The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-06 00:00:00

injustice in 1816. But, Sir, at the same time there
was another step of gross injustice. Up to that time
the standard of value was guarded, because there was
an enactment that the precious metals once coined
could not be turned back into a mercantile com-
modity, because melting and exportation were at-
tended with heavy penalties. Those laws, however,
were evaded, but not without some risk, by persons
uninfluenced by high moral considerations, who
sought for pecuniary profits, caring not for the
retention of their character, and who had no
hesitation in breaking the law. It was then
deemed advisable that the restriction should be
taken away, and the value of all debts, of all
claims of creditors, were rendered with the standard
of value very much dearer than as it existed in the
time of Queen Elizabeth. That was the second stage
of injustice. • The Act, however, of 1816 was in
abeyance until 1819, and did not come into operation
as to legal tenders until the latter year. In 1820, for
a short time, I had the honour of a seat in the House
of Commons, and one night, when in the House of
Lords, I heard the late Lord Stanhope put the ques-
tion of the alteration of the standard of value, in a
very clear and able way, to the late Lord Liverpool,
who was then at the head of his Majesty's Govern-
ment. He asked the Noble Earl why he had made
the change ?—why he had picked out gold for the
standard of value in England, when it did not exist
in any other nation ?—why he had added to coin the
increased value which I have endeavoured to explain
And Lord Liverpool answered him in the flippant man-
ner in which Sir C. Wood replied to the Newcastle
deputation, and thus said the Noble Earl :—" The
reason why is, that I think the richest country ought
to have the richest standard."—(Laughter.) Now,
Sir,
saying,
it is from " Hudibras,"
an old
" Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat." Sir,
what is the richest country ? The richest country ?
there
ron n i s
m y mind,l tliin which at that moment
pressed
Why that involves large and unlimited commercial
transactions ; and how are they to be carried on unless
the standard of value has an expansive power to
meet and represent those transactions ? Therefore,
Sir, I say, if he should have taken the converse of
that proposition, and endeavoured not to limit the
power of the standard with our increased burdens, but
given it full play ; if he had let loose the energies of
industry ; if he had acted on the policy of Pitt ; on
those principles which enabled Pitt to carry on the
greatest war in which this country was ever engaged,
and which terminated in a glorious peace under the
walls of Paris, I think he would have done right.
Sir, those were the views I took in 1819. In 1820
I had a seat for a short time in the House of
Commons, in connexion with the late Mr. Dug-
dale, and had to present a petition from this
town, complaining of great distress. It fell to my
lot to make some statistical statements, and I had to
tell them of the number of cattle slain in this town,
for then there was a tax on hides, and a registrar
appointed, and the number was easily ascertained.
Well, Sir, in that short time, from the passing of the
Bill in 1819 to 1820, with an increasing population,
the number of animals slain had been very much
reduced. It had thrown many persons altogether out
of employ in this manufacturing district. At that
time they were arguing for the necessity of inquiry
into the causes of distress. Mr. Holme Sumner, the
then Member for Surrey, presented a petition from
the agriculturists. Theironmasters of this district,
the coppermen of Cornwall, the woolstaplers of York-
shire, the farmers all over the country—all sent peti-
tions ; and there was one from this town, complaining
of distress, and asking for inquiry, perhaps the largest
that ever emanated from it. Well, Sir, Mr. Holme
Sumner asked fur inquiry on behalf of the agricultu-
rists ; but I said I should object to any inquiry limited
to any particular class of distress occasioned by Peel's
Bill, which was passed the year before ; and I also
said, that the distress could not be remedied unless there
should be a general inquiry into the effects which
that Bill had produced, and. I said, Sir, sooner or
later, if that Bill were not repealed, it would shake
the foundations of society, and endanger the sove-
reignty of the Crown. I was not long in Parlia-
ment; I was returned for a nomination borough, the
right of nomination being claimed by two great
families; I was nominated by one, and a petition
presented against my return. I was unseated.
There happened, however, that year to be a vacancy
for the county of Warwick ; I had no pretensions to
represent the county, but Birmingham endeavoured
to obtain, that which I think it had a right to, a
voice in the representation of the county, and did
me the honour to set me up as a candidate when
far, far from home. Well, Sir, what did I find
when I came home ? I found, as the chairman of my
committee, and one who had subscribed largely to-
wards the expenses of my election, the very father of
Sir Robert Peel.—(Cheers.) That gentleman stated
in this very town, and throughout the county of
Warwick, that he supported me because he had
heard me in the House of Commons give
the best exposition of the evils of his son's
