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

every Yust he sold, and in that view he would ulti-
mately be driven into the Gazette. This illustration
applied to every commodity which foreignerss could
produce ; and the general rule to be deduced was, that
tree trade could not be carried on between two
countries unequ illy taxed in a legal tender money,
which only expressed intrinsic value and did not ex-
press price. Surely free trade, which would give all
the advantage to the foreigner, could not be encou-
raged by any except by those who wished to ruin the
native producer. He would say nothing more as to
free-trade principles generally. He would not say
whether they were right or wrong, but he would say
this, that the man who paid taxes ought to be treated
in a different manner from the man who did not, and
that whether in currency or any other financial consi-
deration, this distinction ought not to be overlooked.
If due allowance was made to the Englishman for the
taxation which he had to bear, he could compete
most advantageously with the foreigner, who would
have to bear all the expenses of transit to the British
market. Under the proposed system, when the
foreigner received paper for 30s. for his hat, and
took it to the bullion broker, the latter would give
him 5 dwts. of gold, and not 7f dwts. as under the
present system, for 5 dwts. would be the intrinsic
worth of the 30s. note. The difference, or 2i dwts.,
was what was due to taxation. Neither would this
injure the foreigner. He got as much as he was en-
titled to receive. Under the present stupid system,
the foreigner had perfect free trade, while they had
no free trads at all themselves. The foreigner took
the advantage ofhigh prices • for that which was intrin-
sically worth 5 dwts. of gold he got 7 dwts. He
wished to make some remarks upon Sir R. Peel's
Currency Bill of 1844. Sir R. Peel asked, What
was a pound ? He threw up a sovereign, and catch-
ing it again, said, " This is a pound: It certainly
was 5 dwts. 3 grains of gold. But when Sir Robert
Peel asked, What was a pound ? did he mean a
money pound ? He thought it only fair that this
interrogatory should be put to him. Then, the
next question was—What was money? Sir R. Peel
assumed, by implication, that money should possess
an intrinsic value, but they disputed that principle
altogether, and said that money ought not to possess
an intrinsic value. After declaring that according to
the ancient policy of this country, the meaning of the
word pound was nothing more than an obligation to
pay 5 dwts. of gold, Sir Robert Peel said, I pro-
pound a system in accordance with this principle. It
unfortunately happened that in that speech of May 7,
1844, Sir Robert Peel contradicted this fundamental
principle no less than five different times. He would
show in what manner. The people of this country,
it appears, owed 11,000,0001. to the Bank of England.
The Government of this country, notwithstanding its
great resources, did not seem able to pay off this debt
of 11,000,0001. to the Bank, so they gave to it the
power of issuing 11,000,0001. of notes, which were
not convertible into gold. This was the first
contradiction. Sir Robert said the Govern-
ment of the day always want a temporary
assistance, in the shape of an advance from the
Bank; we will add 3,000,000/. of Exchequer-bills,
making 14,000,0001., to which amount the Bank
might issue notes. Against this 14,000,0001. the
Bank of England was not bound to hold one ounce of
gold. But Sir Robert went further. The country
bankers, for fourteen months before the Bill of 1844
came into operation, issued to the extent of 8,000,0001.
Well, people, on reading the first part of Peel's speech,
wonld have thought that he was going to extinguish
those banks at once ; but no such thing ; he still
would continue to allow them to issue 8,000,0001.
without an ounce of gold. He gave permission to
Scotland to issue 3,000,000/. and to Ireland to issue
6,000,0001., making in all 31,000,000/. of paper float-
ing about in this country, without any metallic basis
whatever. And all this was recommended by a Mi-
nister who laid down as a principle that the obliga-
tion to pay a pound meant nothing but to have al-
ways at hand 5 dwts. of gold to discharge that
obligation. He was willing to believe that Sir
Robert Peel had been misled, and thought he would
yet change his opinions upon the currency as
well as upon all the great subjects which had
occupied the attention of Parliament. During
Mr. Homer's life Sir Robert Peel obstinately opposed
cash payments, hut no sooner did Mr. Horner die,
than he became a thorough bullionist. During Sir
Samuel Romilly's lifetime Sir Robert opposed every
relaxation in the criminal code, but no sooner did Sir
Samuel die, than Sir Robert came forward as a cri-
minal law reformer.—(Hear, hear.) Whilst Canning
lived he vehemently opposed Catholic Emancipation,
after the death of that illustrious man, he repudiated
his former opinions. More recently, Sir Robert Peel
for several years opposed the, repeal of the corn-laws,
but finally yielded to the " unadorned eloquence of
Richard Cobden." In this manner had thirty-five
years of the political life of Sir R. Peel been spent—
the latter part in opposing the opinions advocated in
the former. As soon as Sir R. Peel had got Lord J.
