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

'THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAWY EVENING, JUNE 22, 1867,

that if I did so, to be revenged upon me he might
probably put into practice what I had heard be had
talked about, Idrelv 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 (ccr.ntinu-
ing)—to ask him before the committee if I ever did
employ him to do such a thing—which I also 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-
tnent as a protection against any statements b 5 after-
wards might make. (After a pause.) Wien the
committee met I carried into effect my phi a, 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 Henewel 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, washamstrung 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 arc 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 he wa.s 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. 0 verend—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
the men who was engaged in the shooting ?---I am
almost certain he was not one of them.
Mr. Overend—Well, then, I will tell 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 Sam 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, I do not. lie told me Mt 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 Hereford-
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.
Seine 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 Hellewell. 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 Hellewell, and he
could not shoot. I know he told me that he had
endeavoured to shoot him, but could not get a
chance.
Mr. 0 verend here produced a letter and asked
witness if it was his writing. He replied that he
was not certain, but on the question being pressed
he said he " thought it was."
Mr. 0 verend —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 quenc of the
rattening not succee.ling in its object that I decided
upon his being lamed. What I did was in the in-
terests of the trale, but not 17.-ith their authority- or
knowle.lge. I Nnioniber 12 days before Messrs.
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
Crookes. 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 cannot say what I paid him ; it

would be about £5 or £lO. I remember on Nov. 4,
1859, Joseph Wilson's house Was attempted to be
blown up.
Did you cause that to be don e?—Yes, Sir.

And whom did you employ ?—Crookes. I did
not employ any one else. I can't remember what I
gave him for that. _ _ _

Did you give him £2O for blowing up a man and
his family ?—No, I think not ; perhaps £lO.
I forgot to ask you what was 132 xter's offence?—
Well, he was one of Firth's men.
And for that you intended blowing him up ?
Weil, he held himself aloof from the trade, and as
he had at one time received a good deal of money
from it, I thought he ought to contribute.
What was your reason for putting a can of gun-
powder into Pool's house ?—it was to alarm Liulcy
and to bring him to the trade. lie was living with
Pool, and in putting the can of gunpowder into his
house I hazarded all consequenceo. Pool had done
us no harm whatever. Wilson's offence was that
he had set the trade at defiance, and determined
upon employing none but non-society men. I re-
member that another manufacturer named Holds-
worth was blown up by some gunpowder being put
in a cellar underneath his manufactory.
Who did you employ to do that ?—Crookes.l
Was any one else employed with him ?—No ; I
think not; I gave him £6 for it.
Witness continued—l also remember that in June,
1863, there was an attempt to blow up Joseph
Reaney's house.
Who did that ?—Crookes.

Was there any one else 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. llallam 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 ?—Fearnehough had gone
to him to work.

How much did you give Crookes for blowing up
Reauey ?—I can't remember.
What had Holdsworth done ?—He 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 £5
or £6, according to the difficulties. I cannot say
what I gave Crookes for watching Ilellewell with a
view to shoot him. I should think from £5 to £lO.

Is there auy other matter on which you have
been employed ?—I can't remember.

You have called my attention to the Hereford-
street outrage ?—Yes.

Thomas Fearnehough was blown up in October,
1866 ?—Yes.

Who did that ?—Crookes, and Copley was with
him. They are both members of the Union.

What did you give Crookez for blowing up
Fearnehough ?—£ls.

You had had no quarrel with Fearnehough ; it
was only a trade matter ?—Yes, that's all.
Witness was then examined upon another sub-
ject, fie said—l do not recollect Broomhead ever
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 in 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 withreeffelrlernhceeattaolana
a nd
letter he
Smith.
wrote
nafter blowingitnlitteted the authorship of the
up
letter, and said he was aware that he described the
a admitted t ted
outrage, ha vi g written a letter
act as a hellish" one, and that he threw out an
insinuation that it had been done by a rival maim-
fa af ct
et ur rt ehre
. H
characterising the
deed as one of the most infamous description. Ile
likewise admitted having written that " Fearne-
ealso
Hereford-street
d
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 society also to offer a reward. I was very
much condemned for having written the
letter you
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 wicdow, 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?-4 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. liarker is the secretary.
Mr. Overend.—They both arranged to give 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 Fearnehou,gh.
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 s •
atisfaction. They
had since expressed regret for what they had done,
and I am sorry.
Mr. Overend-4 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--De 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. Sinith,
the secretary of the ;taw-smiths' Union, knew
that I was concerned in the Hereford-street outrage,
although I never mentioned it to him. Sonic 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 an 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-
tenings 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 be asked for money to pay for
rattenings it was seldom they asked any questions.
Mr. Overend —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. 0 verend—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. Overeud—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.
0 verend 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. lie remembered rattening Messrs.
Eadon, and he " served his time for it." lie 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
than accounts of the condition of the people truth-
fully told who lived many years ago in the land we
now inhabit. These records arc so generally mixed
with fable, so coloured by the imagination gaining
from the tone of ouc 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 pourtray 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 1348 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 1318. 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 fell 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 Dand 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, cr shut in as parks. Put-
ting the one against the other, he 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
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 Stuarts 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-
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
primitive days, when masters sat at the same board
with their retainers, and the salt marked the divi-
sion, if 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 cern, sheep, and live
steel;, as well as of the lalx of reaping, mowing,
the wages cf 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. 'Pile, 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.
Many 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

