The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-05 00:00:00

• 9 •

JUNE 5, 1851.

that Mr. Rimshay bad said, " YOu agents, without any
knowledge of the law, are tea timss more expeniivn
to suitors than solicitors would , be. 4 Their scale of
charges Was, it appearel, 3s. 6d. for every case in Which'
they recovered, and. besides 10 per cent. on sums under
51., 7fr Or cent from 5L to 10!., and 5 per "cent. above:
10/. They did not charge anything when they did not
r‘ cover. ' •

Mr. Sergeant WILETNB—" No cure, no pay?"—Ex
aetly so.

Mr. John Macfarlane, by Mr. WIliplORE, depo3o3
infer cilia, that the jutlg., in the course of examination,
had told hint he was " a stupid. drunken fellow, only fit
to tvt a lumper about the docks."

In cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant WuxiNs the
witness aided nothing to the informsti.m he had given,
but explained some of his'own antecedents.

William Edwards, a cart-owner, examined—Had been
reprimanded for apparent though unintentional disre-
spectful demeanour towards Mr. Ramshay, and was
given into custody, where he was kept from one till laalf7
past six o'clock, and then pardoned on an apology.
Cross-examined—The witness admitted that, after
having bemi told to stand up and change his department,
on the occasion in question (when he was giving evi-
dence), he was walking away, and saying, " I came
here to speak the truth, and if you won't hear me I
shall' go away." He'had kept a public-house. He bad
ought when he was pnt out. He could not say hoW
often he had fought. He was getting a great age. Was
forty-seven years old. Had been married since 1829. •
The Earl of CARLISLE—Have not you fought since you.
were married? Witness—No, my Lord.
John Jones, clerk to Watson and Webster, Liverpool,
offered some evidence similarin character to that which
preceded it, and of which it was remarked by Sergeant
Wilkins that, if taken at all, the parties themselves
should have been called to prove it.
Messrs. Charles Aldred, Moore, nnd Baker, Liverpool,
reporters, were examined as to the truth and animus
of various reports by them, which appeared from time to
time in the Liverpool' Mercury and Journal. These they
verified, and asserted to be free from bias:

At the request of Sergeant Wilkins, an adjournment
was then granted. The Learned Sergeant not being
prepared to defend this week, and the Noble Earl having
to be out of town next, the hearing was postponed tit-
Tuesday, the 17th

