The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-22 00:00:00

HIE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 22, 1867

that if I did so, to be revenged upon me he might
probably put into practice what I had heard he had
talked about, I drew up the document, saying nothing
to any one. My purpose was, in the first place, to
question him when he came before the committee as
to the reports he had put in circulation—which I
believed he would deny ; and, in the next place, to
ask him before the committee.

Mr. Overend—ls it the investigation committee?
—Witness—No, a regular• committee, sir (continu •
ing) —to ask him before the committee if I ever did
employ him to do such a thing—whichlalso believed
he would deny, thinking he would get his scale
stopped if he did not deny it. And then my pur-
pose was to call upon the committee in his presence
to witness that document ; and to hold that docu-
ment as a protection against any statements he after-
wards might make. (After a pause.) When the
committee met I carried into effect my.plan, and,
as the minute states, asked permission to ask Shaw
a few questions, which they granted ; and then put
the question to him as given in the statement, and,
as anticipated, he answered. The committee after-
wards signed it. Feeling myself somewhat secure
against any course he might take, I then went into
the business, and that terminated, as expressed in
the minute.

The document was produced and read. It made
Shaw to say that Broadhead never employed him to
blow up Hellewell. The minute in the minute book,
written by Broadhead himself, made him to say that
he had never employed him (Shaw) to do any out-
rage.
The examination was then continued—and Mr.
Overend said—What else have you to say ?
Witness—There was the case of Elisha Parker,
which came on yesterday. His horse, which was de-
stroyed, was hamstrung by Smith, Taylor, and Dean.
Bradshaw was not concerned in it, so far as I am
aware of.

Mr, Overend—Are Smith, Taylor, and Dean
dead ?—Yes, they are all dead.
Mr. Overend—l thought so ; and Bradshaw is
alive ?—Yes.

Witness was pressed to say whether Bradshaw
was one of the persons who committed the outrage,
but he denied that he was aware that ho was one
of them. He also denied that they came to him
before the horse was hamstrung, but he said they
came afterwards, and he paid them something.
Examination continued—l remember the time
when Parker was shot. George Peace, sen., a
member of the Union, was desired by me to do
something to Parker to stop him from working. On
one Sunday a little time afterwards I went to
Peace's house about the matter, and we walked into
a field to talk it over. I think this must have been
in the summer time, because I remember it was a
very beautiful day. 1 cannot recollect whether we
decided there what was to be done, but it was
agreed that something should be done, and I then
left him. He told me that he had a man in his em-
ploy who would assist him, but I cannot remember
his name. "Well, the " affair got done," and Peace
received a very large sum.
Mr. Overend—Was it £5O ?-1 think scarcely so
much as that, perhaps between £2O and £3O. He
told me the name of the man who had shot Parker,
but I cannot remember it now. I know he came to
see me afterwards.
Do you know whether Elijah Smith was one of
ent one
then, o
I f them.
will
tell
the men who was engaged in the shooting ?--I am
almmors.t
ocevretareinndliwwll,
was not
you that
Smith before he died confessed that he was one of
the men who shot Parker.
Witness—Well, sir, I do
not
recollect.
Mr. Overend—Was Saw .Crookes present at the
time Parker was shot ? Now,
mind,
we have many
sources of information ?—I don't know that
he was.
He always told me that he was not.
Mr. Overend—Now, do you not
know that he
lent his gun for the purpose of shooting Linley ?
No, sir, Ido not. He told me that he
did not this
morning.
Mr. 0 verend—Then you have seen him this
morning ?—Yes.
Was it not your object in speaking to him to de-
cide how much you should confess and how much
you should withhold ? —Yes.
What did you agree to withhold?
Witness (after a little hesitation)—The flereford-
street outrage. (Great sensation.)
Then, you were a party to that ?—Yes, Sir, I was.
Who committed it ?--Samuel Crookes,
Was not Martin engaged in it ?—No, Sir ; he is
entirely innocent, as my books will show.
Never mind about the books. We will come to
them presently.
Examination continued.—The only reason for
shooting at Parker and destroying his horse was be-
cause he continued to work for Mr. Could, who was
employing two non-unionists and who refused to
turn them away. I think that Crookes was em-
ployed in another transaction—that of attempting
to blow up the boiler of Messrs. Firth and Sons, but
I can't be certain as to whether he was the man.
Some powder was put under the boiler, and it ex-
ploded, but not much damage was done. If he was
.the man, I engaged him to do it ; but perhaps he
got some one else to put the powder under the
boiler. After the explosion I might have paid
him £5.
Did you ever employ Crookes to watch at Messrs.
Firth's, and to endeavour to shoot Hellewell ?
Well, Sir, he was employed to watch, and to do
something, but I can't say now what it was.
Do you believe that he was to shoot him, or
that he was not ?—No, not to shoot him, but to