Russell and Sir Charles Wood tightly and irrevocably
pledged to the present currency, so soon would he
come round to his (Mr. Duncan s) opinions, and ad
vneate them most ably, and no doubt succeasfutly.—
(Hear, and cheers.) They would have a missive from
Tamworth, recanting all his former declarations.—
(Laughter.) After some further observations, Mr.
Duncan concluded amid loud cheering.
Mr. TAYLOR, having been called upon to address
the meeting, said he came forward under great disad-
vantages. His life had been passed in a very retired
manner, and he never had 'addressed a public meet•
ing before. He would not have been present on this
occasion if he had not felt it to be an imperative duty
to come forward and afford his aid in promoting the
cause. He also felt under great disadvantage in fol-
lowing the most excellent speech of Mr. Duncan. He
(Mr. Taylor) had been long connected with this sub-
jeet, and had from time to time published the results
of the inquiries he had felt disposed to make, and he
thought it his duty when called upon now to testify
in public his belief that the doctrines which he had
professed were right, just, and true. lOn that account
he had come forward this evening.—(Hear, hear.)
The meeting had heard a most excellent account of
the whole of the case relied on by the advocates of
paper money, but there were one or two points upon
which he wishsd to dilate, because they referred to
something which was more of an historic, and, per-
haps, of an antiquarian nature than would be generally
dwelt upon by a public speaker. The money which we
now have had been imposed upon us under a false
colour. Few of the meeting were, perhaps, aware
that the currency which now prevailed in this king-
dom was a very different currency from that which
formerly prevailed. In the years 1816 and 1819,
under the auspices of the late Lord Liverpool and the
present Sir Robert Peel, a great and radical change
was made in the monetary condition of this country.
Before that period we had a protective currency, as
had been observed before. We had now an unpro-
tected currency. Severe laws were passed from a
very early period—from the very first introduction of
gold and silver currency into these realms—for the
protection of that currency, and to prevent it from
being taken out of this country. For some years, any
one detected in taking the currency out of the country
was liable to forfeit the whole amount in his posses-
sion. This rule applied also to foreign coin which
had once found its way into England. A curious
story was told of Erasmus with reference to the ope-
ration of this law. He consulted Sir Thomas More,
the Lord Chancellor, as to whether he (Erasmus)
might take out some money which he had brought
into this country. The Lord Chancellor was of opi-
nion that Erasmus might do so. Acting upon this
opinion, he proceeded to Dover, where he was
stripped of all the money he had, and when he got to
Calais
e uheneutrrwyreansweasy, obliged to write a book in order to pro-
curetecti himself subsistence. Up to 1819 we had a pro-
aabnled
tothopuagyhitist
taxes
sisatnedd of
conductgold, iJetts
the
affairs without being at any time particularly dis-
tressed for money. But there had been during that
time a great issue of Exchequer money, called tallies.
That money would not go out of the eountry, so that
we had the benefit of all that home money, and, at
the same time, we had a protective currency. Under
this system we went on nourishingly. As. great num-
ber of our noble families rose during that period from
the ranks of trade and commerce—numbers of them
having served as Lord Mayors of London. The dis.
covery of South America led to the cheaper produc-
tion of silver; and, during the first sixty years after
the reign of Elizabeth the silver and bullion coin fell
33 per cent. in value. Sir Robert Peel told us that
in 1819 he restored the ancient money of the
country. He restored first of all the shilling which
had never existed before.—(Laughter.) This shilling
weighed eighty-seven grains. In the reign of Elizabeth
the shilling weighed 96 grains, and in the latter part
of her reign it was reduced to 92 grains. Sir Robert
Peel also boasted of having restored the ancient
pound. His pound, however, only weighed 103 grains,
but the sovereign of Elizabeth weighed in the former
part of her reign 174 grains, and in the latter part
172. The pound coin in her time was worth 1/.
hf
elagldae
la
given
(Hear,
tender
deea
us
rr.
Bs. Bd., while our coin was only worth 11. Os. 6d.
Hel
did not, therefore, restore the ancient coin.—
silver)
ra nb3silveramount.
currency moneyßwuhti
which
hsf,r that.aßs
ondboaetyr
a t
lwasPe ge al
all
tender for more than ;Os. This caused an immense
difference with regale. to the traffic of the country.
The gold was a legal tender only as it preserved the
weight it was originally coined at—namely, 123
grains. Sir Rober Peel asked, " What was a pound ?"
and he (Mr. Taylor) would say, in reply, that a
pound was that sum of money which the Government
of the country had determined should be a pound in
the legal tender of the country. Whatever the Go-
vernment
of the country determined should be a legal
tender, that was essentially money, and 1/. of that
was a pound, whether it was gold, silver, or paper.