FREE TRADE-CURRENCY-PRO-

TECTION.
(From the Liverpool Standard)
_ _

On Tuesday and Thursday evening last Mr. Jonathan
Duncan delivered lectures on Free Trade, Currency, and
Protection, at the Concert- hall, Lord Nelson-street, which
we never saw filled with more attentive, intelligent, and
respectable audiences. On the first evening, Mr. J. Smith
was in the chair; and although, as a free-trader, guarding
himself against being supposed to agree with the whole
of Mr. Duncan's views, entorced upon the audience the
great importance of the monetary question, which Mr.
Duncan was about to explain. Previously to Mr. Dun-
can's opening the• lecture, the audience was briefly ad-
dressed by Mr. Robert Jones, an operative, who declared
that he, and the working classes generally, had been
disappointed in their anticipations of the effects of
free trade; that they had less work, less wages, and had
found themselves less able to procure bread, notwith-
standing its cheapness. He was convinced that the erro-
neous monetary system of the country was the cause.
On Thursday, Mr. Brodribb presided; and at the close
of the lecture expressed himself strongly in favour of
Mr. Duncan's currency. Both lectures were most suc-
cessful, and have created a great sensation amongst the
people of Liverpool.
Mr. Domeier commenced by stating that his object in
,addressing the merchants, shipowners, tradesmen, and
operativel of Liverpool was to reconcile the antagonism
that now exists between the conflicting principles of
Free-trade and Protection; that in his humble judg-
ment both of these rival parties were in error;
add that the error mainly arose from over-
looking - the true principles of Money, for it
must be obvious, on the least reflection, that Money
forms one-half of every bargain. Free-trade, as a
principle of commercial action,- was partly-sound and
psrtly. vicious. It was sound in reference to the several
'counties into which Great Britain was divided, since
the inhabitants of Lancashire were under the same
laws and general circumstances as the inhabitants of
Middlesex; but the extension of this principle to inde-
pendent nations, governed by laws peculiar to them-
selves, and whose general circumstances differed from
those of surrounding kingdoms, was vicious.—(Hear,
-near.) There were three special reasons why interna-
tional free trade might prove injurious ; lst. where
there was a difference of soil and climate ; 2dly, where
there was a difference in the standard of living ;
idly, where there was a difference of taxation. In vegan:
to the first of these reasons, it was notorious that the
virgin soils of Russia and America possessed more na-
tural fertility than the soil of Enelacd, which bad- been
worked for centuries; and this difference was admitted
by the Free-traders, avho, conscious of the disparity
stated, urged our farmers to study agricultural chemis •
try, and expend large capitals on artificial manure. Now,
a free trade should also be a fair trade; but to be fair.
the competitors ought to be in parity of relation and
eircumstaccss, which is not the case when the
carte, the raw material on sebich they labour,
is endowed with different degrees of fertility.
In reference to the standard of living, the Rus-
sian serf and Polish peasant were fed on the coarses.
food, meanly clad, and squalidly housed. Therefor,
their general subsistence cost their employers very mutt
less than the farmers of England were in- the habit o'
paying to their labourers.—(Hear.) Are we then pre-
pared to drag our people down to the low level of Russian
serfs and Polish bondsmen?—(No, no.) Or ought we
oat rather es a Christian community to seek to elevate
those oppressed people up to the higher standard
of Englishmen ? In reference to taxation, our na
tional debt equals in amount the whole national
debt of Europe. There are 220 millions of peopl.
on the continent of Europe; in these islands there are
but 30 millions. The taxation pressure on each of us is
therefore sevenfold as great as it is on each inhabitant of
the continent. Under such circumstances, free-trade
competition is unjust because it is unfair. As, in a race,
any cab-horse in Liverpool could distance the Flying
Dutchman were the latter compelled to carry a ton
weight on his back, so the foreigner, who bears a feather
weight of fiscal burdens, can easily conquer or undersell
