The Sun.
London, England, 1819-04-09 00:00:00

LITERARY REVIEW.

REPLY to the LETTER to the Right Honourable ROBERT
PEEL, on the PERNICIOUS EFFECTS of a VARIABLE
STANDARD of VALUE. Svo. pages 63.

We take an early opportunity of laying before
our Readers some extracts from a val►table
Pamphlet in reply to the Letter to Mr. Pe,st.,
which bas just appeared. The work is well written,
and the argu►nents it brings forward deserve the
serious attention o► every person who takes
an
interest in this important-subject. The pamphlet
commences as follows :

SlR—When -I heard-that one of Mr.. Peel's learned con-
stituents had addressed a Letter to him on the-present state
of our Currency, I looked forwaril.with impatience to the ;,ra-
tificatlikn I should receive from the perusal of it. I expected
to see, if not new facts disclosed, at least the old ones metho-
dically arranged, and conclusions from them logically deduc-
ed, with coolness and precision; removing some of the ob-
stacles, and dispelling some of the doubts, with which this in-
teresting and abstruse subject abounds. I need not tell those
who hare read your letter, that I have been disappointed. You
have, kowever, done that which I certainly did not expect ;
you have made this dry and calculating subject a vehicle for
no very liberal observations upon the conduct of the preset-A
Chancellor of our'Exchequer ; and you have proved that a
saying which you quote, and which I had hitherto regarded
as a mere hyperbole, has some too imitation in human nature;

that even the propositions of Euclid would become subjrcts
of controversy, if the passions and interests of mankind were
affected by the result.

You say, at the outset, that the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer maintains doctrines which are at variance with
writers hitherto regarded as the greatest authorities in po-
litical economy: But you have not named these autho-
rities—you have not quoted them. In your. whole hook I
cannot find such authors cited. For I suppose you do not
mean to include the late' publication by Mr. Ricardo ; or a
short extract from a Oeech of Mr. Canning's, however elo-
quent; or the resolutions of the late Mr. Horner, among the
works regarded hitherto as of the greatest authoiby in poli-
tical economy. You then complain, that the opposers of

your opinions deny the fundaaiental.ptincipfes which are
alleged in support of them; and often seek to involve the
question in darkness and mystery, by bringing forward frets
apparently at variance with those principles. And this you
calf " a practice highly disingenuous, and unworthy of the
station and character of those who resort to it."—And is it
really disingenuous to bring forward facts ? And why ?
Bs-
cause they are apparently at variance with certain disputed
principles. If they are apparently so, are they not prima
fade evidence against these principles; and should nut those
who advance such principles show that the variance is only
apparent ? But you have here admitled, in the very outset.
what perhaps you did nut intend, that there are facts at va-
riance with your theory: and though you assert, that it_ is
unworthy of persons of station and character, meaning the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to state those facts, the people
of England will, 1 believe, think differently, and prefer one
sound fact to a thousand plausible theories. I thought, in-
deed, that theage'of theory against fact had bong since pass-
ed away, nor do I believe that since the days of Bacon such
an objection has been made in any inqniry, which professed
to be an investigation of te,ith.
You attempt then to draw an invidious comparisna be-

tween the late Mu. Perceval and the present ClLineellor of

the Exchequer: though done perhaps with the same View
which induced youtto engage in this controversy, it will not:
make much impression on those who recollect that the snli-
ject is better understood now than it .was in the time of that
lamented Minister. Much has been since written ; much
spoken 0[1.4; the 'experiment has been much longer tried.
and, therefore, Mr. Vansittart is warranted in speaking
with more confident{: on it than his predecessor ventured
to do. But your object seems to be,'not to satisfy the tinder-
.standing, but to engage the passiwns on your side, in the first
instance ; and, therefore, you eulogize the dead, and accuse
the living of sophistry, delusion, and the denial of the soundest
maxims of political economy: and you pursue this strain
thrmith forty pages of melancholy declamation, intermingled
with charges of ", injustice under colour of right"

of stip-

porting " pernicious doctrines"—of imposing, on the country
a currency, which you say causes the distresses of the lower
orders, the difficulties of the Clergy in collecting their tithes,
and even' the heavy burdens of the poor-rates: lo short,

every inconvenience or calamity which can rouse the pas-
sions of the people you ascribe to the alleged depreciation of
our paper currency, nut, in rrfutaLiOn of this, I must take