lame him.
What do you mean, to lame him ?—I mean to
wound him in one of his limbs so as to prevent him
from working. Crookes used to come to me and
tell me that he had been watching several nights
for Ilellewell. I don't remember that on one occa-
sion he said that he got on the Midland Railway,
and was in the act of raising the gun to shoot at
Hellewell as he was working when Woodhead's head
came in between his sight and Ilellewell, and he
could not shoot. I know he told me that he had
endeavoured to shoot him, but could not get a

chwiaj
nni
rec
s.e. s
Ouv eirte nwda h
he
Npv rodrti
nugc d e letter ad and
aast k di e
was not certain, but on the question being pressed
he said he " thought it was."
Mr. Overend —Do you write in different hands
occasionally ?Yes, Sir.
The letter was as follows :
" To Messrs. Firth and Sons, Saw-grinders.
" Gentlemen,—The game works merrily, and we
brush away all obstacles before us. If we appear to
be rather long about it, you see now that wo are
none the less sure. It is your turn next, and the
man that hangs back will be the first to get it ; and
if I but move my finger you are sent to eternity as
sure as fate. Be advised. Take the hint in time."
Examination continued—l am not aware whether
there was any other person to watch Hellewell be-
sides Crookes. (On being pressed on this subject
he admitted that he had heard Crookes mention a
man who went under the nickname of " Nunk," but
he denied that he knew who he was.) I had no
private quarrel with Hellewell ; what he was to be
lamed in one of his limbs for was because he left
Newbould's and went to Firth's, where he worked at
a discount. What was done to him was not done
with the knowledge of the trade. His name was
frequently brought before the trade, and there was a
very strong feeling against him. I believe he has
been rattened, and that it was in cons 'quence of the
rattening not succeeding in its object that I decided
upon his being lamed. What I did was in the in-
terests of the trade, but not with their authority or
knowledge. I remember 12 days before Messis.
Firth's boilers were blown up that a canister of gun-
powder was put down the chimney of the house
occupied by Samuel Baxter, at Loxley.
Do you know who did that ?—I think it was
Crooke& I cannot say that any one else was with
him. All I know was that it was done, and that I
paid Crookes for doing it.
Witness was then examined with reference to
the murder of Linley. He said—l am aware that
Linley had a brother-in-law named Pool, who
was a butcher living in the Wicker. I remem-
ber that six months before Linley was shot a
can of gunpowder was thrown down Pool's chimney.
That was done with my authority, and I employed
Crookes to do it, I =not say what I paid him ;it