the Englishman, whose back is bent to the ground by im-
perial and local imposts. If you insist on free and fair trade,
make the weights equal between the competitors. In the
three caves stated, free trade is the grossest injustice to
our productive classes, and protection becomes the
sacred duty of a paternal government. The prin-
ciple_ of free trade, thus modified in its practical ac-
tion by the- three special circumstances referred
to, leads to 'this rule :—Admit duty free what we
cannot produce; exclude what we can produce. For
instance, we cannot produce tea, and yet our free trade
legislators impoSe OR ith inferior qualities a tax of 300
per cent. ; but on hats, shoee, gloves, &e., that we can
produce, no duty is levied. If we reversed this policy,
she consumption of tea would be doubled; and,
far from displacing native industr.y, it would
double employment, in paying for the increased quan-
tity in a proportionate increase of British commodities.
Freights would be doubled, and all the complicated
divisions of industry to carry on this fair and free trade
would be stimulated into productive activity, and re-
ceive a corresponding reward.—(Hear, hear.) But
if you admit articles that. we can produce, then fo-
reign industry comes into conflict 'with native industry,
and deeply aggravates the ruinous competition which
is already grinding labour into the dust. Free-trade
is not a practieal measure, because it does not de-
pend exclusively on the will of the Parliament. We
must secure the assent of foreign Governments, and
these have refused to meet us on terms of reciprocity.
They are eager to sell in our markets, but they will
not allow us to sell in their markets. The palbable
truth is that we are now mistaking free imports for free
trade. The theory of the Manchester school is to
destroy the plough in England, and the loom in
Europe and the United States. It is proposed that
Cobden and Co. shall become the Moses and Son of the
habitable globe; and for that privelege they offer to
surrender to foreigners our bread and beef markets.
Mr. Duncan quoted some striking passages from
the evidence of Mr. J. D. Hume, in answer to ques-
tions 1,361, 1,364, and 1,393, showing that the object-of
the Free-traders was to cut down the wages and reduce
the dietary of the working men of this country to the
continental level; and he also cited from Mr. Mac-
gregor, in answer to question 332, that he would admit
Prussian stockings, " whether that would destroy the
trade of Leicester or Nottingham or not." He then gave
two definitions of cheapness. Much labour for little
money was a form of cheapness, which made the rich.
necessitating
richer, by deprecating wages
long hours of toil ; but much money for
little for
little labour was the form- of- cheapness
which the industrions classes ought to struggle.th
and
It was popularly said that food
working classes,
laboured; but for the great body of the
pri-
mary object of life, and so it was to the rwicahs.whoenever
the primary object of life was employment, for. employ-
ment.h was the mother of wages, without possessing which
thehat if the
or lodging. Cobhett had long since
the working man could neither command food, clothing, '
er unless he had employment
no Advantage to the la.beur
loaf were reduced to one penny, tow ould be of
quartern
by which he could
by Darn
promisingthe
penny. The Leagues had
deluded the people
them that wh
ell free
trade was established, three masters would bo 'running
after. one workman. EXperiEßCe had practically re-
feted thii prediction. But common sense should have
taught the deluded, that if three masters ran after
man, wages must rise, and, with such rise, the
ern, man,
of cheapness was demolished. For why
are wages paid et all ? Evidently to create
products. But if the products are to be sold cheap,
how can the employer pay dear for their creation ?
How can be confine to give much money for what
he must sell for little money ? The League had
also promised that free trade would lead to more trade.
But how can you have more trade, unless you have more
monied instruments by which alone more trade can be
carried on? Now Cobden voted with Peel to limit the
amount of money; so that while be promised the end, he
Withheld the menus.- What would be-thought of the con-
duct. of a body of;railwiy directors 'who refused to add to
the number of their carriages, while the number of pui

