The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-21 00:00:00

ENGLISH REGISTRATION.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that as the registration for
England commenced this day under the existing law,
it was .the opinion of the Government that it would
be inexpedient to interfere with the registration under
the law as it stood. He had, therefore, to state, for
the information of the House, that though leave to
bring in a Bill on the English Registration would be
moved for this session, yet it was not with any inten-
tion to press it ; but as it must be passed before the
next 20th of June, in order to affect the registration
of next year, it would be laid on the table this session,
and be passed in the early,part of the next.
IRISH REGISTRATION.
Lord J. RUSSELL asked the Right Honourable
Baronet whether there was any intention on the part
of the Clovernnient to press the Irish Registration Bill
this session ?
Sir R. PEEL said the Government had no inten-
tion of pressing the Irish Registration Bill this ses-
sion ; but he was not prepared to state whether or
not 'it would be laid on the table.
• Mr. C. WOOD was addressing some observations
to the House on the subject, when he was interrupted
by, the Speaker as being out of order.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to know if it was
the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman to intro-
duee a 'clause into the English Registration Act doing
away , with the disqualification consequent Upon a
change of residence ? He had received so many com-
plaints from gentlemen of Conservative principles, as
well as from gentlemen of Liberal opinions, of the
intScarriage of the Bilr on that subject that he hoped
the Right•HOn. Baronet would introduce some clause
into his Bill to remedy this inconvenience.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM would, when he asked
permission to introduce his Bill, state to the House
what the provisions of the intended measure would
be.—(A laugh. 1
'TIPPERARY SPECIAL COMMISSION.
Sir 11. W. BAItRON having understood that the
Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, was now in a
condition to answer the questions which he (Sir
-Barron) had yut to him the other evening,
relating to the Tipperagpeels Commission,
would C • ssion,
would now repeat them. e would ask if the Noble
Lo toil -was aware of, the probable expense of the
speaal Commission for the county of Tipperary, and
if he could state the difference in the 'Tates of the
Special Commision and the commencement of
the General Co mission of gaol delivery ? Hel
would also ask why the General Callugiedont

could not commence its labours with the
county of Tipperary, instead of commencing at the
other end of the circuit, by which means the great
expense of this Special Commission would have been
saved, and this great job would have been prevented ?
At the same time he felt bound to state, that he ac-
quitted the Noble Lord of all participation in that
job, the whole affair having, as he believed, been con-
cocted behind the Noble Lord's back.

Lord ELIOT said that the date of the Special
Commision was the 10th June, and that it would be
opened on the 28th June. The General Commission
was dated the 9th of June ; but it would not be
opened at Tipperary until the 28th of July, one
calendar month after the opening of the Special
Commission. The Judges who would preside
over the Special Commission were the two
Chief Justices, and the prosecutions would be
conducted on the part of the Crown by the
Attorney-General, Sergeant Greene, and Mr. Scott.
He was not able to state what the exact expense would
be, but the expense of the last Special Commission, in
1839, was 3,0634. Great inconvenience would have
arisen from any alteration having been made in the
usual manner of going the eircuit, inasmuch as the
time for holding the sessions was in general regulated
thereby; but he did not rest the defence of the mea-
sure on those grounds. It was deemed necessary by
the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the'Crown
to issue this Special Commission, in order to impress
upon the minds of the people of the country the
necessity of obedience to the laws ; and if it should
realize what was expected from it, the expense would
have been well incurred. He was willing to take his
share of the responsibility, and felt that it was
exceedingly improper to impute the mean and paltry
motives to the Attorney-General for Ireland which
had been imputed to that officer.
Sir H. W. BARRON had not imputed any mean
or paltry motives to—
Mr. F. SHAW rose to order. The Hon. Baronet
having asked his question, had no right to say anything
further which would be likely to give rise to angry
discussion, or to raise angry feelings.
Lord ELIOT had not alluded in what he had said
to anything that had fallen from the Hon. Baronet,
but motives had been attributed to the Attorney-
General elsewhere, and by other parties.
Sir H. W. BARRON was satisfied with the Noble
Lord's explanation.
In reply to a question from Sir W. SOMERVILLE,
Lord ELIOT said it was not the intention of the
Government to introduce any measure in the course
of the present session with respect to the present sys-
tem of pawnbroking.
Mr. ROEBUCK. gave notice that he would, to-
morrow, move that Mr. Redhead Yorke and Mr.
Mackenzie be added to the Committee on Compromise.
Sir F. BURDETT said he would, on an early
day, call'the attention of the House to the invention
of Captain Warner.
GOLD COINAGE.

