The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-12 00:00:00

functions of Government, according to the prin-
ciples of the British Constitution. It absurdly,
we think, makes a momentary and unfounded
panic the basis of a general and a permanent law.
We are not, at present, going further into the
subject than to look at it in relation to the Go-
vernment, after the example of the new
Poor-law. Mr. PORTER, Sir F. SMITH, and
Mr. L AING may be very sagacious for their
own interests; they may, no doubt, suppose
that they can manage this whole matter
of railways very easily; but can the Govern-
ment afford to burden itself, on their recom-
mendation, with this vast responsibility ? Is it
not already overborne by a multiplicity of duties,
few of which are well performed? Can it
with propriety make itself also responsible
to the public for the proper management of rail-
ways throughout the empire? Is it so much be-
loved that it can readily bear the blame of
every 'accident which occurs on them ? Must
it be answerable for the good behaviour of
every man connected with them ? But it will
be made answerable and made responsible for
every accident and every disaster, if it carry for-
ward a measure recommended by Messrs. POR-
TER, Smrrx, and LA ING. For its own interest it
would be wise, we think, to interfere as little
as possible; and all those whose property de-
pends on the preservation of its power for pro-
tection, should warn it against so overburdening
itself with new and heavy responsibilities as to
make it break down from the load.

It is quite preposterous in the Tories, who
scarcely ever gain an election without having re-
course to corruption, bribery, and intimidation, to
cry out amain against bribery and corruption at St.
Alban's. The abuse and misrepresentation they
make use of are proportionate to their disappoint-
ment. The VERULAM family had made their ar-
rangements, without once consulting the consti-
tuency, to transfer the seat for St. Alban'sfrom the
Hon. Mr. GRIMSTONE—who finds it convenient to
quit the House of Commons, where he never opens
his mouth, for the pulpit, where he is sure, when
he does open his mouth, to find neither public op-
ponent nor public critic—to Mr. BOND CABBELL,
who finds it equally convenient to get into Par-
liament whenever and however he can. Than
such a transfer, so nicely arranged—the conside-
ration duly settled, the electors never consulted
—there cannot possibly be, so far as the repre-
sentation is concerned, a more corrupt and flagi-
tious job. The bribery of a score or two of poor
electors with a five-pound or a ten-pound note
a-piece, is a mere trifle compared to it, though
the law—made for the convenience of the
VERULAM tribe (what a desecration of one
of the noblest names in our history)—punishes
the bribery, and honours the corrupt transfer by
accepting the service of the nominee as a law-
maker. Much do we rejoice, therefore, that the
corrupt transfer planned by the Tory GRIM-
STONES and the Tory CABBELLS has been defeated,
and our joy is enhanced by hearing the angry
notes with which the Tories growl out their dis-
appointment. Bribery being the means by which
they win all their elections, they naturally sup-
pose that their opponents have had recourse to
the same means, and accordingly accuse them of
it. But whether bribery have been practised or
not, they have been defeated and disappointed, and
one of their pocket boroughs taken from them.

The above consideration is the chief source of
the interest we take in this contest ; but we can-
not behold the accusations which the two parties
hurl against each other, without stating them
to the public, and openly declaring that both
will be disgraced if the accusations be passed
over; and that, if they be not, the party which is
found guilty will be deserving of severe punish-
ment. By the Tories, a Dr. WEBSTER is openly
and publicly accused of having offered to bribe
an elector named ADAMS, by giving him two 'five-
pound notes and two sovereigns, and it is implied
that he bribed other electors. By the Whigs
the sending of ADAMS to the hustings with the
bank notes in his hand, is asserted to be alto-
gether a scene got up to make a sensation by
the Tories, who gave him the money. Such ac-
cusations on one side and on the other, ought to
be proved; and, looking on them as bills of indict-
ment, to be tried before a Committee of the
House of Commons, we shall not prejudge the
decision, by any remarks which must be made in
the absence of evidence, and in ignorance of the
facts.

Mr. NORMAN, who is or was a Bank Director,
and is considered by some persons to be a great
authority on all matters connected with the cur-
rency, has published a pamphlet entitled " A
Letter to CHARLES WOOD, Esq., on money, and
the means of economizing the use of it." Mr.
NORMAN'S conclusions are adverse to those to
which we have come, and the' premises from
which we start are different.

It appears to us that money is altogether a
branch of commerce. It is the instrument of
buying and selling. The earliest money we
read of was called " current money with
the merchants." It was an invention of
trade for the convenience of trade. It
bears the same character now and on
that as the main principle, must we proceed.
It resembles the casks in which commodities are
packed, the marks by which they are commonly
designated, or the weights and measures by
which they are estimated and divided.
Whatever might have been first employed as
money, the precious metals soon came into ge-
neral use, as the most convenient instrument
which had then been invented. As the purpose
of employing it was to facilitate the exchange or
barter of commodities, it was subsequently found
out that the exchange could as easily
be made by means of paper as by the
precious metals. Hence paper of all kinds,
bills of exchange, bank notes, checks, ac-
counts, &c. &c., grew into use, and became as
indispensible instruments for exchanging com-
modities as metallic money. All these kinds of
paper are, like money, the instruments of trade,
invented by trade, for the convenience of trade.
They have the same origin and answer the same
purpose. They are current credit with the mer-
chant.

It is fully ascertained from experience, that a
great portion of this species of current credit,
such as bankers' checks, bills of exchange, pro-
missory notes, accounts current, &c., &c.,
are entirely beyond the reach of any Legisla-
ture ; even bank notes, which it essays to control,
elude its grasp, whence we conclude that it
should leave money altogether, bank notes, coins,
and all, to be regulated by that trade out of which
it grows. Money is not an instrument of Go-
vernment, like a troop of horse or a police force ;
it is an instrument of trade ; and if Government
ought not to regulate trade ; as we are confident
it ought never to meddle with it, so Government
ought not to trouble itself about the instruments k
of trade. If it regulate money will it also
regulate the mark on casks of butter and
bales of cotton ? will it also prescribe the
sort of barrels and packages in which commodi-
ties are to be packed ? Now, Mr. NORMAN re-
quires the Government to regulate money; he
a issue.
f requires it even to regulate bank notes, and he
concludes,course, that
ahtitle
ovugdhitffteoreisntatboltioshfroonme
bank of
the Bank Director, and we desire nothing more
instrumentsearnest thany o
fto c
osienemtehrec
eG,Government
tlhe
ea emthe
be, untouched, in the hands of buyers and sellers.
Some persons may suppose that if this were
the case, there would be no standard of value.
But Mr. NORMAN says, and herein we agree
with him, that the value of all commodities de-
pends on the cost of production, or the labour of
bringing them to market; and that two commo-
dities of which the cost of production is equal,
will exchange for each other. All commodities
which arc bought and sold, not excepting gold
production of
and silver, are the labour;
one is the production of an unequal quantity of