would be about £5 or £lO. I . remember on Nov. 4,
1859, Joseph Wilson's house wag attempted to be
blown up.
And whom did you employ 'l Crookes. I did
Did you cause that to be don's ? Sir.
not employ any one else. I can't. remember what I
gave him fur that.
Did you give him £2O for blow ing up a man and
his family ?—No, I think not ; perhaps £lO.
I forgot to ask you what was BL txter's offence ?
Well, he was one of Firth's mea.
And for that you intended allowing him up ?
Well, he held himself aloof from the trade, and as
he had at one time received a guod deal of money
from it, I thought he ought to co 3.trib ate.
What was your reason for put ;ing a can of gun-
powder into Pool's house ?—lt ra.s to alarm Linley
and to bring him to the trade. He was living with
Pool, and in putting the can of guiTowder into his
house I hazarded all consequences. Pool had done
us no harm whatever. Wilson:..offence was that
and determined
'ciety men. I re-
heup had a
edmspe
lto
yt ineg tnr
oa
nd
ee
baut t d enfioannz
member that another manufacturer named Holds-
worth was
cellar übnlodlevrnneuapthbyhissommaenufstory.
Who did you employ to do that ?—..Crookes.'
Was any one else employed with him ?—No ; I
think not ; I gave him £6 for it.
Witness continued--I also rem ember that in June,
1863, there was an attempt do blow up Joseph
Reaney's house.
Who did that ?—Crookes.
Was there any one else ?—I am not aware.
Did Crookes ever tell you of any man who had
assisted him in these jobs ?—No, none except Nunk,
who assisted him in many. Hallam also assisted
him, and so did Copley.
In what case did he say Copley assisted him ?
In the Hereford-street outrage.
What had Reaney done ?—Pearnehough had gone
to him to work.
Haw much did you give Crookes for blowing up
Reaney? —I can't remember.
What had Holdsworth done ?—lle was employ-
ing non-society men; that was the only cause of
offence I had against him.
Had you certain prices for these blowings up?—
No, there would not be much difference ; about 1:5
or £6, according to the difficulties. I cannot say
what I gave Crookes for watching Hellewell with a
view to shoot him. I should think from £5 to £lO.
Is there any other matter on which you have
been employed ?—I can't remember.
You have called my attention to the Hereford-
street
a?r—neYhoest
Thomas o u t r a
gh was blown up in October,
ee
1866 ?—Yes.
Who did that?—Crookes, and Copley was with
F e ab— Ll 5 .
You rne hboaudg b?a d
him. They are both members of the Union.
What did you give
ast
then examined
matter?—Yes,
Crookes for blowing up
l with Fearnehough ; it
was only
w trade me
na t
Y e s that's,upon
aIL
Witnessanother sub-
ject. He said—l do not
applied to me for a fit man to do " a job." I won't
swear that I told him that Hallam would manage
Sutliff's case (a case of assault already reported). I
think on one occasion Broomhead spoke to me about
getting a man to do an act of violence iu a trade
matter. The secretaries of various Unions frequently
talk about the defaulters—there is nothing so com-
mon. The officers of the various saw trades and I
have frequently arranged for rattening to be done.
I was the treasurer of the Amalgamated Saw Trades,
and till last night, when I resigned I was the trea-
surer of the National Association of Organised
Trades. That is an association of trades through-
out the kingdom. ltincludes the carpenters, masons,
joiners, tailors, and others. It was started some
months, and its object is to resist lock-outs. The
number of members in Sheffield is about 6,000 or
8,000, and throughout the country there are, I
should think, 60,000. Sheffield is the head of the
association. I wish it to be understood that the asso-
ciation has nothing whatever to do with these out-
rages. lam also treasurer of the Organized Trades,
but I intend to resign.
Mr. Overend—After Linley was shot, and after
he was killed, did you write a series of letters ex-
pressing your great abhorrence of such an act ?
Yes; and for that I know I shall be held up to the
execration of the whole world. (Witness here com-
menced weeping.)
Witness was then examined with reference to a
letter he wrote after the blowing up of Wheatman
and Smith. He admitted the authorship of the
letter, and said he was aware that he described the
act as a " hellish" one, and that he threw out an
insinuation that it had been done by a rival manu-
facturer. He also admitted having written a letter
after the Hereford-street outrage, characterising the
deed as one of the most infamous description, He
likewise admitted having written that " Fearne-
hough was as bad as he could be, and almost
merited what he met with,,, and he added, " I
really thought he did. I am, however, not of that
opinion now. I offered a reward of £5 for the dis-
covery of the perpetrator of the deed, and I induced
my societ y also to offer a reward. I was very
much condemned for having written the letter von
speak of, and I resigned my office as secretary to
the Union, but the members declared that they had
confidence in me, and I was re-elected."
Mr. Overend next examined witness with re-
ference to the Acorn-street outrage, which consisted
of a can of gunpowder being thrown into a bed-
room through the window, which act caused the
death of a woman. Ile denied that he knew any-
thing of the outrage, although at the time he said
he was generally considered to have had something
to do with it.
The witness was then asked how much money he
might have paid for rattenings and outrages, and
he said perhaps £l5O. The greater part he em-
bezzled in the way previously described.
Mr. Overend—where did the remainder come
from ?—I got it from other sources.
Mr. Overend—We will take the various sums.
From where did you get the money to pay for the
Hereford-street outrage got £l5 from a Mr.
Skidmore ; he is the secretary to another branch of
our Union ; but he did not know what it was for.
Mr. Overend—What had he to do with Fearne-
hough ?_Well, Fearnehough's proceedings affected
Skidmore's trade as well as ours, and also the trade
of which Mr. Barker is the secretary.
Mr. Overend.—They both arranged to Live you
the £l5 ?—Yes.
Mr. Overend—Did you tell them what you were
going to do with it?—We had a conversation to-
gether about Fearnehough's proceedings, and they
agreed it was time something was done to bring
about a settlement. I think I did not state what
course I should adopt with Fearnehough.
Mr. Overend
—After you had blown up Fearne-
hough, did they ask you what expense you had been
put to ?—Skidmore did, and he paid me £l5. What
I had done appeared to give satisfaction. They
bad since expressed regret for what they had tone,
and I am sorry.
Mr. Overend—l have no doubt. Where did you
get the £3O from you paid for shooting Parker ?
I embezzled it, and• no complaint was ever made
about my books. When this Commission was ap-
pointed I thought my books might lead to detection,
and I destroyed them.
Mr. Overend—Do you wish us to believe that you
embezzled that large sum of money, falsifying your
accounts month after month, and were never de-
tected ? —Never. Secretaries of other Unions have
paid me small sums of money for rattenings. Smith,
the secretary of the Saw-smiths' Union, knew
that I was Concerned in the Hereford-street outrage,
although I never mentioned it to him. Some half-
dozen men were in the secret, and they kept it, not-
withstanding the large rewards offered.
Questioned as to the system of rattening, witness
said it was au old established custom, and was
practised more or less, he believed, by every trade
in the town. It was his firm conviction, however,
and he had had, he thought, no small experience in
such matters, that if arrears of contributions could
be legally recovered rattening would for ever cease.
Mr. Overend—Now, tell me, sir, where ratten-
ings have failed, have not more extreme measures
been resorted to ?
Witness—So far as my own trade is concerned, 1