[PRICE

stingers was daily increasing? Yet this wes the exact
kind of folly that Coaden committed, when he promised
more trade and limited the quantity of money. Peel had
Waked, " Why should not money fetch its price° in the
Market equally with every other commodity ?" 'The
answer is, because money does not resemble tiny other
commodity. Legislation puts an arbitrary limit on the
=emit of money ; but it does not rut any limit on the
production of commodities. When bankers charge a
high rate of interest fur mnney, the charge is not made
for its legitimate mercentile use, but for its artificial
scarcity—a scarcity deliberately caused by an ignorant
and cruel Act of Parliament. It is not money that calls
out trade; but trade that calla out money. The writing
of letters calls out postage stamps; but the creation of
postage stamps does not cause letters to be wiitten.
Suppose Parliament were arbixarily to limit the number
of postage stamps; then it is clear that the transmis-
sion of letters must be limited, however meth
the population might increase, or however much
the desire or necessity of writing more letters
might increase. In .uch a case, people might have
to rely sixpence or a shilling for a single stamp. This
would be a form of usury, just as much as a grinding rate
of interest; and in both (sises people would have to pear,
not fur the fair use, but for the legislative scarcity of the
instruments they required. Mr. Duncan then explained
the system of money that he reconernendee ler edoption.
rnis we reported in the last number of the Standard,
when describing the meeting of the merchants held at the
C atop Sales-room.—(A gentleman in the audience
asked whether the Americans would take our taxation
money in payment of debts due to them?) Mr. Dun-
can answered in the negative, and showed that Wad -obi
of the greatest advantages of his, system; for the evil
now was that foreigners took away our gold coin, which
to them was a merchantable commodity; and when
that happened, the Act of Parliament compelled the
Bank of England to contract the issue of its notes,
on which the rate of interest was raised, discounts
eeeame almost impossible, trade was suspended, the
iactories closed, and the operatives dismissed.—(Cheers.)
But if we had a paper money of national character,
:laving no intrinsic value as a.commodity, but deriving
all its conventional value from the authority hf the
Crown, such money would never be sent out of the
country, since no gain could be derived from its expor-
!Mien, but it would permanently remain among us, per
--
1 terming all the legitimate functions for which it was
issued. This led to an explanation of the theory
of the foreign exchanges. It was contended by Mr.
Duncan that foreigners only dealt wi h us on the prin-
eiple of barter, and that it was a matter of perfect in-
difference to them what denomination we placed on our
monetary instruments. If oar paper pound c ouid only
exchange for 21 dwts. of gold, instead of 5 dwts., its
present value, the foreigner would draw a bid on
England for two hundred of our pounds instead of a bill
or one hundred of our pounds. What the foreigner in
'his case would require would be 25 ounces of gold, and
provided he got that quantity of metal he would be
satisfied. Now we coin our ounce of gold into four
oouuds, so that one hundred pounds represent 25 ounces
of gold; but if we coined an ounce of gold into eight
iational pounds, then two hundred pounds would repro-
aent 25 ounces of gold. It is a matter of utter indif-
'erence to the foreigner what value we put on our coins
Jr our paper; he demands a definite weight of gold, and
wakes his calculation so as to obtain that definite weight.
He deals with us on the principle of barter values, while
,re ought to deal among ourselves on the principle of
taxation values.—(Hear, hear.) But how will this affect
our manufacturers in their export trade? In our pro-
posed paper money wages will rise, and therefore prices
will rise. Will not then this enhanced cost of produc-
;ion drive our manufacturers out of the markets of toe
world? By no means; for the price will be a nominal
rise expressed in taxation money, which will depreciate
erectly in the proportion that taxes are imposed. Take
a case. Our manufacturers create goods worth
30,000/. in onr paper money; but if that paper money
is excised or depreciated by sour taxes, it will nut
etch in the markets of the world 7,500 ounces of gold,
out only 5,000 ounces. This is true! but when the ma-
nufacturer brings his 5,000 ounces of gold to this coun-
try, they will purchase 30,0001. of our national money,
so that he can still compete abroad with foreigners, us
_se now competes, selling at the cheap barter level. He
s indeed greatly benefited; for sunder the present sys-
tem he must sell chew both at home fandabroad; but
under the system proposed, he would sell Cheap abroad
and dear at home. This would sensure high prolate to
the employer, andettigh wages to the employed.—(Loud
,sheers.)' Mr. Duncan then explained the differeece he-
.ween ateatri: and Peter,. Value expressed simply the
iabour condensed or embodied in commodities ; price
denoted any act of government or of society which
added to the cost of produc ion without adding to the
value of the product. Thus, if x represented value and
y represented taxation, then x + y was the expression
if price. If x denoted four pounds and y demo ed two
aouuds, then six pounds was the price that the conatne-
lity ought to sell for in our market ; for it the pro-
iucer could not raise his price to this level, he could
lot recover the tax he had advanced to the Govern-
nent, in the shape of customs and excise ; and if he is
tisabled from ding so, then all taxation must rest psr-
nanently on the labour of the country, while the pro-