In the taxation levied in this country much in-
jury had been done to the productive classes. They
were a body of men who had suffered grievously from
our monetary system,. The employers of Mowers

can refuse a legal tender.
tagr. No man
Avery man can refuse currency. Who, then, should
'issue legal tender ? Who should issue money ? NNe
Lola that the Crown alone should be the issuer of the'
leas ,1 tender of the nation ; and that the Crown should
riot be permitted to issue any amount it pleased, but
only such an amount as the united Parliament may
agree upon as the representation of the taxes of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) You will thus have a
guarantee, through Parliament, against the unlimited
issue of money ; and, through the obligation of con-
verting it annually into taxes, a guarantee against
depreciation. Now, these are the two circumstances
which, when rightly understood, liberate paper
money from the charge of being a fraudulent or ficti-
tious medium of interchange. I read in the Times
newspaper last Monday, a paragraph somewhat to this
effect—" Anybody can make money ;" and having laid
this proposition down without telling us whether this
money was a legal tender or not, the Times adds—
" But no one will take that money." Now, either
the writer in the Times meant that money was legal
tender, or he did not. If he meant it to be legal ten-
der, then the person to whom it is tendered would
be compelled in law to take it, and that part of the
argument would fall ; hut if the writer meant by
money "currency," then he confounded two things
that are essentially distinct. But he endeavoured, by
using " money" and "currency" in such senses as he
pleased, to throw darkness on the subject.--(Cheers.)
But I would ask the writer in the Times, or any one
el'ae entertaining his opinions, whether he would ob-
ject to receive an Exchequer-bill of 1,0001. in pay-
ment of a debt of 1,0001. ? An Exchequer-bill is
only paper, and therefore intrinsically worthless.
Moreover, it is not convertible into gold either at the
Mint or at the market price. Now, if the Queen be
empowered to issue Exchequer notes for 1,0001., and
you trust her by taking those notes as legal tender,
cannot you trust her for 1/. ? The reason why we
advocate this system depends somewhat upon philoso-
phical princitian, but I have no doubt that in the
course of a fca oPs-atences I can make that philosophy
perfectly clea.,erYffittrhe Queen has no right to demand
from her subjecay cony duty which her subjects cannot
perform. I think that is a fundamental principle.—
(Hear, hear.) The Queen is entitled to taxes be-
cause she protects her subjects, but she is only en-
titled, as her ancestors were, to taxes in kind—that is
to say, she has a right to receive a portion of the
labour or of the produce of her subjects in exchange
of or in payment for the protection she affords ; but
she has no right to commute those taxes in kind into
a foreign metal which Englishmen cannot always ob-
tain.—(Cheers.) If the Queen were to call upon the
people of Sheffield to pay their taxes in cutlery, on
the people of Leeds to pay their taxes in woollens,
on the people of Coventry to pay their taxes in rib-
bons, on the people of Birmingham to pay their taxes
in buttons, and so on, the obligation between the
Crown and the subject would be completely dis-
charged. There would be no difficulty in this, be-
cause every person would have in his own possession
the instrument by which taxation was to be paid.
Now when for the convenience of Government the
form of taxation is altered, it is not just to increase
the pressure on the tax-payer. A change made for
the convenience of the Crown ought not to oppress
the subject.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Jonathan Duncan
then went on to say that if the Queen were prepared
to say that any pound of taxation represented five
pennyweights of gold, then the people might
justly say to the Queen—" We insist upon your
keeping the gold continually in this country, other-
wise you ask us for impossibilities." They know
that gold having a merchantable value would be ex-
ported to foreign countries when it was dearer in
those countries than at home; and all our Acts of
Parliament, our fleets, and our armies, would in such
case be absolutely ineffectual in keeping the gold in
England. But if gold was the instrument of taxation,
and the Queen would not suffer her subjects to pay
their taxes in any other, she would be acting like
Pharaoh towards his slaves, when he commanded
them to make bricks, but withheld the straw.—
(dear.) Surely such would not he the conduct of a
paternal Government; and this formed one of the
arguments in favour of a paper currency. Would the
paper currency they proposed be safe? He thought
it would. Let them see its nature. In the first
place, they proposed not to exceed the amount of
annual taxation in this paper currency. If the taxes
levied by the authority of Parliament amounted to
60,000,0001. yearly, then why could not Parliament
issue taxation paper to the amount of 60,000,000/.
At the end of every twelve months, or fiscal year,
the expenditure and receipts would, under this
system, balance, and there would be no overplus or
deficiency. There would be nothing to be funded,
and no further accumulation of the national debt.
The nation, like a prudent individual, would balance
its accounts annually. Had they been acting in this
way since 1688, they would not now be burdened
with an enormous national debt.—(Hear.) He would
endeavour to illustrate this point a little further, and
in so doing would confine himself to the internal
transactions of this country. They would perceive
that in the first instance the Onppn was, so to spealr,
in relation to the taxes, the debtor to her subjects.
