The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-23 00:00:00

c 2—
~~:~

.
- - ---"
l''''''''',V..„_,..t„.."-V--•f''..-- ~.,044.7.‘" ",... , . .
, .-.
, ;••• . .
=.".• -,.
(11.11117
-
, .
:•;:-. --' - ?"-'" 1
.r ' • 4 '
, \-,.- -1 --1.-,_ : .',3ll,,,,,}4ti\4l''''''''''‘,,i''' ---.1.1.r-,- ~ ."
• '''.• ''''•/:' ' .
, 41
' -7--:.
,i 4, , .
;3_....4_, . ...
~,,....
7, _
zitorys
,14,•,..-_-•,../,-,.._.N.,.
~
~,,\
._
~
.„.
.. . ' . .- r-- --
- - . _ ..., • ~,,,, .
~,,, ,A3t,,,,A11114. 4#11;. " ........' --icb. '
t
~,,, ,i,. — , I . ---:: '.- - ,0 X Z ~, ''‘f'
1.. -; ~.4 ..„
..-4. li. ,
•.-,=--.. : . 1 , -
(WIPP - 411"). it
......, ~.
: ~,,,.
:---
, # -.....-----
, • is-,.11,

I 1% II
/". • - -
- -
now one of the ltrirttrrrepoid eigreitittliedabtil
act". fluid Tnteilled;iiirF 037 Ith*
of avoiding lurk crisgei tVieliilst.
whereby our currency way lze.,sr &di - ago', r
increasing wants, without endangeringcola-qp7o4.
iJr
but if thiebe -done it all' it 'ningt.U..in
Meanwhile I conclude, as I began, by asking what will
our local representatives and our chambers of commerce
do at this important juncture I—l am, sir, &c.,
WILL. PALL
Seville Iron Works, Dublin, Dec. 7, 1857.

[Piaci 4u. STAMPED' 55D.]

and some wine. The defendant Cox was seen to mix
spirits and water for customers behind the bar.
Mr. i)eadon inflicted the full penalty of 501. on each
defendant.

The next care was against David Balasco, of the
Carlton Supper-room v, 29, Haymarket.
It was proved that on Sunday morning, the 29th
Nov., a number of persons were in the room., and were
supplied with beer and brandy-and-water.
Mr. Sleigh, for the defendant, made a strong appeal
to the beilcb, contending that the evidence was not suffi-
ciently conc!usiv'e to justify the infliction of a penalty on
the defendant. _ _

Mr. Beadon thought the evidence brought the offsnce
clearly home to the defendant, and therefore he must
impose the full fine of 501.
The next case was against Elizabeth Harvey, of 13,
Pantos-street.
Mr. Lewis, of Ely-place, pleaded guilty for the defen-
dant, and in mitigation urged that it was his client's
first offence. . .

Mr. Welaby did not wish to press with severity against
any one who hail a reasonable defence to cfftr.
Mr. Beadon had no desire to put the law in force to
its full extent for a first offence, and would only impose
the mitigated fine of 251.
The next case was against Samuel Belasol, of No. G,
Einton-street. _ _ _

The defendant pleaded guilty, and asserted that it was
hit. first offence.
Inspector Lester said this was not the fact.
The defendant hoped for a reduced penalty on account
of the badness of trade.

Mr. Beadon—Why, your trade appears to be one of
the best going. There were 25 persons drinking in your
house on Sunday morning.
Defendant—All my best customers have gone out to
India, and I can't expect much trade till we have peace.
Fined 504 . . -
Mr.
Beadon expressed his entire_ approbation of the
course Adopted by the police to put an end to such an
extensive system of illegal trading. He bad. very little
doubt of the attention of the Legislature being attracted
to these cases, and then the necessity fur strengthening
the law would be recognised.

THE CURRENCY.

TO TUE EDITOR OF SAUNDERS'S NEWSLETTER.

