The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-30 00:00:00

Gentlemen on the platform, in support of the resolutipr
more than one of whom commented in strong terms upon
the unnatural union of Roman Catholics and Sociniene in
support of the Bill, which could only be looked upon as a
sinister attempt on the part of the Roman Catholics to over-
turn the Protestant Church, and create one common scramble
for Church property.
A collection having been made to defray the expenses in-
curred, and thanks having been voted to the Chairman, the
meeting separated.

LITERATURE.

THE NEW CURRENCY BILL. A Letter to the
Pre.nier, in reply to his Speech on the Bank Charter
Act (May 7, 1844). I3y "An Enquirer after Truth."
London: Clarke, Pall-mall East, 1844.
We really believe that this is the best of all the
Currency pamphlets which have been published since
the introduction into Parliament of the Bill of 1819.
It is a temperate, plain-speaking, closely-reasoned
investigation of the premises assigned, this month, by
the Premier himself, as those upon which he founds
his new propositions for "regulating" (God help u+!)
our existing monetary system—for reserving to the
Bank of England its charter, on certain conditions—.
and for carrying out, in all their extent and to their
fullest action, the hitherto but half-developed tyranny
and mischief of that measure, which twenty-five years
•ago gave the first shock to our commercial supremacy.
It does not seem possible to us that any honest man
can arise from the perusal of this little tract without
being thoroughly convinced of the absolute mistakes, the
portentous blundering, of Sir Robert Peel in the very
rudiments of the scheme which he has concocted for
maintaining a gold standard of value. But we will
not bespeak opinions, still less do we desire—V our
own impressions be errors or prejudices—to innocu-
late others with them. At the same time we will freely
admit that if the reasoning arrayed against Sur
Robert's " assumptions" by the Enquirer after
Truth" do not amount to demonstrations of the utter
fallacy of those assumptions, we are incapable of dis-
tinguishing between logical deduction and mere un-
proved hypothesis. The author, after admitting that
Sir Robert Peel, in his speech of the 7th instant, did
not over-rate the vast importance of the question then
submitted to Parliament, asks this pertinent ques-
tion :

" Why should you restrict to afortn:ght only the time
you permit to be bestowed on a measure affecting inte-
rests of such extent and magnitude? What time is that
for enabling the Members even of the House of Commons
to form a competent judgment of so complex and difficult
a question as the currency, with its bearings on the
various classes and interests liable to be compromised by
their decision ? If every transaction of business, every
domestic arrangement, every contract subsisting or here-
after to be made, every person in the kingdom from the
Prince to the peasant—the most aged to the child unborn
—will be affected by the decision to which the House may
come on this great question—how happens it that you, Sir,
should restrict to so brief a term the period allowed for
studying your propositions, tracing their probable effects
through their multitudinous ramifications, and consulting
those numerous classes of persons, those almost innumer-
able individuals, whose weal or woe depends on the votes
which will be given in Parliament ? Ample notice and
the fullest information to the people should have been
allowed to precede the discussion, and all who apprehend
injury should have been invited to state their doubts and
fears in petitions, memorials, or remonstrances. I think
I may say, with perfect truth, there never was a measure
of such universal and intense interest, hitherto so little
understood, urged on with such indecent haste, and so
little regard to the sentiments of those who may be the
sufferers."

He then reflects on the tyrannous inconsistency of
allowing men no right of private judgment on a ques-
tion like this—of the management of their own mone-
tary affairs—on which every individual naturally
deems himself the best judge, so far as it regards his
own business. He adds—
" Your motive may have been only the desire to avoid
that avalanche of.pamphlets which usually descends when
any sudden or extraordinary announcement startles the
public ear. You are justly afraid of those • who in our
day write (as you say) interminable pamphlets on the
currency, but never allow us to guess at their meaning.'
In this view of the case I have no right to complain."

In dealing with Sir Robert's preliminary definition
of value, the " Enquirer" quotes the Premier's idea of
" the meaning of a pound," on which we have re-
marked in another part of our paper. The expression
of that idea the author correctly quotes from the re-
port of the debate on the 7th inst., in which Sir Robert
concluded that—