She was so by paying the army, the navy, the judi-
cial establishments, and the fundholders—to sum up,
the Sovereign was the debtor for all those sums of
motley which the Government owed to its func-
tionaries. In order that the Queen might acquit
herself of these debts, they proposed that she
might draw bills, at twelve months after date,
up< n her subjects. The date to be limited to twelve
months, and the amount of the notes to be such
as the Sovereign and her subjects might think proper.
The notes would vary in amount, as Parlia-
ment should think fit, 11., 51., 501., 1001., &c., and
the Sovereign might command that those notes be
taken in discharge of an equivalent amount of taxa-
tion. This being done, the character of the Sovereign
would be changed from debtor to creditor, and the
people would then discharge the obligations to the
Crown by paying into the Exchequer these taxation
notes. He thought this system of internal currency
was not open to any objection. Such paper would
never be depreciated, because it never would be circu-
lated above the annual taxation. The annual taxation
would absorb all that would be issued. Its amount
could not exceed that which the public desired, for
Parliament would itself sanction it. If Parliament
wished for 5,000,0001. to pay the army, then let notes
to that extent be issued. In what way, he asked them,
so far as their internal transactions were concerned, or
their internal taxes and debts, would this currency
be less valid than a foreign metal ? It would perform
all the functions of gold more effectually than gold,
and, as he had already remarked, it would be per-
fectly safe, for it never could be depreciated, and
it never could be excessive. Gentlemen might say
that in the time of war paper was issued in excess.
He admitted this, and its injurious consequences ; but
the evil was guarded against in their plan, for Par-
liament would issue no more of this paper than the
annual amount of taxation rendered necessary. He
would now call their attention to the evils which the
present gold currency brought upon them. Their
gold was made to discharge three separate functions :
—First, as regarded the internal taxes ; secondly,
the internal debts between man and man ; and, thirdly,
to pay the balance due to the foreign trader.—(Hear.)
Now this was demanding from one instrument much
more than it could accomplish. If there were
10,000,0001. in the Bank of England under the law
of 1844, 10,000,0001. of notes were circulated
against
it; but if 1,000,0001. or 2,000,000/. were sent
away,
there was a reduction in the paper. What was the
result ? The whole superstructore of bills of exchange,
which rested upon this various basis of gold, was af_
fected to the extent of 10,000,0001. or 20,000,0001., or
even 30,000,0001. If they lessened the depth of the
water in the Thames, they would strand the vessels, and
they were performing the same operation when they
prevented the free circulation of commodities from
man to man by taking away the instrument with
which that circulation could be completed. But they
did more than this. Take, for instance, the case of
a man who was anxious to raise himself in the world.
He accumulated stock. A scarcity of gold came
—he had 100,0001. worth of goods in his warehouses
—yet, if that man had bills to meet, and was not for-
tunate enough to get his bills discounted, he must
must take his goods to the market, and sell them at a
depreciated price. So that a man worth 100,0001.
might,
under our present monetary arrangements, be
rendered 50,000/, worse off in the short space of a
month ; for, in order to keep himself out of the
Gazette, he would be obliged to sell his goods at
whatever price they would fetch, even if that were
less than half of their prime cost.--(Hear, hear.)
He would give another illustrarnion this
i Suppose
that no indirect taxation existed
country,
that that the whole taxation was levied by dire
upon property, realised or capitalised, and that under
s
these circumstances the intrinsic value of a hat was
twenty shillings, or 5 dwts. of gold ; then
supposes
that the Government determined to raise a revenue
by indirect taxation, and placed a tax of fifty per
cent. upon hats. In order that the hat manufacturer
should retain his position on the same terms as during
direct taxation, it would be necessary for him to add
ten shillings to the selling price of his hat; that was
to say, he would get thirty shillings where formerly
he got but twenty-three—or, in othr words, 71 dwts.
of gold where he formerly got but 5 dwts., and this
increased price he would get if all foreign
competition
were prohibited. But admit an untaxed foreigner
into our market, whose hats are in all respects equal
in quality to those •4f the native producer, that is to
say, possess equal intrinsic value—the foreigner could
sell his hats for twenty shillings, or 5 dwts. cf gold ;
while the Englishman would require fifty per
cent. more, since he owes ten shillings, or °I dwts.
of gold as a tax to the Government. Sir
Robert Peel tells us to buy in the cheapest
market; now in this case the foreign article would
he the cheapest; we therefore should buy it; the
motive producer must therefore abandon his trade,
ladess he carried it on by losing ten shillings on

had comparatively kept their position without material
injury, but the whole burden of this unhappy legisla-
tion was borne by the operative classes.—(Hear,
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
lasses, 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 31 ; in 1834, it
was 3 1-3 ; in 1837, it was 4i ; in 1838, it was
23-; in 1839, it ranged from 31 to 6. In 1840, it
varied from 6to 4. In the present year the interest
was 31, 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.