10 days. Monks and friars were always on the road,
moving between the abbeys and monasteries. Fairs
attracted thousands from distant parts, and the
youth of England flocked in crowds to the univer-
sities. Professor Rogers compares the condition of
the farm labourer in the fourteenth century with his
condition in 1771 from the statements made for that
year by Arthur Young :
" If we take the wages of a farm hand, exclusive
of the earnings of his wife and child, which I have
introduced in the calculation at £2 10s., the agri-
cultural labourer in the last half of the fourteenth
century received one-seventh of the nominal money
wages possessed by the labourer in Young's time,
while he purchased many of the necessaries of life at
one-twelfth the price of the seventeenth century,
and bread at one-eighth ; for taking wheat at 48s.
in Young's time, and at Cld. the four pound loaf,
wheat at ss. la would have made the loaf about a
fraction above a halfpenny, or, to be exact, •531 of
a penny. The reader, however, will recollect that
I have estimated the corn allowances at prices of
inferior or mixed grain, and that, therefore, the pro-
portion would be still more in favour of the labourer
500 years ago."
Nor were his advantages confined to these. He
had more abundant and cheaper cottage accommoda-
tion, together with rights which enabled him to supply
himself with fuel at a nominal rate. Thus he
shows, that while the price of commodities had risen
in Young's time from 8 to 12 times, the farm
labourer's wages had risen but little over four times
the amount which prevailed after 1348, the year
of the plague. He then compares the present
with what prevailed in the year 1771, of which
Young wrote, and he finds that everything except-
ing wheat is far dearer now, while agricultural
wages remain about the same. The conclusion at
which he arrives is thus clear enough. The labourer
of 1348 was in a much better condition than his
descendant in 1771; and he of 1771 was in a better
condition than the agricultural labourer of 1867.
It is no wonder that Hobbs begins to discuss the
necessity of strikes ! The work will be carried on,
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
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 social
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
opinions 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 endeavouring- 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.

Tho 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 sidos of the Atlantic.

We complete on; statement of the present condition of
the measure by adding that Mr. Ruggles, with the lion.
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 $5 gold coin of
the United States, and the gold sovereign or pound
sterling of Great Britain, and have submitted to tbo
International Committee a proposition, which we also
publish with the letter of Mr. Sherman.
Wo 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 clear Sir,—You are of course aware that there is a
special International " Committee," now in session at Paris,
organised by the Imperial Commission of France, to sit
simultaneously with the " Universal Exposition," and com-
posed of delegates from most of the nations therein re-
presented. 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 be 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.

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

SAMUEL B. RUGGLES.
Answer 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, make 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 I 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, 1865, between France, Italy,
Belgium, and S witzerland, and the probable acquiescence
in 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 aro 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, front whatever Mint it may
have been issued.

Ls the gold 5-franc piece is now in use by over 60 mil-
lions of people of several different nationalities, and is of
convenient form and it may well be adopted by other
nations as the common standard of value ; leaving to each
nation to regulat the divisions of this unit in silver coin
or tokens.

if this is done, France will surely abandon tim 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.
I 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 oar 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 Rift of the
gold and silver of the world, and cannot limit our coinage,
except by the wants of our people and the delimit& of
commerce.

Congress alono can clang© tho vale of our coin. I see

no object in negotiating with other Powers on the sub-
ject. As coin is not now in general circulation with us,
we can readily fix by law the size, weight, and measure of
future issues. It is not worth while to negotiate about
that which we can do without negotiation, and we do not
wish to limit ourselves b'y treaty restrictions.
In England many persons of influence and different
Chambers of Commerce aro earnestly in favour of the pro-
posed change in their coinage. The change is so slight
with them, that an enlightened self-interest will soon in-
duce them to make it, especially if we make the greater
change in our coinage. We will have some difficulty m
adjusting existing contrasts with the new dollar; but as
contracts are now based upon the fluctuating- value of
paper money, even the reduced dollar in coin will be of
more purchaseablo value than our currency.

We can oasily adjust the reduction with the public cre-
ditors in the payment or conversion of their securities,
while private creditors might be authorised to recover

,ipon tlio old stanlard.ldles° are matters of detail to
which I hope the Commission will direct their attention.
And now, my dear Sir, allow me to say in conclusion,

that I heartily sympathise with you and others ia your
elorts to secure, the adoption of the metrical system of
weights and measures.

The tendency of the ago is to break down all needless
restrictions upon social and commercial intercourse. Nat ions
are now as much akin to each other as provinces were of
old. Prejudices disappear by contact. People of different
nations learn to respect each other as they find that their
differences are the effect of social and local custom not
founded upon good reasons. I trust that tho industrial
Commission will enable the world to compute the value of
all productions by. the same standard, to measure by the
same yard or metre, and weigh by the same scales.
Such a result would be of greater value than the usual
employments of :diplomatists and statesmen. I am, very

truly yours, JOHN SHERMA'N.
The Commission on coins of the proposition submitted
to the International Committee by Messrs. Samuel B.
Ruggles and John P. Kennedy, delegates from the United
States of America :
"The Commission recommend that a proposition shall
bo submitted to the respective Governments of France
and the United States of America. That the Govern-
ment of France shall issue, in addition to its present
coinage, a gold piece of 25 francs, and that the Govern-
ment of the United States in future issues shall reduce
the weight of the gold dollar to the value of five francs,
and shall bring tho other gold coinage to the same stan-
dard."