am sorry to say they have. I must admit that rat-
teni ngs have led to outrages.
Witness was then questioned respecting the pro-
ceedings of the Investigating Committee. He posi-
tively denied that they knew anything of the out-
rages, and when he asked for money to pay for
rattenings it was seldom they asked any questions.
Mr. 0 verend —Do you wish us to believe that you
participated in these dreadful crimes, embezzled
money to pay for them, and placed your own life in
the most imminent peril solely for the benefit of the
Union ?

Witness—However incredible it may appear, that
was my only object.
Mr. Overend—Has any member connected with
your trade ever protested, either privately or at a
general meeting, against these outrages ?
Witness—Yes, frequently.
Mr. O►•crend—l know you have, but any one
else ?

Witness— A member named Machin frequently
did. General meetings as a body have protested
against them, but for the good of the trade I con-
tinued to perpetrate them.
Mr. Overend—You have not told us yet why
Hellewell was blown up.
Witness—He had been a labourer—was brought

into the trade contrary to rule. We expected if he
was admitted a member we should soon have him
on the box, and it was to drive him from the trade
he was blown up.
This closed the witness's examination, " and Mr.
Overend told him he might leave the court. He was
not to leave the town, but hold himself in readiness
to be called at any time the court might require
him.

Joseph Chapman said that one night when he was
living with his uncle at Wadsley four men—Dean,
Taylor, Smith, and Bradshaw—came to their house.
The next morning he heard that a horse belonging
to Elisha Parker had been mutilated. Some months
after Smith asked him to purchase a revolver, which
he admitted having used at Dore.

Henry Chapman spoke to the four men coming
to his house, and, in reply to his inquiries they said
they had been on a rattening game.
Joseph Bradshaw, one of the men referred to,
was then called. He remembered rattening Messrs.
Radon, and he " served his time for it." He denied
most positively taking any part in the mutilating of
Parker's horse, and the court told him of the conse-
quences if the offence was proved against him.
The court then adjourned until this morning.

History of Apiculture and Prices in

England.

