Star.
London, England, 1830-01-20 00:00:00

think they may employ, their eloquence to confound instead of en-
lighten their auditors, lo eaufuse led perplex the subject, instead of
to clear and simplify it.
Mr.-Huskisson said, the other day, 'Tray call it, in the Haase
of -Commons...." What would this country have been, if the prices
of our manufactures had continued in the same amount as during
war? We STo now the vastest mansfacterers in the world.—
Would that have been our situation if we bad not been able to
compete with our foreign rivals in the markets of the world? It
was to the change of price that we owed this advantage of oar
present situation, in being able to sell our woollens and cottons
abroad, the price of which was regulated by the price at home.'
Now it is evident, that his argument and statement hero would
lead his auditors to believe that the low price he spoke of was the
auk consequence of increased skill, industry, and other facilities. I
must say, it is marvellous he should so shape his argument as to
.Ilow the possibility of such a misapprehension, still more estraor-

Binary if he should not know that three-fourtbs or more of the
change of price is owing to the change in the value of the currency,
by the operation of Peel's Bin. Can he mean to say that a low
price, the consequence of a diminished quantity of money, is equally
heneficial, or the same thing, as low price the consequence of int.
proved skill and industry? He cannot, surely; it would be pre-
posterous, and is not to be presumed in a man of his knowledge;
and yet it is almost impossible to know what else he does meat.
%Ir. Alderman Waithman had shown him, from Custom-house
Returns, that Lefure Peel's Bill, 36 millions of British goods ex-
ported, measured in quantity by what is termed official value, pro-
duced of declared, that is money, value, 54 millions sterling;
whereas in 1821,64 million of goods returned only 36 suillioes of
pounds sterling; (fractions omitted) : very true, says Mr. Huskis-
son, here is the price and quantity exactly reversed; this only
shows that things are cheaper now than they were then ; and be
goes on to say this cheapness enables us to sustain our extensive
foreign commerce. Now really, to impress upon hie auditors the
opinion that this cheapness arises from improved skill, machinery,
kc. or to leave them under such possible misapprehension, is what
I cannot understand. But observe, he. a little further on, says—
in 1814, before Peel's Bill, the exchanges were thirty per cent.
against us, now they are in our f . and adds—must not such a
difference produce a considerable effect? What is that but proof
that the value of our money has, according to his own admission.
since that time risen thirty per cent. and that seventy pounds
sterling now is just as much as one hundred was then ? or, that the
price reduced from one hundred pounds to seventy pounds is
no real reduction? for that seventy pounds sterling now
are worth as many francs—for instance, In exchange with
France, as £lOO were in 1814. Thus he proves himself that 30
per cent. according to his estimate of the cheapness, is in fact only
so much dearness of money, and of course gives no benefit in the
foreign muket,whilst at home it takes away 50 per cent. from the
wages of the labourer, by whom the goods are produced, and as
much from his employer, leaving the taxes and burthens of both
undiminished. I trust be does not so far adopt those Parliamen-
tary tactics, to which I have alluded, of misleading his auditors, as
to intend to make them believe that this difference of the exchanges
is only a balance of commercial bills, which he knows can occasion
only a difference to a very small comparative amount. And yet
when he says must not this produce a considerable effect, it seems
that be meant it to be supposed that the difference in the exchanges
did not arise from the altered value of our currency, and that it
was much in favour of our Foreign trade. Another difficulty indeed
presents itself to my mind in the attempts to solve his meaning,
from the recollection of his having, upon a former occasion, con-
vinced the House that an unfavourable state of the exchanges was
favourable to an increase of out exports, while it tended to check
our imports from foreign parts.' Mr. Huskisson knows perfectly
well that a great many persons, in and out of the House of Com-
mons, imagine that a rise in. the price of manufactures, though the
consequence of an increased quantity of money, or diminution of
its value, would be destructive of our foreign commerce ; and no
mail looses better than be does that it would prod uce no such
effect ! They say if we base mote paper, for instance, and if we are
to have war prices again, away goes our foreign commerce. lam
surprised that such an erroneous idea should prevail, and I regret
that Mr. Hesitant.° should, by neglecting all explanation upon this
point, assist in confirming the error, rather than exposing it. Buts
in oeder to get a clear view of the subject, we will suppose
that we had the war currency and war prices, and that, in
consequence, a yard of superfine cloth, which sells now for
twenty shillings, should in such war currency sell for thirty.
Why, then, the Frenchman,
.who sent his yard of silk to ex.
change for this yard of cloth, would find that such yard of
silk would fetch tbirty shillings in the English market, which
before would fetch only twenty; and so would all other
foreign commodities rise as our own rose, and thus would
our foreign commerce remain precisely upon the same footing. To
explain this in another way it will be remembered, that during the
war.currency, one pound sterling British would only exchange for,
at one time, 1 think, 16 francs it fluctuated generally from 16
to 20 francs ; now one pound sterling will exchange for 26 franc,
all but 20. cents. And here. by the bye, is one decisive proof of
the alteration of the value of our currency, and which shows dis-
tinettrthat so much as is the difference between 26 and 16, is rise
in the value of our money, and nut cheaper price, as Mr. Huskisson
calls it, of the commodity. In the time I allude to, £lOO sterling
Eritish, lrould. only exchange for 1600 francs, or one hundred
pounds worth of goods, in the war price British, would only pro'
deco 1600 francs ; now £64 sterling British, or sisty-four pounds
worth of goods British, will fetch identically the same sum, vie.
160? francs, or, one hundred pounds British, will now exchange
for. 2600 francs instead of 1000; in other words, a manufacturer,
who has gone to the value of one hundred pounds in our present
currency,cannot afford to nil them in Frame for less than 2600
francs, whereas, a manufacturer basing one hundred pounds worth
of goods in the war currency, could afford to sell them for 1600
fragies. If I was. to argue, therefore, as Mr. Huiklison does, I
might saygive us again our war currency, and we shall get a
great advantage in our foreign trade. We can afford to sell one
hundred pounds worth of goods for 1600 franca instead of 2600.'
It %%mild not be more absurd than his arguing in favour of that
Cheapness, which is the conseq of a higher value of money,
and which higher value of money is thus proved by the exchanges.
I should have thought it was yet more obvious that any change,
erlntrever in the denomination or quality of our metallic currency
would mite no difference in regard to foreign commerce, and yet

