The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-20 00:00:00

by a great nation to a scholar who had toiled for

the general advantage during many years in some
of the least inviting and the most rugged of the
diversified fields of literature ! The notoriously,
undeniably, and glaringly insufficient aid, accorded
only when too late to Mr. HAYDN himself, and
since then pitifully extended to his widow and
her three orphan children (251. a year, recollect,
for the whole surviving family of this poor dead
scholar l)—may, it is true, be yet expiated as a
wanton insult to literature. It may at last be
enhanced to something bearing the semblance at
least of " assistance "—and let us hope that it
will be so enhanced through the generous and
genial interposition of Viscount PALMERSTON.
But, beyond the reparation due in this one pain-
ful and distressing instance, wo conceive that the
whole system upon which the 1,2001. yearly at
the Premier's disposal is distributed amongst its
various recipients ought, in reason as well as
in humanity, to be altogether reorganised.
If we cannot have more than an annual aggregate
of 1,2001. to be shared among the meritorious
cultivators of art, science, and literature, at any
rate let us hit upon some more judicious distribu-
tion of the inadequate sum actually at the dis-
posal, for those purposes, of the Leader of her
MAJESTY'S Government. Let not the sum, we
repeat, such as it is-1,2001.—be frittered away
according to the mistaken plan hitherto in vogue:
that, dropping it out in miserable driblets of 501.
and 251., and the like wretched scraps and shreds,
to the tune of so many halfpence per di at, ! In-
stead of this—we would presume to suggest that
each year the aggregate sum of 1,2001. should be
divided into some six or eight pensions really
worth receiving by a man of letters, art, or
science, pensions really worth awarding by a dis-
cerning and magnanimous Government. Divide
this annual sum of 1,2001., for example, let us
say into seven portions, thus—into one pension of
3001., into one of 2001., into four of
1501., and into one of 1001. Then some
good might be effected even by the 1,200/. a-year,
then some honour might be done through it to
the deserving cultivators of art, science, and
literature. Particularly if with the inauguration
of some such improved method of distribution, we
were to recognise the evidence of greater discri-
mination in the selection of the names of the
different recipients. At present, the real " Intel-
lect of England" gets an occasional 501. or so by
way of recognition, as in the instance of CHARLES
SwArar, the amiable and very charming poet of

Manchester. But all the while the bulk of the
1,2001. nominally set apart for the encouragement
of the " Intellect of England" is awarded to all
sorts of obscure persons, in no way at all con-
nected with either art, or science, or literature.
Lord PA LMER STON may win glory to himself when-
ever he pleases by putting an end to this system of
most cruel mockery to men of letters, and their
compeers of the atelier and the laboratory. Let
us beseech him earnestly so to do ! And if he
cannot increase that annual sum-total to an amount
somewhat worthier of its object, say 5,0001.
at least, we would hope to see a wiser and

a more generous distribution of it thin any
that has yet been adventured upon even by the
most liberal and sagacious of his predeceasora.

Pen.iions, too, we cannot but think a most unsuit-
able term for what ought by right to be regarded
as Acts of National Recompoux. Let the phrase
be dropped. Let it, in legal phraseology, cease and
determine. Let us talk in future of these things

as " Rewards" or " Tributes." Let us hear no
more of a wretched 504 per annum, or of a
beggarly 251. par annum ; but in lieu of this (as
we have already suggested) of awards ranging
from 1001. as the minimum to 3001. as the
maximum. According to which improved mystem

something like real encouragement might at

length be accorded to the interests of art, science,
and literature, in a manner honourable, instead of
as hitherto derogatory, to the dignity of her
MAJZSTY'S Governmen t.

Many zealous advocates for the convertibility of
the Bank Note are still. strenuously opposed to
the provisions of the Act of 1844, and the unwise
and impolitic prohibition of the smaller denomi-
nations of Bank paper. They are suffering under
the delusion so industriously propagated that our
foreign trade and commerce would be greatly in-
jured unless gold could be obtained at a fixed
and certain price under any possible combination
of circumstances. The Times, in October, 1855,
put this argument forward clearly and distinctly,
so that we are enabled to discuss its real weight,
and to take it quantum va/eat, exactly for what it
is worth.

On the 26th of that month the following re•

markable passages occurred in its Money Article

—" Supposing this circulation to be required solely
for internal commerce, no necessity could exist for
gold being held against any portion of it. A
deposit of Government Stook, or the fact
of its being receivable for duties, would at all times
keep it from fluctuation, in value. But as we re-
quire gold to meet the balances of debt to foreign

nations at periods when our exports have not been
fully sufficient to pay for our imports, we must
have some means of converting our circulation
into this material. The Bank note professes to
be good for a certain weight of gold. It is on
the payment of a certain weight of gold that every
contract throughout the kingdom is made contin-
gent. If, when the merchant wants this gold to
send to his foreign correspondents, he finds that
he cannot change the notes in his possession for
the full amount they purport to represent, ho is a
loser precisely to the extent of their deficiency.
Absolute and immediate convertibility is therefore
a necessity admitted by all except the few dream-
ers who find a voice in moments like the present."
The question is thus fairly raised ; the important
issue on which the nation must speedily decide is
before us.

The first point that naturally arises is, " Why
should the interests of persons solely engaged in
" internal commerce" be rendered altogether sub-
servient to the views of foreign traders ? It is
notorious that five-sixths of the transactions of
the country are purely domestic. The classes who
earn their daily bread by their daily labour—the
shopkeepers,
clerks, traders, and professional men
—have but little to say to foreign trade. But
yet they are subjected to the most fearful calami•l
ties, to loss of employment, inadequate remunera-
tion for their labour, and too frequently bank-
ruptcy or insolvency, from the extraordinary
fluctuations in the value of money, and rate of
in terost or discount, occasioned by the stringent
regul; itions respecting the circulating medium, the
sole r aeasure and representative of value. Over
this they have no control whatsoever, and yet
over,they ti
;c roeu
or; nhdaeorde da
opde rffoeoctt,l y
to helpless—delivered
of the usurers, who seek to obtain exorbitant
profits for the use of their capital, to achieve a
doubtfwl advantage fur foreign traders, which,
even if li Yell founded, would by no means consti-
tute a sufficient ground for the Act of 1844.
But lei:. us see what is the real extent of that
sni)Posed , advantage— which is founded more on
assump' „ion than reasoning. All that can be said
in its f Avour is, that it simplifies the business of
the for eigu merchant by excluding one element,