The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-08 00:00:00

a piece of metal worth less than a halfpenny.
But
what renders it comparatively valueless as a com-
modity is its excellence as money. The bronze
penny will discharge perfectly its functions of
money, for it is not liable to be hoarded, melted,
or exported.
It is expected that a considerable sum of money
will be saved to the country by the issue of this
cheap and convenient copper coinage. The silver
coinage is at present also not of intrinsic value.
But why should its nominal value approximate so
nearly as it does to its intrinsic value ? If you
have a little penny why not have a little shilling ?
It may be said that the crime of coining would
increase. Experience has shown that if we have
a well executed coin, and the Mint does its duty
in discovering and punishing the coiners of base
money, the crime may be kept within the average
limits of delinquency.
But the most important consideration remains.
Why, if we have copper tokens for a penny, and
silver tokens for a shilling, should we not have gold
tokens for a pound ? Why should we not have
the cheapest and the most convenient token for a
pound—namely, a one-pound note ? The disad-
vantages of such paper money are entirely phan-
toms of the bullionist imagination. The advan-
tages are many and great. Were an amount,
demonstrated by long experience to be perfectly
safe—such as 20 millions—of bank notes issued,
under the sanction of Parliament, receivable for
taxes, these notes . would maintain their value.
Government, which issued them for a pound each,
would receive them for a pound. They would, in
fact, be less liable to fluctuate in value than a gold
sovereign is. Foreign trade would be carried on,
as it has ever in reality been, by barter. A
foreign merchant who brought commodities to sell
in this country would receive bank notes and ex-
change them for the commodities which he wished
to carry back. If he wished to carry back gold
he would exchange the bank notes at a bullion
merchant's for gold at the market price of the
day. The advantages of bank notes,. from £1 and
upwards, for domestic circulation would be
many and great. Unlike gold ,sovereigns
of intrinsic value, they would not be _hoarded
or exported, but would remain in circula-
tion, discharging the functions of money. The
effect would be that the country would suffer no
more from the exportation of a ton of gold than it
does from a ton of iron. The pernicious system of
raising the rate of discount, and contracting the
eurrency, in order to force down the price of all
commodities, and bring back gold to the country,
would be at an end. Trade and commerce at pre-
sent exist in this country under the constant
dread of a monetary crisis and a panic. Such
would no longer be the case. A short time since
the exportation of a few millions of bullion to
France caused the rate of discount to be raised to
six per cent. If political events in the United
States cause a drain of gold from England, or
should the large corn importations cause a few
more sovereigns than usual to be temporarily with-
drawn from the Bank, a monetary pressure will
recur. Anything which causes a drain of gold
' immediately disarranges our whole commercial

system.
This monster evil of modern times is owing
entirely to the currency crotchets of the PEEL and
OVERSTONE school of philosophical quacks. An
end can be put to the evil any day by making the
gold sovereign as completely a token as the copper
coin now is, or as the silver coin, with a little alte-
ration, would become. We defy the whole race of
bullionists to prove that any serious evil conse-
quence would follow.

Is the Church Rate Question to supersede that
of Reform next session ? The Conservative leader
in the House of Commons has placed it in a position
which looks like it. At a very numerous meeting
of the clergy and laity of the deanery of Amers-
ham, the hon. gentleman summoned ChurChmen,
lay and clerical, to a great political battle on this
question. "He had (he said) always discouraged
the clergy from entering into mere party politics ;"
but now he told them openly that they must bring
their influence to bear on members of the House of
Commons. The clergy must make the members
understand that though this was not a party, "it
was a political question, and a political question
on which, in their minds, there ought not to be,
and there could not be any mistake." Is this the
chief result of the Conservative Cabinet meeting at
Hughenden Manor? Has it been decided by the
the MONTAGUES, CECILS, and so forth, Lord STAN-
LEY, of course, being in a minority of one, that the
Church-rate question afforded the most pro-
mising field for Conservatives to fight—
if so, we venture to think that they may
repent of their decision. Very sure are we that the
advocates of Abolition will desire nothing more
than to see their question elevated from a minor to
a first-class topic ; and to see also the Liberals
compelled to make it their question. As to its
not being a party question when emphasis is laid
so strongly on its being political, we do Mr. DIS-
RAELI the justice of presuming that such remarks
were only made out of regard to clerical propriety.

But let us look at Mr. DISRAELI'S platform, as
our American friends term it—it is Church-rates
whole and entire, and no surrender. He argues
at length against all compromise. If by that term
were meant anything to amend the law of Church-
rates in the sense of making them easier to collect,
to secure their proper application in the district in
which they were collected, or to collect them
as a part of the general parochial charge from
which the requisite sum might then be taken,
these would be improvements. "But some of their
friends would go further than this—they would
exempt dissenters from the charge—that was not
compromise, it was surrender." He acknow-
ledged that he was opposing the advice of the
Lords' committee of 1859 in this ; but profound as
was his respect for the wisdom of the Upper
House, and of their committees, which he deemed
superior to those of the House of Com-
mons, he thought the House of Lords could—they
really could ! sometimes be precipitate ; and
that they were so in this instance, because they had
" mistaken public humour for public opinion." In
any case, Mr. DISRAELI is for fighting the battle
for Church Rates as they are. " The Rate, the
whole Rate, and nothing but the Rate !"
Of course Mr. DISRAELI must assign strong
reasons for such an ultra position ; and strong they
are, were they but sound. We are, however, sorry
to say that he has adopted the creed of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that at least which the
noble lord openly avowed a few sessions back,
hashe we
whollynot knowaba
nd
ot
nh
ea
dt wieharehaesnytiottleedd
and which _
to say
for abolition lately, as
a
politicaltecessity, but we do matternot
of
t remember
exinp ehdeiy, of
retnheat,
he
has formally disavowed his previous assertion,
that
House of Lords, and thQ
Throne,
wonl
would
Church,
hothe
shaken
aken by the repeal of the
Church-rates. Mr. DISRAELI'S
the
present argu-
ment is similar to that of the Whig
Lord. It is now, ho says, understood that
" the discussion of thel question of Church.
rates involves that of a National Church." And
then he proceeds to show the importance of 9,