Sir,—lt may be in the recollection of some of your
commercial readers that on the 10th of April last you
did me the favour to insert a letter of mine in your
paper, stating tho ineffectual attempt I made on the

previous day, at the nomination at Kiimainbana, to put
two questions to eack of the candidees for the repre-
sentation of this c unity in Parliament touching our
money laws. These questions were :—" 1. Have you
directed your attention to the Bank Charter Act
of 1844, a❑d to the state of the currency generally, so

as to have formed a definite opinion on the subjec%;
and if so, will you state shortly what that opinion
is ? 2. Are you prepared carefully ti watch the
proceedings of the House of Commons Committee of
Ir;qu'ry into the effects of the Bank Charter Act, and
to use your be •.t ex.rtions to place our monetary system
on a Just and permanent basis ? ' It was not lightly, or
with the wish to advocate some mere theory, however
true, kl at I then desired to bring this great question
under the zr,tice of the c iustquents theinselve., who,
it must be confessed, are at all times greatly indisposed
to entertain it. The commercial hurricane then im-

pepding, and through which wo are now pa.sing, may

plead rby justification. Although this crisis will not
affect all anse, no class will escape its baneful effects and
the question now is--What is to be dune ? Or are thoss
who should take a lead in so vital x matter —our mem•
b‘ Ts of Parliament and Caambers of C rionterce—content
that the storm shall pass away, crushing some and
crippling others, without inquiring int) its Canstli and
the means of preventing such rata trophes in future ?
I hope betty thing,. But a pretty long experience
in such matters teaches my that if this money qnestion
he left simply to ministers and the currency doctors,
with Lord Ov,rstone at their head, without local action