Mr. C. BULLER said he rose for the purpose of
bringing under the consideration of the House the
sold coinage of the country. He believed he was quite
in order in doing so before the reading of the Order of
the Day. He thought it was a matter which
ought to be discussed as much as possible without
party feelings. He had no intention of criminating
the Government, but he felt that it was his duty, in
conformity with his opinions upon the subject, to
state that he highly disapproved of the conduct which
they had pursued in reference to this matter, and to
give the grounds upon which he thought that their
conduct was improper. No one would be more de-
lighted than himself, if the Government would take
steps for tranquillising the confusion which had
occurred. He thought the House would agree with
him, that this was a matter of deep moment to the
whole community, and, above all, of deep moment to
the poorest classes of the community. The Hon.
Member for Essex talked the other day about the
poor not being willing to take gold. The fact was,
that the gold coinage of the country was chiefly re-
quired for small daily payments. In this metropolis
the vast proportion of the workmen received more
than 20s. per week, which they were paid in gold ;
others, who received above half a sovereign, were
paid in the same manner, whilst the pay-
ments of the rich were principally made in
bank notes, or by cheques upon their bankers.
Illat was it that he complained of in the conduct of
the Government ? What was the nature of their
proclamation ? On the 3d of June her Majesty's Go-
vernment, without any notice—without any prepara-
tion of the public mind, issued a proclamation,
warning the public that there were great quantities of
light gold coin in circulation, calling upon the officers
of the Government to enforce the law respecting the
defacing of the coin, and also calling upon her Ma-
jesty's subjects to do the same. No statement was
made in that proclamation of what the law was re-
specting the cutting and defacing of coin. The man
who kept a tripe shop—(Laughter)—in White-
chapel, or a baker's shop in Tothill-street, was left
to consider for himself what that law was. When
he pointed out to the House that such persons
might thus have been led into a violation of
the law, by . which they acid not the persons
who had injured the coin would suffer, doubts
must arise as to the propriety of issuing the procla-
mation. What was the effect of the proclamation ?

It was to discredit the whole of the gold coin of

the realm. It was, that nobody hereafter Would safely
take those coins, as they had done for the last
twenty-five years, merely by number. Supposing
the impress was defaced, and every one was obliged to
take the coin by weight, the effect would be that the
gold coin would be paid in large sums into the Bank
of England, and thus would be driven out of circula-
tion the gold coin of the reigns of George IV. and
William IV. He wished to impress upon the House
that this step on the part of the Government was no-
thing less than the calling in of all the gold
coin of the reigns of George IV. and 'William IV.
The loss of the depreciation of the coin fell on the
holders of the coin on the 3d June, when the procla-
mation was made. This loss fell on the retail trades-
men, and a great many of the working classes. He
wished to state that, in his opinion, upon general
principles, it was unjust that the loss should fall
on the accidental holders of the coin. What was the
cause of the deficiency in the coin ? Although
many persona said that holes had been made in
the sovereigns, yet the real cause was the wear and
tear of the coin during twenty-five years' or
twenty years' circulation. Well, he said that
it was monstrous that the loss should fall on the
holders. It was not the fault of the holder in June,
that these sovereigns had been in circulation twenty-
five years ; he did not know of the mischief which
had been going on for twenty-five years, and,
therefore,' it was unjust that the punishment
should fall on him. Now he would ask
what was the good of this ? Was it to deter the per-
son who really played tricks with, coin by plugging
it ? Why, the person who played tricks with the coin
always took care that the coin should as soon as pos-
sible go out of his possession. He was a person
certain not to hold the coin. He was the first per-
son who damaged the coin, and of course he got rid
of it, in order not to be discovered, so that the loss
fell entirely upon the innocent person, and the loss
had not the effect of deterring persons from the com-
mission of the offence. This loss was very heavy to the
individual holder, while it could easily be borne by
the public. What was the whole amount of the loss?
The Chancellor 'of the Exchequer averaged the
loss at 3d. per sovereign, or 1 per cent., as the
general depreciation of the sovereign. It was
supposed the amount of deteriorated gold in
the country amounted to about six millions, and at
the rate of depreciation stated by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer the total loss would amount to no
more than about 90,0001. Now it appeared to him,
that upon every ground of justice and expediency that
loss should not be borne by the accidental holder of the
coin. Such a course was opposedto every former prece-
dent in our history. A distinction had always been made
by the Governments of this country between a de-
preciation of coin caused by wear and tear, and a de-
preciation caused by illegal practices. In all cases.,
parties were not allowed to suffer because they hap-
pened to be in possession of coin which was deterio-
rated by reasonable wear. A statute of the 19th of
Henry VII., contained a provision to that effect ; a
similar enactment was passed in the 29th of Eli-
sabeth ; and the same principle had been recognised
in various succeeding reigns. In the year 1766, the
depreciated gold coin was called in ; a provision was
then passed that allowance should be made for reason-
able wear ; and it was a remarkable fact, that the
allowance made amounted -nearly to the extent of
depreciation in the coin of the present day, as stated
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The
allowance made was one-and-a-half grains in
every 130, which made about 1-10th per cent.
That was somewhat between the 'extremes of the pre-
sent depreciation. Now, he must say, that when her
Majesty's Government issued its exhortations to the
revenue officers and others to cut and deface every
coin which they found to be deficient in weight, the
proclamation ought to have told them that they did it
at their peril, and that if they made any mis-
take, and cut and defaced' coin that was not
deficient they would have to compensate the owner.
In the Act of 1832 it was :expressly enacted
_that
no person should cut, deface, or destroy coin that
that
was deficient only on account of reasonable wear.
But what was most important, from the whole
history of this country -Since the Revolution,
was, that whenever the old Coin was called
in, the deficiency was bbrne by the public,
and not by the holder. lie had not been able
to find any thing to the contrary, and bethought that
the cases which he should produce were .perfectly de-
cisive as to tlie principles will& heretofore always
guided the Government since the Revolution. Since
that period, there had been three re-coinages. One
was in the year 1696, in the reizri of William the Third.
Oil that occasion, the House of Commons consented to
rAy sal tile kw upon- the -4Na:coinage, The de-

