The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-30 00:00:00

had comparatively kept their position without material
injury, but the whole burden of this unhappy legisla-
tion was borne by the operative classes.—(llear,
hear.) Sir R. Peel said, at the close of his speech on
the 29th of June, 1846, on the corn-laws, "I shall
leave a name execrated by every monopolist, but it
may be that I will leave a name sometimes remem-
bered with expressions of good-will in those places
which are the abodes of men whose lot it is to labour
and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their
brow—a name remembered with expressions of good-
will when the labourer recruits his exhausted strength
with untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer
leavened by the sense of injustice."—(Laughter.) No
one could surely believe that Sir Robert Peel, after
using such language, would willingly injure the poor
man ; and yet by his Bill of 1819 there could be no
doubt but he threw down upon the lowest classes
those heavy taxes which had been imposed on the
wealthy during the war. They all knew that there
was a difference between direct and indirect taxation
—direct taxation was levied in the form of a property.
tax, indirect taxation was levied upon commodities.
The poor man paid equally with the rich, as a consu-
mer. They did not want to prevent the tax being
paid by the poor man, but what they said was, if he was
to be taxed upon his sugar, his candles, his tobacco, and
his spirits, he should be entitled to charge so much
more for the articles he made. They wished that he
might be enabled to charge a higher price on the
produce of his labour, so that the tax which he paid as
a consumer might thus be returned to him. The
farmer who kept a number of horses for the work of
his farm did not half starve them ; and why should
the labourers of this country be kept at star-
vation point? Was it not highly desirable to
raise their condition, which under the present
state of things, could not be done. Mr. Tay-
lor went on at considerable length to argue
against the present monetary system, and concluded
by saying that they wanted such a currency through
the country as could not be taken away—as would
enable them to pay their taxes without leaving a
residue—as wouly allow them to carry on their large
transactions freely, without any of the panics, and
losses, and disorders to which the present currency is
liable.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CAPPS would direct his observations to the
mode which, by the proposed system of currency,
they proposed to carry on their foreign trade. A
great misconception existed upon this point. They
did not wish nor expect to subject the foreigner to
any loss, but they were desirous of putting their
own countryman, on fair terms, to compete with
him, and, at the same time, to give the foreigner the
full value of his goods, viz., 5 dwts. of gold for
every pound sterling, and he was not entitled to
more. The rate of interest at the Bank for discount
had fluctuated very much since 1832. In that year
it was 3 per cent.; in 1833, it was 3; ; in 1834, it
was 3 1-3 ; in 1837, it was 41 ; in 1838, it was
2i ;in 1839, it ranged from 31 to 6. In 1840, it
varied from 6to 4. In the present year the interes:
was 3i, 4,5, and si. The bill-brokers were
charged from 10 to 15 per cent. As the value of
money fluctuated, so did prices rise and fall. The
foreigner would not take our commodities at high
prices when he could get gold cheap; but he takes
our gold, and when the prices of our commodities
fall then he takes our products.—(hear, hear.)
Under the present system we gave the foreigner
three articles, and we only received two in exchange,
and that had ever been the case since Peel's money-
law of 1819. Before that Bill passed, for 30,000,0001.
of exports, the declared value of our imports
amounted to 44,000,0001. After the Bullion Com-
mittee sat, the balance in our favour gradually di-
minished, and now we were sending out 100,000,0001.
of products and receiving only 60,000,000/. in re-
turn.

A gentleman remarked that in 1845 the official
value of our exports amounted to 150,000,0001., and
that we were paid for these with 60,000,0001.