country the grossest and moat unfounded charge. The
working classes were charged with being tainted with
idleness, improvidence, and vice."—(Cheers.) The
money-law of 1819 having swept away fifty per cent.
of the profit of productive capital and the wages of
labour, Sir Robert Peel, in 1834, tells the labourers of
England that by their habits of idleness, improvidence,
and vice they were swallowing up the capital of the
country. It was remarkable that the gentlemen to
whom the country was indebted for the money-law of
1819 were never found in the wrong. Every prediction
they hazarded might be falsified, yet still they main-
tained that no fault could be attributed to their mone-
tary policy. It must be in the recollection of many
gentlemen that the year 1822 was marked by the
deepest distress, particularly among the agriculturists.
Sir Robert Peel was charged in the House of Commons
with being the author of this misery, in so far as he
was the author of the money-law of 1819. What
was his reply ?" My money-law has had nothing
at all to d with it. You, gentlemen agriculturists,
are the cause of it. During the war you cultivated
too much land, and the fact is we have now a redun-
dant supply of food ; and in this I discover a sufficing
cause." The early part of the year 1825 was marked
by great prosperity. Towards the end of that year
there was a dreadful commercial crisis. What was
the cause ? Of course not Sir Robert Peel's money
law. Oh, no. It was owing to the private bankers
of the country, who supplied their customers with
too much money.—(Laughter.) In the years 1830
and 1831 the deepest distress prevailed among the
agricultural labourers, and incendiary fires blazed
throughout the country. Commissions were issued
by the Government, and then came— what ? not an
acknowledgment of any error on the part of our
rulers, not an apology by Sir Robert Peel for
the money law and its effects, but the new poor
law. The labourers of that time were charged with
being idle, improvident, and vicious. Having been
robbed by the influence of this monetary legislation,
they were told that they were no longer entitled to
that right which those before them enjoyed fbr nearly
three centuries—the right to be supported in idleness
at the cost of the wealthy, provided the wealthy were
no longer able to find them employment. 1839 was
also a year of distress, but we were told that this dis-
tress was caused, not by the labourers or private
bankers, but by the monopoly of landowners. Well,
the monopoly of landowners had been got rid of, and
here again, in 1847, we had severe distress. Did Sir
Robert Peel, or Sir Charles Wood, or the bullionist
supporters of Sir Robert Peel admit that this mone-
tary policy was at fault ? No, they said that traders
were now improvident, that they indulged in rash
speculations. It was most extraordinary that from
beginning to end every body was impugned but Sir
Robert Peel. First, the landlords, for sending too
much food into the market. In 1826 the private
bankers were attacked for giving their customers too
much money; in 1833-34 the labourers were charged
with eating up the capital of the country. In 1839-40 the
landowners, and now the traders and merchants of
the country, were in turn impugned. When the
traders and merchants of a mighty community like that
of Great Britain were charged with being too fond of
speculation, and too ready to indulge i❑ hazardous
enterprises, were they not entitled to ask Sir Robert
Peel how far the censure might conform to the spirit
of the theories which he and his supporters indulged
in ? Were we not toad by Sir James Graham that
England was no longer a chiefly agricultural country,
but a trading and commercial country, and were we
not encouraged by Sir Robert Peel and Sir James
Graham to extend our commercial enterprises ? Did
we not hear loud cong•atulations from those men when
the Chinese market wis opened to the industry of
this country? Were we not told that the Usury Laws
were opposed to just sleculation, and were not those
laws repealed arid set aside in order that speculation
might be encouraged ? Such being the theories of
Sir Robert Peel and hs supporters, what right had
those gentlemen, after encouraging speculation, to
turn round and censure our merchants ?—(Loud
cheers.) It was sail by Mr. Taylor that the
working people in this country were treated worse
than the cattle. He (2lr. 13e11) feared there was too
much truth in the statement. The farmer found it
to his interest to keep the cattle in good condition,
but the same stimulus was wanting with regard to
the labourer. The conlition of the great mass of the
labourers of this country was far from being comfort-
able, and we should n( longer flatter ourselves that
the traders and manufacturers of this country would
long continue to enjoy that measure of prosperity
hitherto permitted them, provided the policy which
had debased the labourers of the country continued in
force. It was impossible Oat the traders and manu-
facturers could be long prosperous if the labourers
were permanently debased.—(Cheers.) It, therefore,
behoved all who wished well to the labourer, to strike
a blow at those laws which narrowed the field of his
employment. If he could suppose any gentleman in
that room indifferent' to the sufferings of the labouring
classes, to that gentleman he would say, if engaged
in commercial pursuits, let him look to his own posi-
tion. The position of the labourer might soon be the
position of the great body of the mercantile men in
this country. (Ur. Bell resumed his seat amid loud
cheers.)

