The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-25 00:00:00

LECTURE ON THE CURRENCY.
On Friday se'nnight an able lecture was delivered at the
Chelmsford Institute, by Mr. Capps, on the National Currency.
The lecturer commenced his address, the delivery of which
occupied nearly two hours, by observing that as he believed the
audience he had the honour of addressing was composed princi-
pally of the members of the agricultural class, he should con-
fine his remarks as closely as possible to the action and influ-
Vt of the,currency_on the welfare of tdttlfsk'.tf,~„hp►dt tt,t
monetary system was not exclusively confined to the agricul-
tural portion of the community. There was a radical error or
defect in our political or social system, which affected all classes
of the community in their turns, though not, perhaps, all at
one and the same time. He would beg them to enter upon
this subject calmly and reflectively, whilst he endeavoured to
take hold of some of the leading features of the case. What
was it which struck an observer as the main point of the
grievances of the farmer, and the great cause of his distress?
It was evidently this--that after having carefully cultivated his
farm to the best of his ability, the farmer could not obtain for
the produce thereof a sufficient price to repay him his expenses
and a living profit.—( Hear, hear.) In 18'22 the agricul-
tural interest called upon Parliament to mitigate by any
means in its power the distress which then oppressed them ;
and what was the cause of that distress? Simply, that
wheat would realise only 4.39. per quarter. In 1835, a mo-
tion was made by Mr. Cayley, in Parliament, to inquire
into the cause of agricultural distress, -when the great feature
of the distress was alleged to be that wheat was only fetching
395. per quarter, which price would not afford the grower a
living. And new, in 1845, what was the head and front" of
their just complaints ? Precisely the same thing as before--
they could only obtain 455. a quarter for wheat. That this
was the true cause of the distress might be proved by referring
back to the years previous to Sir R. Peel's Currency Bill of 1819.
The farmers were not distressed during the first 20 years of the
present century, simply because they obtained on the average
8;;s. a quarter for their wheat, and similar prices for their
other produce. But our present statesmen would have them
believe, that the distress was occasioned by the extreme drought
of one year, and the extreme wetness of another—the large
crops of one season, which produced low prices, and the crops
of others, which left the farmer nothing to sell. But they had
all those diversified seasons between the years 1800 and 1819,
and yet they had no genes al complaints of agricultural distress.
He was aware that many landowners and farmers were apt to
attribute the exceedingly low price of farm produce to the
Canadian Corn Bill, and Sir R. Peel's new tariff; he did not.
dispute that they had in some degree contributed to it, but lie
denied that they were, that they had been the principal agents.
They must recollect that wheat was 7s. a quarter cheaper then
it is now. The Canada Corn Act had not then passed : in 1822
also wheat was 3s. per quarter cheaper than now, and at that
time the price could not be affected by an act of legislation
which did not take place until twenty years afterwards.
But there was another measure of Sir Robert Peel's
then in operation, which continued in operation to
the present time—a measure professedly to regulate and give
stability to the money of the country, and to prevent speculative
business and ruinous fluctuations, while practically it had
diminished and contracted the money, without in the least
degree abating speculation and panic. Upon examination they
would find that this was the principal cause of the low price of
corn—so much so, that could they get the new tariff, and the
Canada Corn Act repealed to-morrow, and could they in addi-
tion get Parliament to legislate as much in their favour as it
had lately legislated against them, there would still be in opera-
tion a baneful measure, which would, whenever there was a
general average crop of farm produce, effectually prevent their
obtaining a fair price for it. The lecturer then proceeded to
prove that the changes effected by Sir Robert Peel in the
monetary system of the country, when combined. with the sys-
tem of taxation which prevailed, had necessarily produced the
deplorable state to which the agricultural classes were reduced.
He first adverted to those changes. During the first twenty
years of the present century a system prevailed which permitted
gold and silver to take a market price, and not to be tied down
to a fixed price, as at present. It permitted the piece of geld
called a guinea to fetch 275. or 28s. in the market ; and
that circumstance, he contended, produced those re
munerating prices for agricultural produce which caused
those times to be so prosperous to the farmer. He
wished them, therefore, to understand that lie attri-
buted the low price of farm produce, which had been
so prevalent during the last 25 years, to the operation of Peel's
Bill, passed in the year 1819, which fixed gold permanently at
the low price of 31. 17s. 101 d. an ounce, a price too low for the
present circumstances of the country ; so low, that even wheat,
at 455. per quarter, was still 25 per cent. higher than gold.
' The lecturer, after explaining the reason why gold had been
fixed at that price, affirmed that this low price of gold in the
general circulation of the country caused an equally low price
for earn.—( Hear.) That, in fact, it had a tendency to bring
wheat down as low as 345. or 355. a quarter, and that the only
reason why wheat was not now 355. a quarter was, because it
cost some 10s. a quarter to bring it from other countries. For
what was the inevitable result of 31. 17s. lOid. of the general
paper money of the country always commanding an ounce of
gold? Why just this—that it always commanded those things
which were of the same natural values, those values being
founded upon the different degrees of expense or quantity of la-
bour necessary to produce the same. Dr. Adam Smith and
all political economists had told them that the higglirig and
bargaining of the public markets would soon find out the real
values of those various productions, and that they would
soon be found to eichan?e against each other in their
proper proportions- according to their respective values.
It became a- question, then, of great interest to the agri-
culturist to find out what quantity of wheat was naturally
equal in valius to the ounce of gold, and it was to this point
that -he would next direct their attention. He pointed out
upon a table which had been prepared from the statistics of Mr
Taylor, an eminent author on the curreney, that the utmost
price that the price of gold.- would allow for wheat. in this
country, if there were average favourable seasons, was per
quarter; that the natural tendency ( f the present standard
price of gold was to bring down wheat to the universal average
price of Ms. or: 341. per quarter, which result was only pre-
vented by our growing a little Jess corn than our annual con-
sumption ; and-that, should-wo" by our agricultural improve-
ments produce any considerable surplus beyond the average
consumption, it was extremely probable that wheat might fall
Is. a bushel lower than it was at present. The lecturer nest
alluded to the amount of taxation which this country sustain( d,
to show that no articles of production could be afforded at con-
tinental prices. Our revenue was priniipally derived from
duties upon the productions of industry. It was not sufficiently
considered that-the taxes raised in this manner were fully
equal to the -whole landed rental of the kingdom. Mr;
111‘Cu1lcch had estimated the landed rental at about
40,000,0001. sterling ; • now, the Excise and Custom duties
alone amounted to:about 37,000,000/., and when they added
to this the; various : items' of local taxation which were
sustained by the r occuers of -the soil, they would find that
the amount- considerably exceeded the rent of the land.
Yet Sir Robert Peel's currency- measures made no pro-
vision whatever for this important element of cost.--(Hear,
hear.) That was the very point in which Sir Robert
Peel's grand failure laid. lie had fixed gold at the same