There are few subjects that excite more interest
han accounts of the condition of the people truth

fully told who lived many years ago in the land we
now inhabit. These records are so generally mixed

with fable, so coloured by the imagination gaining
from the tone of one mind a golden hue, and from
the tone of another, so bleak and dreary an aspect,
that little reliance is placed on pictures professing
to pour.tray a condition of the population in times
long past. Professor Rogers has compiled a series of
tables showing elaborate research ,and the greatest care
and skill, and from these he draws his inferences.
His conclusions, founded as they are on so solid a
basis, militate against the accepted idea of the age.
The work commences from the year after the Ox-
ford Parliament, held in 1259, and the inquiries
which this gentleman has been at such pains to
make, go to show that the general condition of the
people was then superior to that of the present
day. Before the year 1318 the agricultural

labourers were in a high state of prospe-
rity.. The land was to a large extent under
cultivation ; the roads were far from being
in that impassable state which is now sup-
posed, and communication between the towns was
frequent, and not difficult. A. great change was in-
augurated by the plague of 13-18. It is calculated
that one-half the population was carried off by that
fatal epidemic. This produced a social revolution.

The rise in wages was so immense from the scar

city of labour that the system of farming in vogue
ceased to be profitable. Every effort of the crude
economic notions of the day, to regulate the price
of labour, was futile and statutes of labourers
were passed in vain. The laws of demand and
supply regulated themselves, and the land felt into
the hands of small proprietors, who cultivated it with

the aid of their families, or became the property
of those who divided their labour on their own
freeholds and those of others, partly living as hired
workmen, and partly by the produce of their own
soil. This was the origin of a class that for many
centuries were the backbone of England—the yeo-
men—farmers who, after lasting 500 years, have
been swallowed up by the great landlords. Professor
Rogers asserts his belief that the arable land under
cultivation at the period this class came into exis-
tence was little less than it is at the present
day. The immense area of unenclosed wastes
he estimates was not more extensive than the spaces
now occupied by towns, or shut in as parks. Put-
ting the one against the other, hd concludes that
there was not much difference in the extent culti-
vated. Few are prepared to accept this as fact ;
and it is difficult to believe, when the population
then, is compared with the population now.
Estimating the population of the period at 2,000,000,
he considers that it would have been impossible to
feed the inhabitants on a cultivated area of a lesser

are too much in the habit of taking it for granted

that what has benefited themselves has been of
equal benefit to all ranks of their fellow country-
men. This is the age of improvement—of steam
machinery, railroads, telegraphs, and the many
appliances to cheapen labour and lessen toil. But
what lot or part in the benefits conferred on the
nation has the simple farm labourer of England

obtained? Here is an answer :—His condition has

steadily deteriorated, and he was more a man, of
greater political importance, of higher socia;

standing, 500 years ago than he is at this present
moment. —Anglo-American Times.

UNIFORMITY OF CURRENCY.

(From Messrs. Bowles and Drevet's Circular.)

We have much satisfaction in laying before our readers
to-day authentic information of the present condition of
the important international movement in progress at Paris
to unify the coin of the world.
The Imperial Commission charged with the conduct of
the Great Exposition, deeming it a fitting opportunity, and
one so long desired for collecting and concentrating the
opinion's and views of the different commercial nations on
this great measure of civilisation, caused invitations to be
sent to most of the important countries of the civilised
world to send special delegates to an " international com-
mittee," to carefully consider the question and to report
the result.

Fifteen or sixteen nations have accepted the invitation,
and their delegates have been diligently endeatouring to
reach a result in which all could unite ; in the course of
which Mr. Samuel B. Ruggles, delegate from the United
States of America, was fortunately enabled to obtain a
letter from the Hon. John Sherman, Senator from Ohio,
and Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate of

the United States, clearly and ably stating his views of the
importance and practicability of the measure, and the mode
in which it may be readily and practically carried into

effect.

The letter having been presented to the International
Committee received immediate attention, and was ordered
to be published with a translation in French, for general
information on both sides of the Atlantic.

We complete our statement of the present condition of
the measure by adding that Mr. Ruggles, with the Hon.
John P. Kennedy, who is associated as a representative of
the United States on the committee, maintain the
necessity in unifying the coin of the world, of an issue by
France of a gold piece of 25f., to circulate on equal terms
and side by side with the half eagle, or 65 gold coin of
the United States, and the gold sovereign or pound
sterling of Great. Britain, and have submitted to the
International Committee a proposition, which we also
publish with the letter of Mr. Sherman.