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 observa-
tion from which those who agreed in the principles
which he advocated must derive consolation. He ad-
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 11. 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 he 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 Coin-
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 words 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 mischief's 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 had
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
hope for any relief, as their distress, he said, was
caused by the progress of civilisation ?—(Laughter.)
In 1846, moreover, to revert again to the point
noticed by Mr. Taylor, Sir Robert Peel said, he
should hope to recruit the poor man's strength with
bread untaxed, and no longer leavened with a sense of
injustice. " Untaxed bread "—these were the words
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 operation, you and my Lard Brougham espe-
cially, brought against the working dews of the

Several questions were then asked by different par-
ties in the room, ald answers given, explanatory of
the proposed monetary system.
Some gentlemel who wished to prolong the dis-
cussion were anxious for an adjournment, and the
Chairman, in order to meet the wishes of all parties,
withdrew the resolutions, and contented himself by
putting to the meeting a resolution to the effect that
an Anti-Gold-law League be formed, and that Mr.
Bell, Mr. Duncar, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Capps, and the
Chairman, form a provisional committee, with power
to add to their number.
The resolution was adopted, two only dissenting.
The thanks of the meeting were then given to Mr.
Bennoch for presiding, ani the proceedings terminated
shortly after twelve o clock.

SALMON FISHING.—The season terminated last
week, and parties have now had time to calculate and
ascertain the amount of )rofit and loss gained and in-
curred. In regard to the former, a few have actually
been found on the winning side; but the balance on the
whole is sadly adverse to the great majority concerned
—making a total loss on tie aggregate, it is said, of no
less than 1,6001. This sun, however, is not the amount
of loss incurred by those fishings with which Perth is
more or less concerned, bu. takes in the entire river—so
that the sorrowful side of the ledger may probably only
show for us and ours somewhere about I,oool.—Perth
Advertiser.
HERRING TRADE.—VirIcR, SEPT.23.—The weather
has been such, since our last report, that even admitting
the fishermen had been .nclined to go to sea, no oppor-
tunity has been allowed them. Here, and along the
whole coast, the boats now generally occupy their winter
quarters, being snugly laid upon the beach; as a conse-
quence, no farther attempt will this year be made. As
to the general results of the fishing, we are still inclined
to the Opinion, that the total eaten is materially under
that of last year. At Wick, for example, ia consequence
of the number of boats being much diminished from that engaged in the fishing in 1846, the catch cannot be
less than 15,000 trans under last year. The average at
Fraserburgh, again, is fully 50 ernes under last year—
making the catch there other 15,000 less than that of
the previous season. It is quite true that along the
Caithness coast, and at Helmsdale, a larger quantity of
herrings has been caught, but certainly not nearly so
much as to counterbalance the decrease referred to.—
John o'Groat Journal.
THE WEATHER AND CROPS IN TIIE NORTH.—
Since our last publication the weather has undergone a
most agreeable change. In the beginning of the week
it was cold and stormy, with frequent showers of rain.
On Wednesday the temperature rose considerably, and,
though somewhat damp, that day and yesterday ex-
hibited a complete summer mildness. The wind during
the week has been generally high, and yesterday (Thurs-
day) blew in the exact st) le of an rqutnuxisl gale. Har-
vest in the south seems to be almost or altogether com-
pleted. It is not so in the north. Though the corn was
generally ready for cutting, the wet weather of the last
few weeks considerably retarded the operations of the
field. Early in the present week there appeared to be
scarcely less than one-half of the crops out, while no
small portion remained uncut. While we write,
harvest must be pretty far from being finished n the
counties of Banff and Aberdeen, and some portions of
Moray. The quality of the grain will in general be ex-
cellent, but the quantity of lodged corn that we have seen
argues the unsoundness of a considerable proportion.—
Aberdeen Banner.

THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.—We are happy to
learn that in the course of about six weeks from the pre •
sent time the electric telegraph will be completed between
London and the North. The delay which has occurred
in completing the line of communication, by the fixing
of wires between London and Rugby, is anything rather
than creditable to the greatest of railway companies: we
rejoice that the reproach which it involved is to be so
soon removed. At the present moment the telegraph
from the Commercial-buildings, Leeds, can communicate
with York, Hull, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Man-
chester, Birmingham, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham,
Lincoln, and Rugby, and when the chain is completed
between the latter station and London, all the towns at
present connected with the metropolis will, of course, be
also in communication with the north. The line from
Manchester to Liverpool is now, we believe, completed,
and will be opened for the transmission of messages on
Monday next. —Leeds Mercury.
A fatal accident occurred at Warrington on Sun-
day, when a party of workmen (ten in number), belong-
ing to the Bridge Foundry Works, went out upon the
river in a small boat, the greater number being at the
time in a state of intoxication. The river was slightly
flooded from the late rains, and therefore, the cur-
rent was somewhat stronger than it is on ordinary
occasions. They were not long out when, owing to
some mismanagement, the boat upset, and four of the
party met with a watery grave.