I believe de error prevails throughout ; the fast is, that foreigners
care not what we 'choose to call our money, or of what'quality we
make it, or what we make it jaw for here, which is merely a con-
ventual sirs amongst ourselves. The metallic money they resolve
.Into its worth ; for instance, If we were to coin a potted
of 'Alyce into ninety Shillings instead.of sixty, which is an td.i©e
of fifty per cent. and then a pound sterling become wonh thirty
shillings British in the new coinage, the foreigner would see that the
50 shillings British would, in Inch case, contain only the same quan-
tity ot 'Brie which 20 shillings did before, and woild tai; alter the
cola of your country as you please—l shill only give you e 6 tralies for,
the thirty, as I would have done for the twenty shillings. This
change of tisealiver coin would nuke a yard of cloth, which *sells
'now Poi twenty 'Annoy, sell ter thirty In 'England, but the manu-1
(securer would be is well 'content to take 26 francs kelt in
France as be- wai 'before, because the Y 6 francs' would I
..equal to the thiettshlllings of the new coinage. Hr could Indeed
steed to sell cloth isiviethan before, inasmuch as this
dteration of our 'mine* would exactly, to the extent it was carried,

later die pressure et tsbktioh upon hint, on the present hypothesis.
gyp'isee'vo.to Whkit extent;' at kast, ti will increased by Peel's
BM. Is, in truth; the' pressure of *initial. oenatased• 6y' the
heavy weights or hilts *due' of the @whey in the Peel VIII eur.
rainy. that has run away with all tie pro& of the rianufseturer.

• Pse. Deb. voL sir. p. tas.