iertied classes would be exempt from all fiscal burdens.
. Let u 4 apply this principle to free imports. It the
foreigner is wholly untaxed, he can sell for simple va-
lue, that is, for four pounds; what then_ becomes of our
iroducera, who require six pounds, since they have paid
:deo pounds of taxation? It they continue to compete,
hey must lose two pounds on all they sell, and to per-
.evere iu this would make them bankrupts; but it they
ceased to compete, then they mast abandon hotness,
sod cease to give employment to our labourers. If it
tie objected that the foreigner does pay some tax to his
evu Government, the answer it, it hr pa) s two pounds
in a commodity whose condensed value is tour pounds
hen he will not compete in our market, in which case
free trade and free impost becomesa nullity; but if he
pay a less fox than two pounds, then he has au advan-
tage over more heavily taxed producers, and his striven-
;ago is our lose.—(1I sr, hear.) Why doss Govern-
went puuinh a smuggler? Because if he can sell with-
out paying the tax, ho injures the fair trader who does
pay the tax; and Government affixes pains and penalties
to smuggling that this unjust competition may not in-
jure the honest tradesman; yet in utter violation of the
:floral principles here involved, the ports aro thrown
open to the untaxed foreigner, who is actually invited,
nay encouraged, to ruin our fair traders who contri-
bute to the burdens of the State; while the British
smuggler, when detected, is severely pu-
nished. This free-trade cheapness makes the
incomes of the idle rich go further, for as prices fall, the
purchasing power of fixed incomes rises. Thus our
present legislation appreciates wealth, and depreciaies
labour ; it augments the dividends of the fundholders,
and reduces the wages of industry.—(Cheers.) Mr.
Duncan then pointed out several of the contradictions
and absurdities of what is called " Free Trade." Thus,
the duty was taken off raw cotton, because it was the
raw material of manufacture, but when the refuse or
sweepings of the cotton-mills is converted into paper,
the paper is liable to a tax of 300 per cent. Our gra-
ziers are not allowed to extract the saccharine.proper-
ties of barley by any malting process to enable them to
fatten their cattle, bat they are compelled to compete
with the foreign grazier who may malt his barley. We
tax soap 100 per cent., and spend vast sums to promote
sanitary reform, withholding from the poor the means of
cleansing their bodies. We profess a desire to promote
trade, and put a tax on advertisements which are the
be
best means of attracting trade. We pretend to n
anxious for popular education, and tax the pa
which books are printed. In a word, our professions
and and cur practice aro directly opposed.—(
the
Ernthusias-
tic applause.) The lecturer then examined.
question of direct taxation, which he contended was
i
al-
together impracticable. With the cost of collection,
we
require a revenue at 60 millions: the present property
and income-tax at three per cent. yields five millions;
therefore to raise 60 millions, the tax must be raised to
36 per cent. But if trades and prefest ,ions are empte ,
and the whole revenue were raised from realised
pro-
perty, the tax must be raised to 70 per cent., which
would amount to confiscation. —(Hear, hear.) Mr.
Duncan then pointed out tho danger to the fu.dholde;
from the present commercial policy: It was ruining our
colonies, our agriculture, our maritime supremacy, our
general commerce; and when our productive classes
were brought down to u bare subsistence by cheap wages,
and the employing classes reduced to a bare profit, um
means of paying the dividends would vanish; and the
fundholder, now profiting by the general distress of in-
dustry, would be punished for his shortsighted selfish..
peas by the advent of a national bankruptcy.—(...Rear,
hear, and applause.) Ho concluded by repeating that
the whole controversy hinged on the doctrine of employ-
ment, and the problem to be solved was this:—Can trade
be expanded, while money is always limited, and perio-
dically withdrawn, by Act of Parliament? Can free im-
ports give more employment to our working classes than
a protected labour market? Mr. Duncan resumed his
seat amidst the long-continued applause of the meeting.
At the conclusion of each lecture, a vote of thanks was
enthusiastically carried to the eloquent lecturer fur his
able lecture; and so effectually had he anticipated all the
objections to his system, that no question was asked by
any of the several parties present who evidently did not
coincide with some of Mr. Dun cartel views.

(From the Morning Herald.)
We learn from the reporting columns of our
aliLt contemporary, the Liverp Liverpool Standard , th...t
Mr, Jonathan Duncan, a gentleman of repute for
his lubourt on que:,tions of currency, has teen
delivetirg lectures, which have attracted no small
degree of attention, in exposition of his peculiar
views on the same subject, before respectable ussem-
hinges of the most experienced and enlightened members
of the mercanti!o community of that great city. When i
we say his peculiar views, however, we are underrating
the importance of the school to which as.owedly he be-
longs. and of a class of writers and reasoi-rs throughout
the country who concur on the gineral principle with
him, and who are establishing a position in p blie ion
school, as 111 r.
which is daily adding to the number
of their proselytes
and the weight of their influence. The
Duncan informs us, is that of Mr. John Taylor of this
metropolis—a name well known for his labours in the
especial branch of economical science, and not less re-
spected than known even amongst those who may most
differ with the faith he holds, and the Pt9OrBEI of tatioci-