predation had been enormous, and the greatest con-
fusion prevailed; so that the. people were willing to I
pay anything out of the public purse to get rid of
the inconvenience. He did not think that the
precedent of the re- coinage of William. 111. was
to be followed out in all its circumstances ; for it was
effected with great loss to the public, and was at-
tended with very great fraud. But did the Govern-
ment on that account throw the whole of the
loss in the next re-coinage upon the holders ?
He then came to the great re-coinage of gold in 1774,
when compensation was given to the holders accord-
' ing to a plan for which Lord Liverpool referred them
to the books of the Treasury. Those books might
be printed for the use of Honourable Members,
but he apprehended it would be expensive. The plan
the Government then adopted would be best stated
by the resolutions of the House of Commons, to
which he begged to call the attention of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The House of Com-
mons had a Committee of the whole House on
the subject ; and it was resolved that the gold
currency of guineas, half guineas, and quarter
guineas should be called in by degrees ; that certain
days should be appointed, after which the existing
gold coinage should not be received by any
collector of the public revenue ; and that
certain other days should be appointed after
which they should not be allowed to pass in any
manner whatever, but that they should be called in
and re-coined, according to the established weight.
On the plan of calling in and re-coining the
gold coinage, the public bore the loss aris-
ing both from the deficiency of weight and the
expense of re-coining. He might not be able
to ascertain what the exact amount of the cost
was, but he found it stated, in Macpherson's An-
nals of Commerce, that in 1774, the sum of
46,0001. was charged as the deficiency of weight,
without the charge of re-coining. In 1777, he
found a further sum of 105,000/. was put down
for the expense both of coinage and deficiency
of weight. He could not apportion this sum
between the two items, but there was one sum of
151,0001. for both. There was another instance
within their own recollection the great re-
coinage of silver in 1816. There was no gold
re-coined in that year, but the silver was
more depreciated than had ever been known, and the
Government determined to call it all in, for the pur-
pose of re- coinage. Did they then adopt the views of
the present Government, that it ought to be the
holders that should bear the loss ? No such thing.
They threw the loss on the public, provided
for it from the public funds of the country.
The amount ,of silver coin then in the realm wr.s
2,500,0001., and it was stated in the. Report that it
was depreciated no less than 30 per cent. The loss
upon the silver coin was therefore 730,0001., and it
was borne by the public. As he had the
advantage of addressing a' Conservative Govern-
ment, who venerated the principles on which former
Tory Ministries acted, he would read the principles upon
which Lord Liverpool and the Government acted upon
that occasion. He (Lord Liverppol) said that with
regard to indemnity, he felt disposed to propose, and
he was sure the House would adopt, the most liberal
principles. Their Lordships were aware that when a
new coin was issued in other countries, and the coin called
in, the Government received the coin by weight, not
by tale, so that the public incurred the loss that was
occasioned by its circulation; but it became the Go-
vernment and Legislature o this country to be•
more liberal. Such was the language of Lord
Liverpool before the Bill was brought in, by
which it was proposed, that the silver should be
received at its current value, and called in. That was
the principle on which the Government proceeded,
and he found the same principle laid down
in this House, by a great authority, the
then Master of the Mint, Mr. Wellesley Pole, who
said " that when the people had no alternative but to
receive the coin in circulation, it would be ahardship to
allow them to suffer from the fault of the Government,
and he should, therefore, propose the exchange of all
the coin." And that proposition was made when the
coin was depreciated not 24- per cent., but 30 per cent.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wellesley Pole)
said, that while he was anxious to preserve the
public from such loss, he was desirous that in-
dividuals should suffer as little as possible. It
was, however, impossible to prevent many persons
from sustaining loss by withdrawing the coin from
circulation, but it was the duty of Government to
make the loss as little as possible. Persons were ap-
pointed to give money of the full weight to those
who held the depreciated coin, but perhaps
the Government would say that the precedent of
Lord Liverpool in 1816 was- against him, and
one that should deter the Tory Government of
this time from following it ; but it must
be recollected that the case of the Go-
vernment of that time was fifteen times
stronger than it is now, and the depreciation was
30 per cent., and, not 2 per cent. as at present.
