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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 30, 1844,

LITERATURE.

THE NEW CURRENCY BILL. A Letter to the
Premier, in reply to his Speech on the Bank Charter
Act (May 7, 1844). By "An Enquirer after Truth,"
London: Clarke, Pull-mall East, 1844.—(Second
Notice.)
We renew our extracts from this opportune and
very sensible pamphlet.
In the following passage we have the statement of
the fluctuations " in the proportion of gold and silver
in our successive coinages from 1601 to 1717, namely,
in the year 1601 it was 1 to 10 56-59ths ; in 1604, it
was 1 to 12-17ths; in 1610 it was 1 to 13 1-sth; in
1663 it was 1 to 141; and in 1717 it was 1 to 15
2-15ths. This is the remarkable illustration of Sir
Robert's intrepid assertion that the 'pound sterling'
of our monetary system, means a certain, determinate
quantity of the precious metals." The Enquirer
sums up this recapitulation with these words :
" Thus, I am afraid, Sir, I must again say that your
statement of the case is not in strict accordance with
the facts." This language may be thought somewhat
" Tartarly "to a Prime Minister; but our author is
not sparing of these epigrammatic interlocutories, in
conducting his judicial investigation of the Premier's
proposals. Thus :—" When the pilot to whom the
vessel is entrusted is found to be so widely out of his
reckoning, and breakers are ahead, it is our duty to
pipe all hands, take in the sails, cast anchor, and en-
deavour to ascertain where we are, before we commit
ourselves again to his guidance."—(P. 14.)
" Unfortunately, Sir, for your consistency, our
pound sterling underwent four alterations after that."

" Of these changes you appear to have been
uninformed."—(P. 13.)
" At all events, men of ordinary understandings
will draw a conclusion against you, when you say
that this standard—this measure of value—which they
object to, as being obsolete and unfit for the altered
circumstances of the country, has been adhered to
ever since e while the truth is that it has been four
times altered since. They will perceive that you are
mistaken in your FACTS; while the others can only be
mistaken in their opinions."—(P. 20.)
" You have evidently misunderstood the question
at issue, as well as misapprehended the facts of the
case."--(P. 23.)
The pamphleteer points out Sir Robert's confusion
of terms in speaking of the " standard of value," in
this forcible manner :

" I would merely observe, that the indiscriminate use
of the words standard and measure' is embarrassing.
By the standard of silver we should conceive the purity
of the metal was the thing meant; by the standard of
value we might imagine you intended to express the
same thing as the measure of value. Harris makes use
of a convenient term which might be advantageously in-
troduced into these discussions. He speaks not only of
the measure of value, but of the standard measure of
value, when he wants to point out that metal as the mea-
sure of value to which the other is subordinate ; thus
he would say our present standard measure of value is
gold. You, Sir, may mean that the standard purity of
the silver coin was fixed in 1566 or 1567, but I cannot
understand the drift of the passage, either in this sense,
or in that of a measure of value, or of a standard mea-
sure. There may be a mistake in the dates, and what
is placed in 1567 may be intended for 1557; this would
throw a little light on the subject, for then it might be
conceived that you allude to the restoration of the purity
of our silver coin which took place about 1557.
" But can an interruption for fourteen years, or I
might with more exactness say of eight years, in the
preservation of the standard purity of our silver coin,
from the Anglo-Saxon times to the present, when fol-
lowed by its restoration, be called a fixing of the stan-
dard ? You may perhaps think so; and if this is your
meaning, I am happy to acknowledge that during this
period, in such degree as our silver coin was concerned,
you have some foundation for your remark. But the
truth obliges me to add that during the same period our
gold pound, the sovereign, was unimpaired in weight
and purity, if tried by the gold pound of 1601."
On the principle assumed by the Premier, the ex-
ception of eight years, is to ride over the practice of
some eight hundred—an anomaly in the doctrine of
" exceptions to the general rules,', that cannot be al-
lowed either in currency or grammar. It may be
recollected, that on the 7th, Sir Robert, forgetful of
the vice of interminable speeches, was so ill advised
as to speak very discourteously of interminable
pamphlets." His very tone and manner betrayed the
anger of a man who has got more to answer than he
can manage. He certainly did not calculate the
penalty of insulting the busy, but irritable, inmates of
the hive which he bad the temerity to attack. In
1829-30, Mr. Tennyson d'Eyncourt provided, in the
unanswerable and righteous case he made out for the
title of the same Birmingham to the elective fran-
chise, for the " out-door relief" of Sir Robert and his
colleagues in Government, by compelling their re-
signation of office. Two or three times successively
was the Administration to which Sir Robert belonged
compelled to go through the same annoying process,
on account of the still impracticable Birmingham.
Sir Robert's attack on " Gemini," in particular, and
the Boeotian stolidity of " the town of Birmingham"
in general, on the 7th instant, cannot be forgotten by
the reader. Nor is it by the " Enquirer after Truth,'
who says :
"As if you owed the town and its writers an old
grudge, you select a volume on the currency, recently
written by two gentlemen of Birmingham, and lash the
place, and the authors of this work, with as much sar-
castic severity as could be thrown into a speech. I have
not the honour to know either of the writers personally
—one, I have been told, is the editor, and the other the
printer and publisher, of a very ably conducted and well-
supported newspaper, in which the letters of Gemini first
appeared. I had read in that paper many of those
letters, and I must say that I differ from you in opinion
as to their merits. They are written, as I conceive,
with good, taste, in correct language, with courtesy and
gentlemanly feeling ; they are well-reasoned composi-
tions, full of sound sense, honestly directed to the eluci-
dation of that great subject on which you are preparing
to legislate ; the writers appear to be actuated with the
best intentions of serving—perhaps of saving—the coun-
try. Can these letters raise such resentment in you ?
Your colleague, the Home Secretary, might perhaps be
angry with their authors, because they have quoted so
freely from his writings in support of their opinions ;
but I cannot understand your cause of complaint.
First,' you say, they laugh at the notion of using as a
standard now that which was used 300 years ago. They
say that the property of this country has increased—
that the mercantile transactions of this country have in-
creased—and to have that as a standard now which was
used in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, although it has
been adhered to ever since, shows a want of knowledge
and illumination that is almost culpable.' Really, Sir,
to complain of sentiments such as these, is more worthy
of one of whom we have heard too much lately, than of
the leader of the House of Commons, the most accom-
plished scholar of the age.
The Clerk of Chatham : he can read and write and
cast accompt. 0 monstrous I—We took him setting of
boys' copies. Here's a villain I—He has a book in his
pocket with red letters in it. Nay, then he is a con-
juror.—He can make oblifr6ations, and write court-hand.
Away with him, I say : hang him, with his pen and ink-
horn about his neck."'