We shall endeavour to keep our friends in Europe and
America fully advised of the progress of a measure so
important to the commerce and finance of both worlds.
Letter from Samuel B. Ruggles, Vice-President of the
United States Commission at the Universal Exposition
at Paris, 1867, and specially designated as member of
Committee on weights, measures, and coins, to Hon.
John Sherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of
the Senate of the United States of America.
Paris, May 17, 1867.
My dear Sir,—You are of course aware that there is a
special International " Committee," now in session at Paris,
organised by the Lnperial
Commission of France, to sit
simultaneously with tho "Universal Exposition," and com-
posed of delegates from most of the nations therein re-
precented. Its object, among others, is to agree, if possible,
on a common unit of money for the use of the civilised
world.

It is not improper to mention that the opinions of the
committee appear to bo running strongly in favour of
adopting as the unit the existing French 5-franc piece of
gold.
May I ask what, in your opinion, is the probability that
the Congress of the United States of America would agree
at an early period to reduce the weight and value of our
American dollar, to correspond with the present weight and
value of the gold 5-franc piece in France, and how far
such a change would commend itself to your own judg-
ment.

extent. In the 14th century the return of the corn
sown did not average more than four fold, whereas
now it produces fifteen fold, and, supposing the
consumption to have been then equal to what it is
now, averaging a quarter each person per annum,
it would have required to 'supply food, a breadth of
cultivation little short of what now prevails. This
account differs materially from that given by
Macaulay of a much later date. His celebrated
chapter on the condition of the people in the time
of the Eluarts is too well known to need comment,
but the country must have retrograded if the histo-
rian's estimate that half the area of the kingdom
was in a waste state is true. He supports this
computation by the figures given by the Enclosure
Acts, from which it appears that more than 10,000
square miles were enclosed since those Acts were
passed. Professor Rogers has arrived at a very
different result to Lord Macaulay, and we are in-
-1 clined.to think the Professor right as to the com-
parative condition of the labouring population then
and now. Civilisation has increased our wants, and
there are very many things at present regarded as
necessaries which were then luxuries or unknown.
'We are satisfied that the advance of civilisation has
benefited the rich at the expense of the poor. In
1 primitive days, when masters sat at the same board
with their retainers, and the salt marked the divi-
sion, . i f the lord fared less sumptuously, those on his
`estate had a greater abundance of substantial food.
' A man was, in truth, worth more, and a beast worth
less, as the former were comparatively scarce and
the latter comparatively plentiful. The cost of a
sheep was about a shilling, and meat was more gene-
, rally eaten by the poorest farm labourers. It is
true that potatoes, as well as many vegetables
, now common, were then unknown, but their
place was supplied by other herbs, which have
since their introduction ceased to be culti-
vated. The Oxford Colleges and the • Public
Record Office have furnished the Professor
with documents, from which he has drawn his sta-
tistics relating to the cost of produce and of its
transport, and he has constructed tables of the
average price, year by year, of corn, sheep, and live
stock, as well as of the labour of reaping, mowing,
the wages of mechanics and handicraft men. To
these he has added the averages for each decade of
the price of dairy and orchard produce, of wine,
beer, and cider ; of woollen and linen cloths ;
building materials, metals, &c. The carriage, both
along the coast and in the interior, was cheap. A.
vessel was hired at two shillings a day, including
the men required to man it. A cart, two horses,
and a man carried corn at the rate of about a penny
a ton per mile, so that the prices of corn were gene-
rally equalised over the kingdom. The details of
several journeys are given with a view to demon-
strate how generally such travel was carried on.
IMany proprietors held estates in different parts of
the country, and it was their habit either to visit
them themselves or to send their agents every year.
To proceed from Oxford to Newcastle required 8 to

I also ask the privilege of submitting your answer to the
consideration of the committee.—With high respect, your
obedient servant,

SAMUEL B. RUGGLES.
Answor from Hon. J. Sherman to Samuel B. Ruggles,

Esq.
Hotel Jardin des Tuileries, May 18, 1867.
My dear Sir,—Your note of yesterday inquiring whe-
ther Congress would probably, in future coinage, wake our
gold dollar conform in value to the gold 5-franc piece, has
been received.

There has been so little discussion in Congress upon the
subject that 1 cannot base my opinion upon anything said
or done there.

