The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-09 00:00:00

advantage could be accomplished. It was on that account
that he considered the act of throwing the Finance Com-
mittee ovet hoard more injurious than any measure Govern-
ment could have adopted.

Mr. SUGDEN, adverting to the plan recommended hy
the Hon. Member for Car ington, expressed his hope
the day would never arrive when Government would fee!
itself at libel.; yto make use of the money belonging to
time suitors in the Court of Chancery, for the chimerical
purpose of clearing off the unfunded debt. If he under.
stood the argument of the Hon. Member for Callington,
it divided itself into two points : first, as to the expedi-
ency of investing the meney of the suitors of the Court of
Chancery in the Three per Cents. ; and secondly, as to the
propriety of allowing Government to apply that money to
the reduction of the Floating Debt. With regard to the
first point, he believed the Hon. Gent. was mistaken in
supposing that the funding of the money of the suitors in
the Court of Chancery was confined to the Three per Cent.
Consols ; it was as frequently invested in the Reduced
Three per Cents. When the Court of Chancery first began
to receive the money of all persons comingi pt.) the Court,
and more especially the money of minors and others who were
unable to protect themselves, the propriety was evident of
selecting some fund for the investing of that money, not a
fund which was not invariable, for that could not be expect-
ed, but which, bearing the smallest interest, and therefore
yielding the smallest immediate profit, was most likely to
increase the capital ultimately. The reason why the Court
of Chancery did not invest the motley of the suitors in
any other stock then the Three per Cents. was, that all
other stock were liable to be reduced. The other funds
were a redeemable debt. For instance, the Five per Cents.
had been reduced. What a great inconvenience would
that have been to suitors had their money been invested in
that stock !•- For in that case the Court of Chancery must
either have taken upon itself the acceptance of the terms
offered, or it must have allowed the money of the suitors
to remain unappropriated. Besides, were the money of
the suitors invested in a stock bearing a large interest, the
tenant for life would have a greater advantage than be-
longed to him, to the injury of his successors. The Court
of Chancery was considered as the parent of those whose
property was placed under its protection ; and he would
ask where was the father of a family who would think of
investing all the property of his children in Exchequer
Bills instead of in the Three per Cents. ? It should also
be considered tint the great proportion of the property
brought to the Court of Chancery was brought thither be-
' cause it was expected that it would remain there a long
time. Ought it to be invested in any but the safest se-
curity ? Exchequer Bills were convertible. They
might be stolen ; they might be burnt. Where was
the man who, being in pos,ession of forty millions of
money would dream of investing it in Exchequer Bills?
Would the Court of Chancery be justified in snaking any
experiments with the money entrusted to them ? Would
it he justified in speculating in the Funds with money
which did riot belong to it? To invest the money of the
suitors in the Three per Cents. was to invest it in a stock
which was more likely to rise than to fall. The Hon.
Member bad deprecated trusting lawyers in the manage-
ment of the fund in question. He (Mr. Sugden) wou:d
not only not trust lawyers—he would not trust any one.
He could assure the Hon. Gent. that no lawyer, as an in-
dividual, had the slightest controul over the money of the
suitors in the Court of Chancery. He was in the habit of
being in that Court as frequently as any body, and he knew
of the fond in question only by reputation; having no more
controul over it than the Hon. Member for Callington had.
The Hon. Member had said, " Don't trust lawyers."
Without meaning any incivility, be (Mr. S.) might fairly
say, "Don't trust merchants;" for it was not impossible that
on the pat t of the commercial interest there might be a dis-
position to get rid of the incumbrance of the Unfunded Debt
at the expence of the unfortunate suitors in the Court of
Chancery. Another evil that would attend the Hon. Mem-
ber's plan was the impracticability of paying the parties in
the Court from time to time ; weekly, daily, hourly, as the
Court might direct. He had been taken by surprise on this
subject, and had therefore not advanced all that might be
said upon it. At the same time, although he might not
have spoken wisely, he would say that he had spoken sin-
cerely. As to the large sums in the hands of the Court
not claimed, or likely to be claimed, be agreed with the
Hon. Member for Callington, that it might fairly he dis-
posed of in the manner the Hon. Gentleman had described,
with a guaranty for its return, in the event of an owner
appearing. But to the other part of the Hon. Gentleman's
proposition he would never consent, and he hoped Parlia-
ment would never listen to it for a moment.—(Hear.)