" The standard of silver up to 1718, was fixed about
1567 ; but in 1717, the value of the guinea was deter-
mined to be 21s. ; and for a certain period, both gold
and silver constituted the standard of value. But in the
year 1774 it was enacted that no legal contract should
be discharged in silver for any sum of more than 251."
Our author remarks that the phrase "subsequent
debasements of the currency" conveys a false im-
pression, when these debasements are said by Sir Ro-
bert to have made a change in the value of the pound
sterling. But this passage we have incorporated else-
where. Let us add to it this important pendant, re-.
specting our gold coin :
" With respect to our gold coin, which began to be
minted in the 41 Henry 111. (1257), its proportions were
23 carats 3f grains fine geld to half a grain alloy, till
1 James I. (1604), when 22 carats was the standard
with 2 carats alloy; at which standard it remains to this
day. Thus, according to history and fact, the earlier
Kings of England were, in the mintage of their coins,
more remarkable for preserving the purity of the stand-
ard, than for debasing it."
lie infers that Sir Robert meant to speak of the
diminution of weight, whereby great alteration had
been made, not in the name, but in the intrinsic value,
of the pound between the reign of the Conqueror and
of Elizabeth. But he shows that the admitted fluc-
tuations of the coined pound of silver, in the same
interval, from the number of 20s. to 625. (through
other alterations of 20s. 3d., 225. 6d., 255., 305., 375.,
&c.), did not square with Sir Robert's " doctrine con-
cerning the pound"—that " quantity of the precious
metals of certain weight and certain fineness;" that
" certain definite quantity of gold—of the precious
metals." " Did you by these expressions mean us to
understand that it should consist, at all times, of the
same definite quantity of gold or silver—an invariable,
as well as a definite, quantity ? If so, your histo-
rical examples contravene your assertion. . •
You must mean, only, that the measure of value
should be, at that time when it is the measure of
value, whenever that may be, of a certain weight and
certain fineness."
" You next observe, in your brief sketch of our pound
sterling, that it was not until a late period of the reign
of Elizabeth that silver, being then the standard of va-
lue, received that determinate weight, which it retained
without variation, with constant refusals to alter it, till

1716.' By these words I understand that the pound
sterling, from a late period of the reign of Elizabeth, re-
mained unchanged in value till the year 1716. But here
I must again take leave to doubt the accuracy of your,
statement. Do you not omit to take into account, when
you make this assertion, the difference in the value of
silver which was occasioned by the discovery of Ame-
rica?"

How that proportion came to vary from 10 to 1. to
15 to 1, we have shown in an article which appears
in another column. Recurring to the year 1600, •
our author says,
" At the period in question it.was esteemed as 11 to .
1, and was so represented in our coins : when, there-
fore, we desire to compare the value of silver coins for-
merly, with the value of silver coins now, we must take
this relation into account. Or if we choose to disembar- _
rass the question of all calculations of this kind, we may
at once compare the weight of our gold pound now, with
the weight of that which we had at any former period,
and the difference between the two will show us the
value of the silver pound as well as of the gold pound.
You will find in Ilarris (Essay upon Money and Coins,
Part 11., p. 2), that the proportion of fine silver to fine
gold in the coinage of 1601, to which you allude, was as
10.905 to 1, and in Ruding, that while the proportion
was as above exhibited (or, as he expresses it, 1 to
10 56-59), the gold pound, called the sovereign, worth
205., was coined of the weight of 171 grains. Now, if
our present sovereign contains 123 grains, and that of
Eliz. in 1601 contained 171 grains, it follows that her
pound sterling was worth 275. 9d. of our present coin.
Admitting, therefore, that the silver coin of Eliz. was the
measure of value, and the legal tender of that day, it is
evident that as the value of 20s. was equal to the sove-
reign of 171 grains, the value of the silver pound of that
period was also of the value of 275. 9d. of our present
coin. For more than thirty-nine 'years before this
change was made, that is, from the 4th of Eliz. to her
43d year (155 S to 1601), the pound of silver was coined
into 605., and the gold sovereign, worth 205., was of the
weight of 174 grains; both pounds, therefore, were then
worth 28s. 3d. of our present coin.
So much for the "certain definite quantity of the
precious metals"—of certain weight and fineness--o f
cur " pound" sterling. This exposure of Sir Ro-
bert's grossly uninstructed brief—upon which he has
ventured to move the Commons of England to adopt
his mischievous, rash, and ill-considered experiments
on the currency, ought surely "to put him out of
court," at the tribunal of public opinion, in any case
where the interests of domestic industry and corn-.
mere° are concerned.
The " Enquirer" then gives Sir Robert that severe
castigation touching his " erroneous assumptions
about the antiquity and uniformity of the measure
of value," which we have quoted elsewhere. from
the same point we shill take our second, and con-
cluding notice of this remarkable pamphlet.

MR. D'ISRAELI'S " CONINGSBY." —We are re•
quested to state that a new edition of this work will be
ready fur publication with the Magazines to-morrow,
May 31, and those who have been hitherto disappointed
in procuring it, may obtain it of any bookseller. •.
TIIE AUTHOR OF " STORIES OF WATERLOO."
Besides the poet Barry Cornwall, Horace Smith, Laman.
Blanchard, Titmarsh, Peter Priggins, and Mrs. Trol.
lope, we understand that Colburn's New Monthly lifaia-
zine for June will number among its contributors the'..
popular author of " Stories of Waterloo," W. H. Max—
well, Esq., whose paper is entitled " Memoirs of a
tlemau on Half-pay," a subject which will doubtless re,:'
ceivo effective illustration from the pen of this favoutili
11 writer.