This last illusion to the " Jack Cade Legislation, dis-
cussed by a Conservative Member at the beginning of
the present session, is very happy. But who could
have anticipatedin 1819, this near approximation, in
1844, of the alarming "equitable adjustment" doc-
trine of Mr. Cobbett to the hypothetical results which
are especially connected with the leading propositions
of Sir It. Peel ? This affirmation is thus made out—
" Now. Sir, with respect to your recommendation
that they, who think that they are injured by the
altered value of money since the 'ounce of gold was re-
duced from 51. in paper money to 31. 17s. 101 d. should
endeavour to obtain redress by means of a separate en-
actment,—making that difference a discount from the
debt—let me, in the first place, say, that though I have
no doubt this is your meaning, your language bears a
different construction. I take for granted, however, that
you mean the reverse of what your words, as they are
reported, imply ; and that 3/. 17s. 100., being, in the
papment of a debt, equivalent to what' 5L used to be,
all those who have contracted debts or engagements
shall be allowed to pay their debts in that way.' This
meaning is borne out by another passage, as follows
Observe, Ido not deny that that may produce matter
for consideration. All contracts, during the incontro-
vertibility of paper, having been made through a differ-
ent medium of exchange, when you restore that conver-
tibility, that subject may demand. consideration. But I
only want to convince you what is now the measure of
value.' These, Sir, are indeed important words: they
compel us to believe that you are not unfriendly to the
principles of an EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT. SO zealously
advocated by the late Mr. Cobbett. What boundless
triumph would have been his, had he lived to see this
day !
" The view which is here opened out is too vast in ex-
tent, too mighty in its consequences, to be even touched
upon at the close of this long letter. It has, moreover,
so influential a bearing on your new monetary measures,
that before I proceed to notice them, I should wish to
know what prospect there is of the expectation being re-
alised which is thus held out. I hope some member of
the House, who is sensible of the value of your answer
(whether yes or no) to the right appreciation of the
propositions which you have laid before the House and
the country, will put such questions to you on the sub-
ject of this equitable adjustment, as will give you an op-
portunity of setting at rest the hopes of some, the fears
of others, and the anxieties of all."

INDIAN MAILS.—ALTERATIONS IN THEIR DEPAR-
TURE.--Instead of the mails being dispatched on the last day
of the month, the mails to India, China, &c., are to be made
up and dispatched from London, via Southampton, on the
morning of the 3d of every month, and rid Marseilles, on the
evening of the 7th, except those days fall on Sundays, when
the mails are dispatched on Saturday evening.
ROYAL MARRIAGES.—TWO .Royal marriages are
spoken of in the highest quarters, which are not devoid of
meaning and importance. It is confidently asserted that
two Neapolitan Princesses are the promesse spore of the
Duke d'Aumale and the Prince de Montpensier. One of the
betrothed is the daughter of the late King of Naples, by his
second wife, and a sister of the Duchess de Berry. The
other Princess is the daughter of the Prince of Salerno, and
was lately refused to the Duke de Bordeaux. By these mar-
riages the royal statesman of France will set at rest the sus-
picions entertained of his intentions upon the throne of Spain,
and place it beyond he power of his restless subjects to com-
plain of his not adopting a policy which would involre. his
Government in difficulties and his kingdom in a Peninsular
war.—Times.