do we see anything in the language
in which he expressed his difference of opinion
deserving of censure. It is at the same time
true that the incorrectness of his view was ably
exposed by Lord PA LMERSTON, who demon-
strated that to have communicated the Treaty,
with a view to obtain the concurrence of France,
would have been an insult, by implying a doubt
of her sincerity and truth.
Resting satisfied with the success of Lord PAL-
MERSTON, and seeing much to admire in the decla-
ration of Sir R. PEEL, we not only have not joined