The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-02 00:00:00

dente was afforded to that Committee ; that evidence received

the amplest consideration, and the result was that the Com-
mittee tendered as advice to the House that .they should above
all other things abstain from interfering or meddling with the
existing currency of the country. That Committee declared
it to be their opinion that if there were one thing more desir-
able than another, and which would tend more to the relief of
the agriculturists, it was to allow them themselves to adjust
their grievances, rather than interfere legislatively with them.
The Hon. Member has referred to the Bill of 1819,.. and has

again kindly attempted to relieve me from the responsibility at-
tached to that measure. The Hon. Gentleman also says that
_ _

those who see their errors ought to be candid enough to admit
them; but I confess that, although I do admit the position of
the Hon. Gentleman, I have yet to learn that persons not be-
lieving themselves in error are to be called upon to admit error,
and acknowledge regrets and opinions they do not feel. That
the Bill of 1819 did increase the distresses of the country to a

certain degree I do not deny, for I consider it impossible to
escape from the evils of an inconvertible paper currency with-
out the infliction of some distress on the country. The ques-
tion then was, whether they would submit to temporary dis-
tress, which a return to a better system of currency would
at first cause, or continue and persevere in a course which
would lead to ruin—l mean persevering in the system of an
inconvertible paper currency ? It is not fair to attribute to
the Act of 1819 the whole of that reduction in prices which
has taken place in agricultural produce. There was certainly
a reduction of prices, and the distress of the agriculturists
was in part aggravated by a return to a metallic standard ;
but that reduction mainly arose from a destruction of the mo-
nopoly enjoyed by agriculturists during the war. During
the war there were high prices, but with its ending there was
a cessation of the previous stimulus to the encouragement of
speculation in land, and the return of peace naturally brought
about, that. there should be an increase of pecuniary diffi-
culties among the agriculturists, compared with what those
difficulties were at former periods. Whatever alteration
might be made in the currency it must be accompanied
with that pressure and distress which did not accompany
an inconvertible standard. The question to-night, there-
fore, is, not whether we shall inquire into agricultural dis-
tress, but whether we shall attempt to remedy the evils
caused by the Bill of 1819, either by returning to an incon-
vertible paper currency, or by resorting to a depreciation of
the standard. Under an arbitrary despotism, such a means
might be resorted to, and such a measure would equal the
worst acts of the most despotic Governments. Under such
Governments I say, Sir, that a measure of the sort may be
attempted with success; but in a free country like this it can
never be made with any :probability of succeeding. The
Hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says let us have a Com-
mittee, the result of which shall never be known to the public.
—( A laugh.) For my part I have no objection to that
Committee. Oh, but says the Hon. Gentleman, I mean
that the proceedings in the Committee should not be
known. But I say, that it is the expectation of the result
that would agitate the public mind.—( Hear.) It is of no use
to conceal the proceedings of the Committee from the public
if you let them know the end you have in view. If there is to
be any result from the proceedings it is useless to withhold
them from the public. I would much rather let the public
know daily the proceedings of the Committee during the time
they were sitting if the object in view was a depreciation of
the standard. And, I say, that the public mind will be much
agitated if they expect that after three months' sitting the re-
sult of the Committee will be a depreciation of the standard,
and that withholding the proceedings of the Committee from
them will not give them satisfaction.—( Hear.) What would
be the case of every debtor and creditor if the public knew
that debts would be placed on a different footing—that debts
contracted in one currency were to be paid in another? Does
the Hon. Gentleman expect that any transaction would take
place in the meantime—that the result would not be a total
paralisation in the state of commerce, and a total cessation of
all commercial transactions in the meantime ?—( Hear, hear,

hear.) The Hon. Gentleman asks us why have we so
much pity for the creditor, and why have we not the same
pity for the debtor? And he also says that throwing the
burthen on the creditors would be no great harm, as they are
generally rich men. Now can such a proposition be generally
affirmed as to creditors throughout the country. I think not.
Every person dealing with confidence in the public faith—.
every one entering into commercial transactions where money
is not paid—is a creditor ; and where such was the case it can-
not be truly affirmed that creditors are rich. The Hon. Gen-
tleman in the course of his speech has employed rather a cu-
rious argument, for he has said that the person who has spe-
culated in the purchase of land has as good a right to expect
as much relief as the individual who employs the same capital
in the public funds. Is there not a difference between the two
transactions? Suppose the latter lends a thousand pounds,
he does so, and the public credit is pledged to him ; in the
case of the former it is a mere speculation, without any pledge
being given to him. The two cases were not alike. In the one
case the public faith is pledged, in the other it is riot, and the
same relief cannot be expected. I repeat one is a mere spe-
culation ; and it is a mere attempt to delude the reason by
appealing to the passions when the Honourable Gentleman
says that the two cases are analagous. The proposition of the
Honourable Gentleman—of my Honourable Friend, if he will
allow me so to call him—tends, to say the least of it, to a
depreciation of the currency. Would the Honourable Gentle-
' man have it said that the Honourable Member for Wiltshire
had thrown greater light on the subject than anybody else
who had spoken, when he said that the great advantages of
the proposition would be that if the standard was depreciated
at the expense of the country the price of labour would be
increased ? Does not such an assertion prove that depre-