The subject has, however, excited the attention of seve-
ral important commercial bodies in the United States, and
the time is now so favourable that I feel quite sure that
Congress will adopt any practical measure that will secure
to the commercial world a uniform standard of value and
exchange.
The only question will be, how this can be accom-
plished.
The treaty of December 23, 18G5, between France, Italy,
Belgium, and Switzerland, and the probable acquiescence
iu that treaty by Prussia, has laid the foundation for such
a standard. If Great Britain will reduce the value of her
sovereign two pence, and the United States will reduce
the value of her dollar something over three cents, we then
have a coinage in the franc, dollar, and sovereign easily
computed, and which will readily pass in all countries ;
the dollar as five francs and the sovereign as 25 francs.

This will put an end to the loss and intricacies of ex-
change and discount.
Our gold dollar is certainly as good a unit of value as
the franc; and so the English think of their pound ster-
ling. These coins are now exchangeable only at a con-
iderable loss, and this exchange is a profit only to brokers
and bankers. Surely each commercial nation should be
willing to yield a little, to secure a gold coin of equal
value, weight, and diameter, from whatever Mint it may
have been issued.

As the gold 5-franc piece is now in use by over GO mil-
lions of people of several different nationalities, and is of
convenient form and size, it may well be adopted by other
nations as the common standard of value ; leaving to each
nation to regulate the divisions of this unit in silver coin
or tokens.

If this is done, France will surely abandon the impossi-
ble effort of making two standards of value. Gold coins
will answer all the purposes of European commerce. A
common gold standard will regulate silver coinage, of
which the United States will furnish the greater part,
especially for the Chinese trade.
have thought a good deal of how the object you pro-
pose may be most readily accomplished. It is clear that
the United States cannot become a party to the treaty re-
ferred to. They could not agree upon the silver standard;
nor could we limit the amount of our coinage, as proposed
by the treaty. The United States is so large in extent,—
is so sparsely populated,—and the price of labour is so
much higher than in Europe, that we require more cur-
rency per capita. We now produce the larger p-rt of the
gold and silver of tho world, and cannot limit our coinage,
except by the wants of our people and the demands of
commerce.

Congress alone On change tho Value of our coin. I see

10 days. Monks and friars were always on the road, no object in negotiating with other Powers on the sub-
moving between the abbeys and monasteries. Fairs ject. As coin is not now in general circulation with us,
attracted thousands from distant parts, and the
we can readily fix by law the size, weight, and measure of
future issues.
youth of England flocked in crowds to the univer- It is not worth while to negotiate about
cities. Professor Rogers compares the condition of that which t
o w e can do without negotiation, and we do not
limitw ourselves
peesbrysetraes of influence
treaty restrictions.
the farm labourer in the fourteenth century with his In England many and different
condition in 1771 from the statements made for that Chambers of Commerce aro earnestly in favour of the pro-
year by Arthur Young : posed change in their coinage. The change is so slight
"If we take the wages of a farm hand, exclusive with them, that an enlightened self-interest will soon in-
of the earnings of his wife and child, which I have duce them to make it, especially if we make the greater
introduced in the calculation at £2 10s., the agri- change in our coinage. NVe will have some (1 difficulty
as
ne
with
cultural labourer in the last half of the fourteenth adjusting
contracts ar existing
ew contracts
based
century received one-seventh of the nominal money paper money, even the reduced dh
wages possessed by the labourer in Young's time, more purchtsoablo value thanuponnowcoindollar;will our currency.
while he purchased many of the necessaries of life at We can easily adjust the reduction with the public cm-
one-twelfth the price of the seventeenth century, ditors in the payment or conversion of their securities,;
and bread at one-eighth ; for taking wheat at 48s. while private creditors might be authorised to recover
and the old standard. All these are matters of detail to
in Young's time, and at 4f-Id. the four pound loaf, which I hope the Commission will direct their attention.
wheat at sa. 10d. would have made the loaf about a And now, my dear Sir, allow me to say in conclusion,
fraction above a halfpenny, or, to be exact, .531 of that theartily sympathise with you and others in your
a penny. The reader, however, will recollect that olorts to secure the adoption of the metrical system of
I have estimated the corn allowances at prices of weights and measures.
The tendency of the age is to break down all needless
inferior or mixed grain, and that, therefore, the pro- dless
restrictions upon social and commercial intercourse. Nations
portion would be still more in favour of the labourer
500 years ago." are now as much akin to each other as provinces were of
old. Prejudices disappear by contact. People of different
Nor were his advantages confined to these. He nations learn to respect each other as they find that their
had more abundant and cheaper cottage accommoda- differences are the effect of social and local custom not
l
tion, together with rights which enabled him to supply founded upon good reasons. I trust that the ind"strf
oaf
t
a
himself with fuel at a nominal rate. Thus he Commission m m
productionsis s ion will b enable
the
samethe world
standard,oto m
computeea the
sar
() value
bythe
shows, that while the price of commodities had risen same yard or metyre, and weigh by the same scales.
in Young's time from Bto 12 times, the farm Such a result would bo of greater value than the usual
labourer's wages had risen but little over four times employments of :diplomatists and statesmen. I am, very
the amount which prevailed after 1348, the year truly yours, JonN SHERMAN.
of the plague. He then compares the present . The Commission on coins of the proposition submitted
with what prevailed in the year 1771, of which to the International Committee by Messrs. Samuel
73_
.
Ruggles and John P. Kennedy, delegates from the United
Young wrote, and he finds that everything except- States of America :
ing wheat is far dearer now, while agricultural ~ The Commission recommend that a proposition shall
wages remain about the same. The conclusion at bo submitted to the respective Governments of France
which he arrives is thus clear enough. The labourer and the United States of America. That the Goya:-
of 1348 was in a much better condition than his ment. of France shall. issue, in in addintidonthattothites
Gperveesrii.t.
descendant in 1771; and he of 1771 was in a better cmoomnatgoef,
thaegljnitedieSetates 'in francs,
futea issues shall reduce
condition than the agricultural labourer of 1867. the weight of the gold dollar to the value of five francs/
It is no wonder that Hobbs begins to discuss the and shall bring the other gold coinage to the same stan-
necessity of strikes ! The work will be carried on, dard."
if the author is spared to complete his labours, to
the year 1793. The subject is one of deep interest,
and nearly ncerns the well-being of the mass of
English farm labourers. The comfortable classes