Bill that he had ever heard at that time. I held
those opinions then ; I hold them now—for these, Sir,
with me, are no new views. I remember the time when
my much respected friend and yours—Mr. Thomas
Attwood—and myself, were the only two persons in
Birmingham who had studied the subject, and given
our opinions on it at length, and then they laughed
at and ridiculed us, and called us the " Currency
Doctors of New-street." Sir, I for 'one will never be
laughed out of my opinion, and I defy ridicule to
drive me away from it ; I never will consent to give
it up unless lam convinced lam in error. In 1821-
22, there occurred the most dire distress that ever
pervaded England. The Luddites were abroad in
Nottingham, the population were out of employ in
millions, and they went up to London demanding that
steps should be immediately taken to evade the mis-
chief of Peel's Bill of 1819. Lord Castlereagh then
stated in public, and said to myself in private, that
they had carried the measure too rapidly; that
money must be put out again, and there were then
four plans before Parliament to endeavour to re-
store prosperity.. Well, then, trade for the next
three years was in an efficient state, but then came
the evil again. They had not cured but only tam-
pered with it; they had extended the currency, and
by it given employ to labour and the embark-
ing of skill and capital. Then all our articles of
productive power were above those of the continent ;
we ceased to export gold, and were taunted subse-
quently with over-speculations and with over-trading,
although the Minister of the Crown had avowed that
we had been in the lowest depths of despair, and it
was necessary to stimulate a little wholesome specu-
lation to call out the energies of the people. Gentle-
men, I am afraid I detain you.—(Cries of " No, no.")
I could go 011 and tell you of the evils arising from
gold leaving the country, and the panics which arose
in 1829-30, just before the Reform Bill passed. They
were then traced to building operations and other
speculative causes, with partial relief and greater dis-
tress, varying under different circumstances of the case
until 1844, when Peel said he had a complement for
them all, when he said he thought his Bill of 1819
would restrain the abstract fact of over-trading, and
the wild-goose chase of speculation, but now he would
put a greater limit to the total amount of the Bank of
England issues, and he would fix the arbitrary sum of
fourteen millions. I was not in the House of
Commons at the time when the Bill passed, but I went
up with a deputation of bankers to Peel, and I told,
him—" Sir Robert Peel, your Bill of 1844 prevents the
fluctuating of which you complain, but if fully carried
out, I warn you that the first time a famine or any
want of food occurs, there will be a drain of gold,
and you must abandon your Bill, for you will not
be able to keep the population employed." Now,
Sir, I ask you to look at the present facts. This is
the first demand we have had for the importation of
corn, and in what situation is the Bank of England ?
Why, with her hands tied up, with the best, the
most undoubted security, possessing property to
three times the amount they require for an increased
circulation—they cannot do it because they are re-
strained completely by the complicated Bill of 1844.
Such is the unhappy state of things; andl say it is
for this great town—
it is for the country in general
—to ask themselves, " shall we consent to stop the
whole commercial industry of the nation—shall we
consent to have our hands tied up—shall our whole
productive power be shut up, because Peel has said
that fourteen millions on security shall be the extent
to which the Bank of England ought to go ?" No.
Peel has said, " Perish cotton, perish corn, and all
other grain ; I have swallowed two or three of my
opinions, but I cannot swallow the rest." But now,
Sir, I must state another reason why I did not wish
to take part in the proceedings of this evening. I
am glad that I have come here to receive your direc-
tions ; but I know what will be said—it will be said that
it is a Spooner and Attwood crotchet—that we want to
issue our inconvertible paper—that we want to foist
our dirty rags upon the country—that it is not for
the interest of the nation, but for the indulgence of
our own miserable crotchet. I care not for that ; I
have refuted the calumny before, and I know the
distitch—

" You break the web of sophistry in vain,
The creature's at his dirty work again."
Now, Sir, it is for you and this meeting to speak out.
I ask you, are you content with things as they now
are ?—(Cries of " No, no.") Do you believe that
they are come to the worst ? I tell you—no., I tell
you it is utterly impossible that the means of labour
and employ can be found, whilst the circulation of
the country is taxed on seventeen millions of bank-

notes. Can any reasonable man expect to carry on
the transactions in which he is engaged on the same
taxes as fifty years ago. You have no more circula-
tion now—l doubt whether you have so much—and,
again, I ask you why should the metallic standard be
the same in the time of Queen Victoria as in the reign
of Queen Elizabeth ? There is an increase of taxa-
tion, there is an increase of price ; and then taxation
is laid on so heavily that it stops consumption, and
then the weight falls on the poor labourer, who is
obliged to cease to consume. Nothing can be cleaxPr