rite liberty of steling rine short faltl, hon•cret offetisive it le
to you to have facts stated when in opposition ta., your thei'
ries, arid it is this : that about two years ago, for twelve
successive months uninterruptedly, our paper currency W 36
not only not deprenit,i, but actually was advanced is ea
ltier
during all that dine, ahave one of those precious metals %Ole!'
you state to be the tree and only criteria of its worth. I
speak of the period from April, 1816, to April, 1817. Dari 4
thewhele of that period the Bank-note would have pprehased
in
the bullion market more silver bullion than its nominal value.
You must admit, therefore, according to your own principle'
that, during the whole of that period, the Bank-note eiali
undepreciated. That during the entire of those twelVc
months, at least, we had a paper currency at its full and le"
gitimate value. Yet did net all those evils which you ascribt
to a depreciated currency exist during that period ?
they not prevail to 'a mi;ch greater degree than they do al.
present ? Were not the low wages of the agriculturist, the
difficulties about tithes, the burdens of the poor laws, S'e'
&c. as much felt and complained of then as they are noW?
Probably you, Sir, were not aware of the fact, that flank'
notes and Bullion were then at par., It might have escal'ed
your observation that the happy epoch liad arrived wbefl
your ardent wishes were realized, when the halcyon seas°
returned, and our Bank-notes floated buoyantly
face of the silver tide. You prabebly, indeed, at that tialg
did not trouble yourself with inquiries into political ecerl°°”.
Mr. Peel was not then your representative. And you srcref:
I may presume, reposing yourself calmly and unarnbitioosu
-top Latimer;
on the Ethics of Aristotle, or the Sermons of Bid
without anticipating that trim such 16re you slwaidi ev
make extracts for so grand a purpose as removing' a liji.,stcr'
and giviteg a new member to the Cabinet of Great Drlt'llt:
at
But to return to the fact, the old Mint price of silver' tlf
it, before the late silver coinage, was ss. 2d. Once'
tlss
our Bank-rote would purbhase silver at that price, Y°'l
„maid r
admit, according to your own principles, that it
undepreciated. If it would purchase silver at a still I`'
is
on the stir
price, you most adroit, according to your own Priiteir C:r
and to the principles of all others who maintain the sa't:'
oeloions on this subject which you dpi, that the Bank-rirjtai
would be enhanced, even'
above its nominal value. Sa7'll'ir
the year 1816, on the 26th of April, the price of bar
• WIIS but ss. i d. an ounce; in June, but ss. I'1•
53. pt. ; then it fell so 10, that in October it was but
O w
and before the end Of that month to 4s. 11 -Id• I",e'•
vember it again rose to ss. and before the. 9d of the 53
d,
moh fell again to 4s. !lid. In January, 1317, It `Vas's,;,ll9l
and afterwaids ss. Id.; in March, as. id.; and i" 1
ss. lid. All this time, therefore, our Bank-notes, as
"iu'
pared with this precious metal, were actually hi;her
ur
than they purprted to be. oking;
These facts, I apprehend, you will deem retry' Pv°v 0„,0
but you cannot controvert them. You rust rePe'it
deelamatioo, and say, that we bring forward facts aPP4f-iiio.
at variance with your principles; and you "'ay' veil
his-
;lenity for a reader of Aristotle, call this a tries of
sopo,,
try; but I feel confident, that the rational mind of Lariv
liahmen will respect solid facts much more Oa"
this,
theories which are at variance with experience• rr°,,urke,ene
matter still more plain, if, during the period I aajeb ,(„e
tioned, you had sent some pound notes to be ci,la,"e(ht bar
would have got but 205. for each; but, if l'oug
f that.
silver with them, you wouldhave got a greater Weight
metal. Thus the notes would have purchased a
weight of silver than their nominal value; Oat t
would have actually purchased more of one of the preci°,l
metals than so many new Mint shillings, at the old staaci3r''s
if melted down, would have sold for. Therefore, kill rifig
period, the Bank,noles, instead of being in a state A' &lift
it;
ciation, were in-a state of enhancement ; and, compared w
silver, their real saline was greater than their nominal v3l`'el,
Suppose, then, that one of those Geutlemene who, like
fancied his notes were depreciated, and who,
thee' in payment, complained, that he had not. got iced ailed
value which he was entitled to, hed, however, been prevo
on, by a friend, to take a thousand pounda in these It°
witis
the bullion market, and that he •had bought bar ailee • baser
them. Ile would then, in lieu of the Batik note;
brought home to his house a much greater weight
silver than if he had exchanged them for one thousanid P19‘.`001,1,
shillings fresh front the Mint, at the ‘dil .stan:arEwould tie
net this satisfy him as to the value of the es j; can
jlUt
still insist that they were depreciated? It hr _e of hie
only say, ;that such a man renottuees the evidenc t w
senses. He Secs the silver there, which he ; 110
change for his Bank-notes he ascertains its wel ed AO'
knows that if it were to be coined at the Niint, it woo
thsG
dace a greater number of shillings than the angal!'etri,
e
Bank notes which he gave for it. Coul.l lie deny, l "it rar
tire liauli-note was worth as mach and move 1,14"1
[Co be continued.]

.d,

r (S'