He had heard it stated in defence that that course was
not pursued with regard' to the gold coinage. Now
the coinage of gold at that time could not be drawn
into a precedent, because it was a new coinage. He
had stated, that while he condemned the course adopted
by the Government, he would point out the course
he thought they ought to pursue ; they ought to
have adopted the course as near as possible
that was adopted bn a former re-coinage. It
had been said on behalf of the Government, that
if they gave a full-weight sovereign for a light one,
it would in effect be a premium upon clipping
the coin. He granted that the depreciation of the
coin was an evil ; but it was an evil that
did not require to be put a stop to in a
moment. What had alarmed everybody was the
Government declaring that the coin was light.
If the Government had, when it found the
sovereign light one-half per cent., called it
in, and issued a full weight sovereign for
it, it would not have cost the country more than
90,0001.. At that depreciation they might have
stopped, and then the public would have known
what course to pursue. He believed if the Go-
vernment had taken proper precautions they
might have prevented the depreciation of the coin.
He thought that the loss of 90,0001. in ten or twenty
years would have been an infinitely smaller evil than
the discrediting the whole gold coin of this
country. He now came to the manner in
which the Government had acted, and the circum-
stances under which the proclamation had been issued.
The Government seemed to have issued its proclamation
as though it were the most ordinary thing in the world.
Not a word of previous explanation had been given
to the public ; without any notice the whole gold
coinage was discredited ; men were sent away with
their sovereigns, parties refusing to take them, and no
explanation was oftered by the Government until the
question was mooted on that side of the House. He
knew it might be said that conduct of that kind would
tend to make the public cautious about taking
money. Why, there could not be a greater evil
than that of exciting suspicion with respect to the
coinage.—(Hear.) To set every one upon weighing
sovereigns and half-sovereigns, would cause the
greatest confusion in commercial transactions, and
cause a great waste of time and labour to the
public.—(Hear, hear.) The system of the middle
ages would be revived, and every man would
be compelled to take with him a pair of scales
for the purpose of weighing what he had to
receive, for the purpose of ascertaining that it
was of the proper value. The country had for
some time been free from this monstrous
evil ; no complaint had been heard, and all sus-
picion had in fact been lulled to sleep. The
recent events had led some to exclaim that
the only way to remedy the evil was to re-
store the good old one-pound notes. Ho
confessed he should be very unwilling to have recourse
to such an extreme remedy. In 1816 the gold coin
was called in, but the public mind was then prepared
for it, and a good silver coinage was substituted.
Notice was then given all over the country that the
coin should be brought in on a certain day,
when the old coin would be changed for new.
The whole was done in a very short time, arid
without loss. There was no new 'coinage now
to supply the place of the old, and no precautions
thewhatever
old hadeo
nb e efno
rt a kneenw, to e
wn ahbi lceh the
oughtpulsli c ttoochange
been done even if the holders had had to
incur the loss of the depreciation, which
he thought they ought not to do. Now what
had the Government done towards providing new
coin in substitution for the old ? Why they had
issued a proclamation for a new coinage of
half-farthings.—(A laugh.) The Chancellor of
the Exchequer, thinking, probably, that there
was no human being that possessed only
two sovereigns took precautions to enable the
holders of fifty sovereigns to change them at the Bank,
but it never entered into his contemplation to ima-
gine that there might be persons holding gold coin
below that amount. A week after the proclamation
had been issued, however, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in answer to a question from an Hon.
Member of the House, said he would consult
with the Custom-house officers, and try to devise
some means to enable persons to change small sums;
and they had devised means for enabling persons to
change sovereigns, not less in amount than 201., at a
loss of 1 per cent., but no provision was made for
the exchange of sums of less amount. It was the
duty of the Government, when it issued the proclama-
tion, to have told the people what was the amount of
the depreciation. True, a week afterwards they
had been told that it was only 1 per cent.,
but in the meantime the;. poor pecple had
been cheated out of their fair earnings ; they
had been completely at the mercy of the shop-
keepers, and the frauds which had been committed
were frightful. Some shopkeepers had deducted 2s.
out of every sovereign, and is. .out of every half
sovereign, being at the rate of ten, instead of one-and-
a-half per oent, while, evon such a house as Howell,