The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE CURRENCY.
Colonel TOP.RENS said that it would be quite consistent for
any hon. member to vote for the amendment of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, stating that it was inexpedient to alter the
standard of the currency of the country, and yet to vote also
for an inquiry into the fact whether an improvement might not
be made us the monetary system, so as to relieve the prevalent
distress, and to impart increased facilities and resources to the
industry and commerce of the country. The propositions con-
tained in the motion and in the amendment were by no means
inconsistent with each other. lie thought an inquiry might
be instituted with advantage as to whether or no au improved
system of banking and of paper currency might not be hit up-
en, by which the pressure on industry might be relieved. Ile
was strongly opposed to any alteration, however, which would
have the effect of depreciating the value of the standard. The
ancient metallic standard consisted in coin that could be melted
and exported, but that did not apply to the new standard. The
difference between the ancient and the modern standard iu this
respect made an alteration of 3 per cent. in the value of the
currency when the foreign exchanges were against us. By the
ancient laws of the country gold and silver were both of them
legal tenders, and the payer- had the option of the cheaper
metal in which to discharge his debts. from h 57 to- 1664 the
value of gold and silver was fixed by proclamation, and both
were legal tenders. He approved of the plan of a Government
paper currency, say to the extent of £40,060,000, of this the
Chancellor of the Exchequer might advantageously apply
i.:30,000,0tX), at the rate of #:5,000,000 per annum, to the re-
.4uction of taxes, the other £10,000,000 would be most advan-
tageously employed in the giving the Irish poor employment
at home, and thereby prevent their lowering the market of
-labour in this country. Ile had been misrepresented as having
stated that the application of capital would aggravate the dis-
tress of the working classes iu Ireland. All he meant to say
was, that Ireland was now in a state similar to that iu which
Vhe county of 6utherlaud was some years ago, in which no agri-
eultural improvement Could be made but by converting all the
smaller tenements into large farms, which would require appli-
aations of capital as a' means of improving them. But this
creation of large farms--4n other words, this condition of the
applicatiou of capital to the purposes of agricultural improve-
mcnt—would obviously throw a vast number of the inhabitants

iof the cleared small tenements out of employ,—that is, aggra-
vate the general distress of the poor. The hon. member con-
chided with saying that he would vote for the motion of Mr.
Attwood and for the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
because he conceived that neither was contradictory of the
other.
Mr. STEW ART would vote for the motion of the honourable
member for Whitehaven,—not that he subscribed to all his
views and opinions,—but because its principle was that which
Mr. lluskissou and other statesmen had pronounced to be that
of a sound currency- system.
Mr. SrauTT would vote against the motion of the honourable
member for Whitehaven. In the first
.place it was founded
upon the ex parte statements of persons interested in clam oar-
ing about distress ; and in the next place, as its purpose was
a depreciation of the currency, its only result would be the up-
turning all the existing relations of trade and the security of
property. It should be recollected, that though the currency
bill of 1819 might have been ill-timed and inexpedient, yet that
at least ninety-nine out of every hundred of existing contracts
had been made in the restored currency, so that to depreciate
it would be the destruction of public faith and private property.
The honourable member concluded by saying, that the subject
was so exhausted by preceding speakers, and the views enter-
tained upon it that were in conformity with his own had been
so ably explained and supported, that he would not go over the
same ground, but content himself by declaring, that he knew of
no greater calamity that could befall this country than making
any alteration in the long-established standard of the value of its
money.—(C beers.)
Mr. Ron INSON would also vote against the lion, member for
Whitehaven's motion; not that he was not a warm advocate
for inquiring into the causes of the distress of the commercial
and manufacturing interests, but that its result, the lowering of
our standard, would unhinge all our social relations, and create
a panic, the consequence of which would be nationally terrible.
(Hear.) The hon. member ought to have carefully worded his
motion, so that a depreciation of the currency should not be
among its consequences; then his inquiry into our undeniable
distress could hardly be resisted. The bill of 1819 might have
been a political error : the depreciating of our currency in 1833
would be a far more mischievous one. _