ciation of the currency is the object of the present motion ?
—( Hear, hear, hear.) This proposition directs itse!f to
one or other of two objects ; either it has in view the
correction of the defects of the existing system of currency,
or it means to give relief to the debtor by a depreciation of
the standard, and diminish the burthens caused by the existing
national difficulties. If it is not proposed to depreciate the
standard, and to cause relief from the national debt, I cannot
see how the proposition will benefit the agriculturists. Under
the paper currency as great improvements have taken place as
under any other monetary system ; and I do not think that the
manufacturing interest wish for any change in it, neither can
I see what interest the agriculturist can have in getting the
standard lowered. It is an error to think that Mr. Hume ad-
vised an increase of paper currency by, depreciating it. He
advises no such thing, and in his essay on the question, Mr.
Hume does not advocate a constant increase and depreciation
of the standard. If paper is not to be inconvertible, where is
the advantage which it is argued must accrue to the agricul-
tural interest? But it would appear as if the Hon. Gentleman
would prefer a. silver currency to a gold currency. The Hon.
Gentleman might have reasons to urge for this preference if the
choice were now to be made—if the question were a vis integer,
and that a decision were to be made between the two standards;
but still it would remain to be shown how the agricultural in-
terest would be benefited by , the change. If the proposed
change were to be made, the same distress which occurred in
1819 would again occur, but without the same advantage being
derived from the change. Sir, it appears to me that our object
should be to render the standard as precious as possible. The
better way would be to take gold as the standard, using
silver as a token of that standard, coining into sixty-six instead
of sixty-two, and using it only as a token. Must it be that
we shall take a double standard, or shall we use silver as the
single and only one ? I see no use in taking the double
standard, for saying that you shall pay either in gold or in
silver as you please. Does the Hon. Gentleman mean that
we shall do as they do in France, and proceed without defin-
ing the standard ? I can see no object whatsoever, nor any
reason why gold and silver should be standards conjointly.
Sir, the more simple the standard is the better. Let gold be
the measure of value, or let silver be the measure of value,
but why use them conjointly ? The Hon. Gentleman has ad-
duced no good reason for this. Perhaps the Hon. Gentleman
desires to take silver as the measure, and leave gold to find
out its own value. I know the subject is a dry one—( Cheers)
—and I shall not trespass longer on the House. If the Hon.
Gentleman takes silver as the standard, and leaves gold to
find its value, how will the other metals assert their worth ?
If he makes silver the standard, at what rate of value will he
set it up ? Will he set it up at the old rate of 625., or the
present rate of 665. ? The Hon. Gentleman may depend upon
it he is adopting the best mode of depreciating the currency,
and it will be much better for him, and a far shorter mode of
settling the question, to say at once that a sovereign must pass
for 255.—( Hear.) It would save the trouble of a new coinage—
(Cheers and laughter.)--and would be doing honestly that
which is now attempted to be done by a circuitous mode.
That is to say, let the creditor at once be deprived of the dif-
ference, and let the debtor pay what he owes, not in sovereigns
of the value of twenty shillings, but in sovereigns of the value
of twenty-five. If the Hon. Gentleman's object is to substitute
a silver instead of a gold currency, I doubt exceedingly whe-
ther the effecting of that object would make a good bargain
for the agriculturist. I doubt it, because if the substitution►
took place, there would be a rise in the price of silver.—( Hear. )
The Right Hon. Baronet here referred to the allusion which
had been made to the late Mr. Ricardo's change of opinion,
and expressed his doubts as to the validity of death-bed
conversions. Those who were most opposed to the Act of
1819, should be the persons least sanguine in their expecta-
tions of great benefits to be derived from a substitution of a
gold for a silver standard. The effect, I again repeat, would
be an increased demand for silver. Gold might leave the
country, and lose its value in consequence of the demand for
it being lessened by the change ; but silver being made the
standard, the demand for it would increase, and the relief which
it was supposed would be conferred upon the agriculturist by
the change would not be the result. On the contrary, the in-
creased demand for the new standard would necessarily increase
the price of silver, and then where was the advantage which
the Hon. Gentleman would argue from the change ? There is
another and a very important light in which this question
should be viewed—l mean with reference to the productive-
ness of mines. It appeared that of the two metals, gold pro-
mised to be found in greater quantity, as would appear if
Hon. Members took the trouble of consulting Humboldt,
whose opinion upon the subject was confirmed by the testimony
of our diplomatic agents in South America. By those and
other authorities it appears that in America and also in Russia
gold was likely to be found in future in greater relative quantity
as regarded silver than it has hitherto been. I cannot see
what advantage is proposed to the agriculturist by the medi-
tated change. If the prices of all other commodities be
raised, as they would be by this alteration, in what way is
the possessor of land to gain? On the contrary, is it not
obvious that, with the rise in all other articles, he must lose
by the alteration 7—( Hear, hear.) The great sufferers by the
change in the currency will he the agricultural labourers. I
knoi that this objection will be met by Hon. Gentlemen
arguing that there will be a greater demand for labour, but
we know well that the price of labour does not change in any
alteration of the currency in a manner at all proportionate t.-
the degree of rapidity with which articles of consumption arc
increased in price by a depreciation of the currency—( Cheers)