COUNTRY MARKETS.

WAKEFIELD.—FRIDAY.
At our market to-day English wheat ruled very firm,
and the business done was at about the rates of last Week •
Other articles steady. Weather fine.

LIVERPOOL—FRIDAY.
There was a good attendance at to-day's market, and
there was a considerable improvement in the demand for
wheat at the extreme rates of Tuesday last. Flour !rad
in steady demand, at full values. Barley was in limite
supply, and prices rather dearer. Indian corn was firm'
and advanced fully Is per qr. Beans steady, and quite as
dear. In oats and oatinnal there was a slow demand, but
peas were is per qr dearer.

LINCOLN.—FRIDAY.
A scarce supply of wheat. Trade firm, and prices not
materially changed in value. A small show of barley,
unaltered rates. Beans and other articles were a fair 006

at the rates of last week.
New white wheat, 70s to 75s ; new red, 62s to 69s per 3n,6
stone. Barley for malting, 49s to 54s per qr ; griudinr
35s to 37s per 30 stone. Oats, 27s to 345. Beans, 44/3
50s per 38 stone.

S T AMF ORD—FRIDAY.
With a middling show of wheat to-day, the demandl:
slow, and recent currencies could scarcely be made.
barley very little doing, at late currencies. Beans in ssi'd
show, and trade heavy. Oats were tolerably active, an
may be quoted at the extreme prices of last woe 68s per 86
New white wheat, 66s to 72s ; red do., 62s to 60s P--353
stone. Barley, malting, 40s to 50s • griding, 27s to
0.
per qr. Oats, new, 26s to 325; old, 30s to 32s per 24 atone.
Beans, 43s to 48s per 38 stone. Peas as of late.

DERBY—FRIDAY. trade
There was a poor show of wheat on offer to-day; the d.
was quiet, and last week's prices were fully supporte
0.
Barley in middling supply, aud at fully previous rate
Oats were scarce, at last week's quotations. Beane vire!
quiet, and scarcely so dear. Peas met with a limited
mand, and prices stationary.
New white wheat, 60s to 755; do. red, 55s to 65s Po' 36
stone. Barley for malting, 40s to 47s per qr. ; grinche
33s to 34s per 30 stone. Oats, new, 26s to 345; 46534 s fn'
8-3
36s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 58s to 60s; new, to 4
per 38 stone.

BRISTOL SUG AR—FnmAY.
There has been a very quiet demand for sug%r..ollllB
5,
week, and salos Lave been limited, but prices are 11,
supported.