Sir HENRY PARNELL would shortly state the grounds on
which he should give his vote on the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for Whitehaven. He had paid great attention to the
speech of the hon. member, to discover ,what his precise plan
was, and the result he had come to was to consider it in the
same point of view with his noble friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—namely, as a' plan for lowering the standard of
value of the country. The hon. member said he desired a re-
laxation of the currency, and had denied that he sought for a
depreciation of it; but to him there appeared to be no differ-
ence between his relaxation and a positive depreciation. What
he meant by relaxation might be ascertained by referring to
what he considered the good effects of it. He had taken the
period when the relaxation was the greatest, as that when the
prosperity of the country was the greatest—namely, during the
war; but then prices were the highest, and at the same time
the currency the most depreciated ; so that, in point of fact, it
was clear that depreciation was the real object of the hon.
member. By referring again to the period which the hon.
member considered to be one of the greatest distress, he as-
signed as the cause of the distress the restored value of the cur-
rency, and thus again showed that his remedy for all distress
was depreciation. In point of fact, what the hon. member de-
sired was to lower the standard value—it was to require that
the sovereign which now passed for 205., should hereafter pass
for 255. (Loud cheers.) But when this came to be fully un-
derstood out of doors, as it no doubt soon would be, the public
would see nothing in the plan of the hon. member that would
be productive of any other result than great national injury.
(Cheers.) It was for these reasons he would give his vote
against the motion of the hon. member; but in doing so, he
wished to be understood, lie was by no means opposed to in-
quiry into the state of the country.
Mr. LAMBERT said, that the distress which prevailed univer-
sally throughout the country was undoubtedly connected with
the alteration of our monetary system in 1819, and with thepre-
vious preparations of the Bank to meet that alteration, which
had doubled the incumbrances of every landlord. The question
might be simplified thus—Suppose a quarter of wheat represent-
ed £4 • if £2 was taken out of circulation, we might still say
that the quarter still represented El, but in fact it represented
but £2. The landlords in Ireland, as well as the bankers, had
been the subjects of much unjust and unmerited opprobrium.—
They were the sufferers by the change in the circumstances of
the country, not the causes of it. The right hon. baronet (Sir
R. Peel), in his speech of last night, had been unjust to the hon.
member for Birmingham in supposing him to attribute evils of
prior existence to the alteration of 1819, because the Bank were,
long before, making preparations which had a similar effect.—
Ile was sorry that the right hon. baronet, whom he did not see
in his place, had made observations which, from another person,
might seem calculated to provoke a servile war. The hon. hart.
had referred to the authority of Edmund Burke; but he (Mr.
Lambert) should have been better pleased if the right hon. ba-
ronet had cited an authority of much greater weight on this sub-
ject, that of his respectable father (hear), who, from the moment
the bill was announced till the last hour of his existence, had
denounced it as an act of cruelty and injustice, and one for
which there was no necessity whatever. I'he house had been
told that an alteration of the standard would drive capital
abroad, where there was a just standard ; but he did know where
such a standard existed. Then the house had been told that
there was no distress in the country. He had been astonished
at hearing that statement from the quarters whence it came.—
They would find themselves deceived, when the middle classes,
were exhausted and reduced to the last penny, and a few capi-
talists were surrounded by a starving multitude. Ile was dis-
gusted at the theories of -over-population, and the specifics of
emigration. To hear a wealthy philosopher stand up and say to
a starving and once-happy population, " Go elsewhere ; here
you are superabundant !' ( Hear.) He had supported his Ma.
.jesty's ministers onlormer occasions, with some cost to himself;
•and with the determination with which he supported them then,
did he implore the house to consent to the motion for an inquiry,
whether some relief could not be afforded to the country by an
'alteration of its monetary system. (Hear.)
Mr. WALTER complimented the ministers on the resolute and
decided manner in which the ill-judged proposition of the hon.
member for Whiteha.ven had been met by them. Unless it were,
wished to see renewed, the bubble schemes and dishonest pro-
jects of 1825, parliament would not again tamper with the cur-
rency. There was enough of business before the house without
re-embarking in such a sea of troubles.
Sir C. BURRELL denied that the relaxation of the currency
was the object sought for by those who desired this investigation.
The only relaxation of the currency which they desired was
such an addition to the paper currency as should be based upon
and convertible- into gold. If the plan which had been proposed
by the late Sir Robert Peel had been followed, much of the
distress which had since taken place in the country would have
been avoided. The plan of that right hon. baronet was, that a
country hanker should deposit £20,000, for instance, or any.given
sum to the proposed extent of his business,—that this sum should
be vested in the public funds,—and that while the banker
should receive the interest, lie should be allowed to issue notes
to the amount of his deposit, the deposit itself being retained as
a security to the public for his paper issues. That would have
afforded to the country an efficient circulation, and at the same
time would have been a perfect security to the holders of the
notes.

Mr. MonaisoN said, that when he saw what had been the
distressing effects of tampering with the currency on former
occasions, he thought they ought to pause before they decided
upon the experiment of further changes. They all remembered
what had been the effect of some of the changes that had been
made in our currency, and if they were now to go back to the
former system, it would bring about such a panic as that of
1825, and he must be a bold man who could say that a-nation
could bear such a change snore than once.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY was no advocate for a depreciation of
the circulating medium, and in supporting the motion before
the house he conceived he was voting merely for inquiry into
the distress of the country. That distress appeared to him to
be general, notwithstanding the statements made to the con-
trary by the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade.
That distress was strikingly apparent among the manufacturing
portion of the community, and might be proved merely by the
increase of the poor-rates, which, in Wolverhampton alone, to
state a particular instance, had doubled since 1821. The right
hon. Vice-President of the Board ofTrade had also, it appeared
to him, fallen into some erroneous notions with respect to the
value of property in canals. He wanted no depreciation of the
circulating medium to take place, but wished the distress which
at present afflicted the country to be traced to its source. It
might be easy, in a period of peace like the present, to shove
off the difficulty; but let a war arise. and they would find the
difficulty return upon them with double force, nor would it be
so capable of management.
Mr. J. SMITH expressed his firm conviction, that if an issue
of small notes were vermitted we should soon have another
panic like that of 1820, and that if the bank ever suspended its
payments again, all the banks of England would be reduced to
ruin. Was the house aware of the consequences to which such
a state of things must directly lead? The manufacturers re-
ceived all their payments through the medium of the country
bankers, and society could not go on if the banks were de-
stroyed; the result would be one wide scene of devastation,
misery, and civil war. He gave the hon. member for White-