RELIEF DEPOTS FOR THE WlNTER.—Government
have given orders to have all the stores in Ireland,
which they held when Sir R. Peel was in office, re
taken, and prepared for food in the coming winter, as.
notwithstanding the assertion " that the crisis is over,"
they have grounds for anticipating scarcity before the
harvest of IHB is Ireland.—Limerick .Reporter.

LOWtOW, Tnie'RDAY '..kyrel4Zl.**_(4,9, in plir,mr:fip'

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAI\ S'lo N-HOUSE.
Jaseph Seager, the reputed clerk to Gardner and
Holliday, who have been committed to Newgate upon
the charge of having conspired with Cusell and Loup
io defraud Mr. Gray, the rope‘maker, was 1:e ought
before the LORD MAYOR as a particeps criminis with
the above-mentioned defendants.
Mr. Hilleary attended for the prosecution ; Mr. G.
Brown appeared for the defence. The defendant had
been apprehended through the unwearied exertions of
Mr. Barber, of St. Paul's Churchyard, on the Tues-
day night, to whom the Lord Mayor considered the
thanks of the commercial public were especially due.
Mr. Hilleary said, in bringing forward the charge,
—Since your Lordship committed the four defendants
who were some days ago accused by Mr. Gray, we
have traced part of the goods which were obtained,
antecedent to the transactions specified in the exami-
nations already held, from that gentleman to the
defendant, and we have discovered that the defendant
has been completely mixed up in the system of gross
imposition so fully exposed. We have found that the
defendant, with the knowledge that the goods were
packed and marked for shipping, removed them from
one wharf to another, and finally pawned them for
211. Under such circumstances, it appears to me to
be quite evident that Joseph Seagar is a particeps
criminis in the fraud, and I hare to request your
Lordship to postpone the further considertion of the
case until we have prepared it for a jury.
The LORD MAYOR said, he was happy to see that
the prosecutor and his friends showed every deter-
mination to follow up their strong statements with
corresponding acts.
Mr. H. T Gray stated—ln June last I supplied
Gardner and Holliday, of 4, Pancras-lane, with rope
to the amount of 91/. 19s. 11d. Holliday called at
my house and said he had an order to ship some
cordage to the Cape of Good Hope, and upon the
faith of that representation I supplied them with
goods to that amount, and I sent those goods to the
Custom-house Quay-wharf for the purpose of being
shipped. They were marked " (in a diamond),
which denoted that the package was for shipment, and
were delivered at the shipping department at the
wharf. I have since found they were sold in this
country at reduced prices, and that the defendant had
pledged some of them at Budge-row, at Mr. Booth's
premises. 'When I delivered the invoices at the office
of Gardner and Holliday I saw the defendant in the
counting-house, and he was aware of the transaction.
I have been there before and after the goods were ob-
tained from me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Brown--I took the de-
fendant for a clerk of Gardner and Holliday, and he
told me to draw a bill at three months for my
account.
Kibblewhite, City policeman, 45, said—l took
the defendant into custody. I told him I appre-
hended him for removing the six packages from the
Custom-house Quay to West Kent-wharf in a boat,
signing the book in his own name, on the 12th of
June, and on the 14th of the same month, taking them
in a cart to Messrs. Booth's, the auctioneers', in
Budge-row, getting 211. upon them, and signing Mr.
Booth's book in his own name, and paying Mr. Booth
50s. for packing the goods. I said we had proof that
he had taken the cases or gunny bags having the
shipping mark on them off the rope, and that he took
the covers away with him. The defendant said that
he did take the goods from the Custom-house Quay-
wharf to the West Kent-wharf, in a boat, but he
declared it to have been his intention to take them to
Paul's-wharf, as Holliday was to meet him there.
He said the waterman was not able to get so far as
Paul's-wharf, on account of the tide running strong,
and that at the suggestion of the waterman he left
them at West Kent-wharf, and on the 14th he
fetched them in a cart, took them to Mr. Booth's, and
got 211. upon them from that gentleman ; that he told
Mr. Booth that they were for Gardner and Holliday,
but Mr. Booth said he only knew him (the defendant)
about it. This morning the defendant a,ked me if I
had got Gardner and Holliday's books and papers
from their office ? I said we had all we could find, and
he said there was a book secreted, which he thought
we had not got. He said, "If you go to the further
cupboard you will find it standing upright against the
front of the cupboard, but you won't see it unless
you put your head inside." I have since been at the
office, searched the cupboard, and found the book I
produce. The defendant said he had been persuaded
by his friends not to come forward before.
Cross-examined—The defendant appeared to be
willing to give information upon the subject.