Mr. CAPPS believed he had understated the amount.
It was evident that the balance of trade was against
us, and one mode of getting rid of the evil would
be by adopting such a system of currency as would
enable the native producer to compete with the fo-
reigner.—(Hear, hear). Mr. Capps went on
at great length to argue in favour of the proposed
• plan, and concluded amid the plaudits of the meeting.
Mr. BELL said Mr. Duncan had made an observe-
• tion from which those who agreed in the principles
which he advocated must derive consolation. Head
verted to certain changes in opinion upon the part of
Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Taylor afterwards adverted
to the same point, and he (Mr. Bell) thought that
if they did advert to the history of bullion legisla-
tion, they might perhaps be able to derive some
' light as to the nature of that monetary juggle by
which the productive classes of this country were for
thirty years sacrificed.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Duncan
had stated truly, that in 1811 Sir Robert Peel had
voted against the opinions of Mr. Horner. He voted
in 1811 that the paper money of the day was not de•
preciative. He voted that a 1/. Bank of England
note and a shilling were equal in value to a guinea
when the guinea sold for 28s. Such was his opinion
in 1811.—(Hear, hear.) In 1819 he changed again,
and admitted that by the Bill then introduced the
paper money of the day would be depreciated to the
extent of four or five per cent. Let them next come
to 1828, and then they found a member of the Bullion
Committee stating distinctly, in the House of Com=
mons, that he and the great majority of the House
had been grossly deceived by the representations of
witnesses summoned before the committee. These
were the wards of the late Mr. Bankes :—" The mea-
sures adopted in 1826 were unwise, and the sudden
contraction of the circulation had been productive of
much mischief. Could he have foreseen the effects
which had resulted from the measures begun on this
question a few years back, he never would have
been a party to them.”--(Hear, hear.) Mr. Bankes
added that the country had, to its cost, learned
the mischiefs resulting from the measure of 1819,
and that instead of four or five per cent., the loss
had not been less than forty or fifty per cent. Mr.
Bankes applied on that occasion to Sir R. Peel for his
opinion. Sir R. Peel was silent. Sir James Graham
asked Sir R. Peel whether he dissented from Mr.
Bankes' statement ? Sir R. Peel was still silent.
In fact, he eventually admitted by that silence that
the extent of the evil which had been inflicted upon
the home producer was not less than from forty to
fifty per cent.—(Hear, hear.) In 1840, before the
committee appointed to inquire into the operation of
banks of issue, Mr. Jones Loyd said, in reply to
questions put to him, " Any contraction of the cir-
culation of the country will act, of course, upon
credit; bills of exchange being an important form of
credit, will feel the effect of that contraction in a
very powerful degree ; they will, in fact, be con-
tracted in a much greater degree than the paper cir-
culation." The following question was then put to
him :—" Is it the result of your experience that, upon
a contraction of the issues of the Bank taking place,
the amount of bills of exchange is also
narrowed, and is in the exact ratio, or in a
very increased ratio?" He answered—" It is in a
very increased ratio. I believe that answer to
be perfectly correct." Sir R. Peel, as they had
seen, admitted that by the Bill of 1819 prices had
been lowered forty or fifty per cent., but what did he
do next ? Why, in 1844, he lent himself to the ad-
vocacy of those principles advocated by Mr. Jones
Loyd, and which were to lower the prices still more.
—(Hear, hear.) As regarded the observations of
Mr. Taylor, he thought it was obvious that the en-
hancement of prices in this country must benefit the
producer, for how could the traders expect high pro-
fits when the prices were low ; and how could the la-
bourer expect high wages if there were low prices.
So that they were in reality the friends of the poor
man. But what had the law of 1819 done for the
producing classes ? Let Lord Ashburton, who had
been in his time one of the greatest of British mer-
chants, answer the question. Lord Ashburton said
that in his time there were ten rich merchants in
London, for one he could point out now.—(Hear,
hear.) Mr. Bell then alluded at some length to Sir
R. Peel's promises respecting the working classes' and
proceeded to say, had not Sir Robert Peel and Sir
James Graham within the last three years told those
poor women and children who had been working in
factories, that on the continuance of their slavery
depended the whole of the fabric of the commer-
cial greatness of the kingdom ?—(Cheers.) Such bad
been the practical result to which the bullionist
principle of Sir Robert Peel had led. Nay, more,
within those three years, during the discussions on
the general distress, was it not true that Sir Robert
Peel, in his place on the Treasury benches, declared
that, however melancholy the condition of our fellow-
subjects might be, it was not possible they could
their distress, he said, was
of civilisation ?—(Laughter.)
ehaoupseedfobryanthye re,
easss
In 1846, moreover, to revert again to the point
noticed by Mr. Taylor
poor man's strengthwith
loner leavened with a sense of
~ Sir Robert Peel said he
bshreo
injustice. "Untaxed bread"—these were the words
audl du
nt hopeax
e tdo, ra encdr uniot tohneg
used by the man who had thrown on the poor of the
country the whole burden of indirect taxation.—
(Cheers.) The meeting did not intend to adopt Sir
Robert Peel's theory of civilisation; they were not
called upon to look round the country, and having
contemplated distress in its ten thousand forms, to
say—" These things are the necessary consequences
of the march of civilisation." In Peel's monetary
policy they saw a solution sufficient for their pur-
pose. They must say—" You, Sir Robert Peel, and
the gentlemen that supported you, have, by means
of your currency principles, narrowed the field of
productive employment, and have deprived tens of
thousands of our poorer fellow-subjects of employ-
ment ; and then you charged them with being a sur-
plus population. You, Sir Robert Peel, told them,
not you individually, but the gentlemen, with whom
you acted in 1834, when your currency measure was
in full 0/aeration, you and my Lord Brougham espe-
cially, brought against the working olsases of the