in the great industrial centres of the kingdom, we shall
be downed to run against the same vicious circle; and
shall, by and by—to use the language of the nobleman I
have just named—fled our;elves in " a state of quies-
cence; next. improvement, growing c nfidence, prospe-
rity, excitement, overtrading, c mvulsion, pressure,
stagnation, distress, ending again in quiescence." It has
come to be almost a settled conviction with some of our
economists that this must be accepted as a normal date
of things—a-soinething which cannot be escaped from,
amid must, therefore, be endured. But however this
doctrine may su't those whom the Times naively calls
" hard calculators," it is by no means fitted for the in-
dustrious producers of the nation's wealth : and will, I
trust, be not much longer endured by them. Ho never
indisposed our commercial and productive classes may
be to invettigate the theory and practice of our system
of exchange generally—which I believe to be based
on anything but equity—they will sow surely give some
attention to the workings of the much-vaunted law of
1844, which was to land us in something like a
co tamercial Elysium. And yet twice within the
period of t. n years has it become necessary to
eu peed the law to prevent a national convulsion ! The
author of the measure, Mr. S. Jones Lloyd (now
Lord Overstone), in a pamphlet published by him in
July 1814 Alta(' that its object was to secure the conver-
tibility of the bank note into gold, and that this would
be attained without subjecting the public to any increase
of the inconveniences which they hail theretokre tripe-
rienced durirg a drain of bullion. Yet twice since the
enactment of the law have we been confessedly brought
to within a few hours of barter. The bank minimum
charge for disc iunt has risen to the heretofore unpre-
cedented rates of 8 and 10 per cent. ; even with these
rates advances could not be had upon Exchequer Bills,
and securities of a like nature ; and since the meeting
of Parliament it has been avowed by the executive
government that but for its late interference in au-
thorising the suspension of the law, the Bank itself
must have suspended. Again, Sir Robert Peel, in
introducing the bill on the 20th of May, 1844, said
the object of the measure was to prevent the recurrence
of those evils from which we saffered in 1825, 1836 an I
1839, viz., the rapid fluctuations in the amount and value
of the medium of exchange. And this statement was
endorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir C.
•Weed, who said that he anticipated from the law lees
fluctuation in the amount of the circulation and in the
range of prices. So much for the theory. What have
bean the facts ? The notes of the Bank of England in
actual circulation have fluctuated from 17,377,000 in
June 1848 to 23,573,000 in Jan. 1853, or nearly 40 per
cent, whilst the fluctuations in te price of this 1?gal
tender have been most violent in their range.and num-
ber. Since the passing of the act (that is in less than 14
years) the rate of discount has been altered 52 times,
varying from 2 per cent. in April 1852 to 10 per cent, in
Nov. 1857—a difference of 400 per cent. I Contrast this
with the state of things prior to the passing of the act,
when, as stated by the Lords' Committee in their report
of 1848, the practice of the Bank of England had been to
disc runt at a rate nearly fixed and uniform, and that for
140 years, viz., from 1704 to Sept. 1844, this rate was
never less than 4 per east.. and never ex seeded 5 per
cant:, except for a few months in 1839, when it was six
per cent. Yet in the face of these facts the Times,
and a few other organs which f Mow in its wake, are
for upholding the act of 1844, and are loud in their
censures of the Government for its recent interference.
They were prepared to sacrifice not only the prosperity,
but the very peace of the country, t) the maintenance of
a theory. It was nut enough that the reckless trader
should be punished, but the careful and the thrifty must'
be involved in one common ruin, and the honest and
hapless labourer absolutely perish for want, in order to
swell the gains of a few " hard calculators"—men who
had been speculating on the fortunes they should make
by a famine in !fetal tender. The cry of these writers is
that the mischief has been precipit4ted by over-trading.
Now, without stopping to show that there can be no
such thing as a general over-trading—that it must ever
be exceptional, and that that must be a most imperfect,
clumsy, ani cruel system which punishes the guilty
and innocent alike—what, let us ask, is the cause of this
over-trading —these imprudent speculations and their
disastrous consequences ! Need we seek further than
the working of the act of 1844 itself, atone time tempting
men with loans of money at two per cent., and
then bounding to six, eight, and ten per cent.?
With such unsteadiness, how is it possible to escape the
speculation and consequent ruin we now see ? The blame
is sought to be laid exclusively at the door of the joint-
stock and private banks, and bill-brokers in their system
of re-discounting. But how the Bank of England is to
escape the common blame—if blame there be in this—it
is difficult to see, since but for its acquiescence and as-
sistance, this system could not obtain. I contend, sir,
that the Act of 1844 has been weighed in the balance
and found wanting, and that the productive and trading
community should bestir themselves to get it repealed,
and a sound system of currency substituted in its stead.
But as many in these classes, either from want of time,
opportunity, or inclination, or from a supposed want of
power to grasp the subject, are mostly disposed to lean
upon authority, I state for the benefit of all such, that
the leading principles of the act have been condemned by
some'of the ablest thinkers, and writers on the subject of
monetary science—men whose interests are intimately
bound np in the subject. Among those are to be found
Mr. J. S. Mill, Mr. Tooke, the Editor of the Economist,
Mr, Edwin Hill (brother of the Post-office Reformer),
Lord Ashburton, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Gurney, and numerous
others equally important. And let it not be forgotten
that the Select Committee of the House of Lords ap•
pointed to inquire into the commercial distress of 1847
Waled in their report " that those restrictions (of the
Act of 1814) material:y aggravated the pressure, and
produced tee panic of Oct., 1847;" and that the Commit-
tee of the House of Commons, appointed for the same
purpose, may be said to have virtually come to a similar
conclusion, it having divided 11 for and 13 against the
motion of Mr. Hume "That in the opinion of the com-
mittee the laws fur regulating the issue of bank notes
payable on demand (Acts of 1811-45 aggravated the
commercial distress iu England in 1847"—the majority
consisting of Sir R. Peel and his adherents, who cat ie
judgment on their own measure. My belief is, however,
that had Sir R. Peel lived until now, judging of his ac-
tion from leis conduct on the subject of Catholic eman-
cipation and the repeal of the Coru Laws, he would be