Mr. Brown submitted that his client had merely
acted as clerk to Gardner and Holliday in the trans-
action, and had obeyed the instructions which he had
directly received from them.
The-LORD MAYOR said it was quite clear to him
that the defendant was a particeps criminis to all in-
tents and purposes, in whatever relative capacity he
might have appeared to have been acting, and re-
manded him for a few days.
BOW-STREET.
Yesterday Mr. Stevens, the secretary of King'.
College Hospital, waited upon the magistrate, Mr.
Jardine, to take his advice respecting the refusal of
the parish authorities of St. Clement's to bury the
body of a poor old man who died in the hospital.
It appears that the patient was David Howell, a
casual pauper, of St. Giles's, who slept in Seven
Dials the night previously to his admission into the
hospital, where he was taken in a state of exhaustion
and died from apoplexy. As the hospital is in the
the parish of St. Clement's, the parochial officers
were applied to, to bury the body, but they refused,
on the ground that the pauper had been taken from
St. Giles's and had received casual relief. The se-
cretary added, that in consequence of the refusal of
the two parishes to bury deceased patients under cir-
cumstances like these, the charity had been put to an
expense of 15/. within one month ; and if the respon-
sibility was not removed, the governors of the hospital
would have to require some indemnity before receiv-
ing sick persons into the institution.
Mr. JARDINE said the law clearly placed the re-
sponsibility on the parish in which the patient died,
and quoted the authority of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners to this effect.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A young man, named Henry Thomas Thomas, de-
scribed as a French polisher, was charged with having
discharged a rifle leaded with ball at a young woman
named Sarah Meade, who now lies in St. Bartholo-
mew's Hospital in great danger.
Police-constable Leigh, of the G division, stated,
that while on duty in the City-road about 11 o'clock
on the preceding night, he suddenly heard the sharp
crack of a rifle from the direction of the Eagle
Tavern, which was instantly succeeded by a loud
shriek in a woman's voice, and the exclamation, " Oh,
he has shot me !" On hastening to the spot he found
a young woman supported in the arms of a cabman,
with blood gushing from an orifice in the side of her
mouth, and a stream also pouring from a correspond-
ing wound in the nape of her neck, close to the spinal
column. In answer to his inquiries, the injured
woman, who spoke with great difficulty, and could
scarcely articulate more than broken sentences, told
him that she had just before met a man named
Thomas, with whom she had been previously slightly
acquainted, who carried a gun in his hand, and that the
moment she accosted him he levelled the piece at her
head, and, exclaiming " I will shoot you," instantly
discharged it at her. She was scarcely of opinion
that the act was committed intentionally, but upon
observing the blood streaming from her face the man
started off and effected his escape. Witness conveyed
the young woman to the station-house, where she was
promptly attended by the divisional surgeon, who
dressed the wound, and, pursuant to his directions, a
cab was procured, and she was at once conveyed in it
to the hospital. Witness and officers had since been
in constant pursuit of the prisoner, but were unable to
meet with him until just after the opening of the
court that morning, when he came up to him in the
doorway, and, saying that he was the unfortunate
young man who had shot the woman the night before,
expressed a wish to surrender himself to meet the
charge.

Edward Smirke, a friend of the prisoner, stated
hat he accompanied the latter, on the preceding
night, to the Albert shooting-gallery, at Hoxton, the
conductor of which requested each of them to carry a
rifle enclosed in a case to the house of the proprietor
in the City-road; but that on reaching the Shep-
herdess-walk they observed three girls standing in
front of the Eagle Tavern, one of whom inquired
whether the guns were loaded; the prisoner said that
they were not, and was raising up the cover from the
but-end of his gun, when it instantly exploded, blow-
ing off the end of the case from its mouth, and the
girl, after uttering a loud convulsive laugh, exclaimed
that she was shot, and dropped to the ground. On
hearing her exclamation the prisoner hurried back to
the man from whom he had received the piece, who
was walking a few paces behind him, and asked if the
gun was loaded ? to which a reply was made in the
negative, and the witness did not think it could have
been, as it was the practice to discharge all the pieces
every night before they were taken away, although
that did not appear to have been done in this instance.
Two young women, named Henrietta Ward and
Mary. Anne Mansfield, who were in company with
the girl Meade at the time in question, generally cor-
roborated the first witness's evidence, and :added that
immediately upon discharging lthe rifle the prisoner
turned round with the observation that "there was
nothing in it," and hurried away.
Mr. John Mather, the surgeon, deposed that upon
being summoned to the station-house to attend the
injured woman he found upon examination that she
had received a lacerated gun-shot wound, extending
about seven inches in length from the centre of the
right cheek, and forming, as he found upon probing
it, a perfectly clear channel to the back of the neck,
where there appeared a large ragged orifice, througi.
which the ball had evidently passed into the street.
He considered the injury to be of a very dangerous
description, fund a considerable time must elapse be- ,