Mr. BARING rose to explain, but he spoke in so low a
tone that he was quite inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. ATTWOOD—The Worthy Alderman who spoke
in a previous part of the debate has I think, done great
service by his example of endeavouring to explain the
papers ou the table, and make us understand the condition
of the country. There is no species of document, I will
undertake to say, which can be referred to on which to
found a special conclusion which is the foundation of more
erroneous conclusions—as, for example, the tables of the
consumption of the country, of our exports, of the
amount of tonnage of our shipping, &c.—or which is
more to be suspected of giving rise to fallacious in-
ferences, unless these documents are explained by some
one who is intimately acquainted with the branch
of trade that is to lie elucidated—(Hear, hear.)—The
Chancellor of the Exchequer says there has been a great
increase in our exports since 1826, on which he
founds his proof of our prosperity, in the same spirit as
the Hon. Member for Liverpool referred the other evening
to the increased amount of our imports as a proof of the
flourishing state of our trade. In 1826, the tables show
that the official value of the exports was 40 millians, and
in 1829 they are fifty-two millions ; and if this test of the
increased prosperity and tranquillity of the country be
allowed, then is the country more prosperous and tran-
quil now than in 1824 .? The conclusion is absurd ; and
either the table is fallacious, or there is a fallacy in the
conclusion deduced from it. The question of silk presents
the same appearance, and a conclusion has been drawn limn
the tables very satisfactory to the Government. It is stated
that there has been a great increase of the raw material,
therefore the tra:le must he prosperous—an opinion which
is delivered in front of that distress we are implored to
remove. We have frequently arguments of this nature
brought before the House; and nothing is mere common
than for any gentleman to state the amount of our tonnage
as a triumphant argument to prove the commercial pros-
perity of the country, at the very time that the ship-owners
are complaining that they are completely ruined. I ask
how this takes place, and I shall endeavour to explain it
by referring to one branch of trade with which several in-
dividuals in the House are connected : I mean the iron
trade. I say, in time hearing of many Members who can
correct me, that the state of that trade never was more
ruinous to those engaged in it than it now is. The capital
embarked in it never was less profitably employed,
wages never were lower; it is the same in every branch of
the trade; and if this condition should not be improved,
and time trade sustained itself for five years, there will
net then be a single bar of iron made in the country. At
this very time, however, there is an extraordinary quan-
tity of iron made and making ; and if the list of exports
be examined, the extraordinary exportation of iron will he
held to be a proof of the evident prosperity of the trade.
The fact is, that the trade is in a ruinous state; the low
prices induce the manufacturers to exert themselves El eon-
tend against ruin—they have increased their labour, erni
have increased the amount of iron sent into market. But
how are they doing this ? The ore is raised without driv-
ing those levels by which they may hereafter obtain an '
indiscriminate supply ; the stock of metal on hand is
worked up in every branch of the manufacture, and car-
ried
to market, while the stock is not replenished, and
threatens at no distant day to put a complete stop to the
trade. Every Gentleman must remember a similar state
of things in agriculture during the season of distress which
at length ended in the ruin of agriculture. There was a
great comparative over production—the produce fell in
price. More land was cultivated—or to use the expres-
sions of the Member for Bridgenorth, who has a peculiar
theory on this subject—it was more extravagantly culti-
vated, and a great additional supply was olrarned. But
how wag it obtained? Why the farmers emptied their
stack-yards, and sent every thing they could to market, to
enable them to pay the dentruels on them. If at that
time the exports had been examined, what would have
sbiedeenratf)oleundqu?antlNit'il:sy,
nd.eurreingsentt;he period grain was ex-
ported from England to France—oats in consider.
and
had examined the tables would ha any person
have
draw:tohz who
time
ex-
traordinary conclusion, that our agriculture never was
more flourishing, nor our farmers more prosperous,
for they were not only able to supply our own mar-
ket, but to send corn to France. In the same way our
ship-owners were (hiving the Russian and Prussian ships
away from our ports, notwithstanding the greater prices
they paid, by their excessive poverty obliging them to con-
sent to be employed on any terms. I will refer back to
still more painful realities, to he found in the state of Ire-
land. If thieve was one year in which Ireland was not in
a state of prosperity, it was in 1822. In that year not less
a sum than 000,000/. was collected from the charity of
England—she herself being distressed—to relieve the still
greater distress of Ireland. But if we look to the exports
of Ireland for that year, we shall find a proof of ;ts being
' more prosperous than usual in the increased account of its
exports. It was a more extraordinary and a more brilliant