The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-02-01 00:00:00

Tlig. ST

YORK MEETING.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STATESMAN.
LEEDS, JANUAR! SS, 1533.

St ought not to intrude upon your time, and should
not do so, had it not been for the report of the York meet-
ing, as appearing in the Old Times and Daniel Stewart's
Paper. In the speech made by Sir Francis Wood, that
part of it where he thought proper to condemn the meeting
at Norfolk, the papers before named, have in a parenthesis,
embodied a sentiment connected with Mr. Cobbett, as
eomingfrom the people, which is as untrue as falsehood could
have rendered it, for the very reverse was the fact. No
sooner had Sir F. W. referred to the Norfolk Meeting, than
he was hailed with " that's the thing we rant, Cobbett's
"petition." This is what really took place, and if what
the Old Times and the Courier say be true, how is it, that
RAINES. by whom I was standing, has not given a similar
report In the Leeds Mercury. From the conversation I had
with various people, (the chief of whom were farmers), be-
fore and after the York meeting, their conversation inva-
riably turned upon the Norfolk Petition, which in their
opinion, seemed to contain the only measures, that were
likely to give them, and the country at large, relief. After
the meeting was over, I renewed my conversation with all
to whom I could conveniently address myself, and such as
conversed with (and they were not a few) approved of the
unanimity of the meeting, but lamented that more strong
Resolutions were not proposed. I then asked whether Mr.
COBBETT'S propositions, would have satisfied them and
they answered in the affirmative.
1 am, Sir, your's,
R. R.

Our correspondent has our thanks; but, we wanted no-
thing to convince us, that the Norfolk Petition is approved
of by the Yeomen in Yorkshire; and as to the things called
" reports" in the paper of "the Reverend Doctor Brodie.
"of Eastbourne, in the county of Sussex, and Anna Mfr'
" wife, notwithstanding her corm-We ;" as to what Is said
in this Parson and his wife's infamous paper, who is to be-
lieve a word of their " reports," after what they published
about the Meeting in Herefordshire? However, as they
only injure their readers, they only injure those who de-
:erre to be injured. We have foretold many events with
great exactness; but, never were we more confident of any
thing, titan we are of the fall of this infamous trading con-
cern, within a few months. There are.perhaps, forty part-
mere 113 this vehicle of foolishness and lies; but, Anna Bro-
die, and the Rey. Doctor, her husband, stand amongst the
Meade of the Donee ! One CARDEN, of Bedford-square, and
his toffe, stand also amongst the bead partners. We will
drag out the whole crew in due time.

MESSRS. COBBETT AND ATTWOOD.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STATISSIAN.
Sin —The two gentlemen whose names are above
written stand pre-eminent in their knowledge of the
subject of the currency. it is not likely that any other
man in the kingdom, understands that subject sa well
as they do, as the very circumstance of their having
written so much upon it must have made them more fa.
miliar with every part of it, than those persons con he
who have never been in the practice of expressing their
thoughts in writing. They both agree as to the CAUSE
of low prices. They admit the same principle. They
have taken the pains to illustrate the same principle by
innumerable examples, which serve to show the truth of
it, and to make it to be understood by common capacities.
They have both exhibited the subject in various points
of view;—have analysed and dissected it, have entered
into calculations respecting it ; —and hare always ex•
ressed themselves in language which indicates similar
feelings of indignation and abhorrence.
But although these two public writamagros as t 4 elto
cause of the present distresses—they differ essentlallyta
to the RtliteT.-11 I understand the matter at all, Mr.
Cohbett on the subject of remedy, has shown superiority
of judgment. The difference between them may 1 think
be stated in a few words. Mr. Cohbett says:-1. That
Peel's Bill is the cause of the present low prices, and 2d.
That the remedy for the distresses of the country lies in
an equitable adjustment of all Debts, or money contracts
both public and private; and, in order to make the ati-
jastment equitable,it is necessary to look at money as the
representative of commodities; to look at it in its caps.
city of purchasing; (and not to look at its merely nomi-
nal amount;) and then to look at the different periods
in which Debts were contracted, and what was the pur-
chasing capacity of money at those respective periods.
By means of these rules and considerations an equitable
adjustment may be accomplished, and the nation speedily
restored to happiness and prosperity. Where is the man
who can honestly object to an equitable adjustment of
any thing? The very words of the proposition are its
best recommendation. If the adjustment is not to be
equitable, what is it to be ? Is it to be inequitable??—
'I lien that would be to let things remain as they now
are. How stupid then must be the conduct of those who
oppose that part of the Norfolk Petition, which prays
for an equitable adjustment of money contracts, public
and private.
But now as to Mr. Attwood. His remedy is to alter
the value of the currency. I think it is to make six
shillings and eight pence to be coined into a pound ster-
ling. But I beg leave to ask Mr. Attwood whether his
proposition does not involve great injmitice I In the
first place it is calling upon, and allowing, the Govern
ment of the country to do that which they have not, and
never had,any right to do. For as noGovernment can have
the right of doing an act of injustice, so no government
can have the right of altering the value of the established
currency, —for no alteration can ever be effected without
injustice. Suppose the proposed alteration to be effect-
ed? Where is the end to it ? This time next year, the
Government alter again, anti order ten or twelve or fif-
teen shillings to be coined into a pound sterling. Thus
all contracts would be violated again and again, and
injustice spread through the land.—lt cannot—it must
not, be permitted. The Restriction Act has been the
Cause of all our evils, and will Mr. Attwood recommend
a measure of a similar nature aid tendency ? What
confidence could men place in the Laws ? How could
they enter into any money contracts of any description.
when they felt a constant uncertainty and anxiety as to
the future ? Such a state of society would be produced,
as it would be miserable to exist in.
In the next place, how would Mr. Attwood's propo-
sition operate upon all recent contracts ? Yesterday 1
burrowed a thousand sovereigns of my friend, which I
agree to pay him back in a year's time. The Govern-
ment alter the value of money; 1 then get my thousand
sovereigns coined into three thousand pounds sterling,
then pay my friend one thousand, and keep two thou-
sand to myself. Then the increased quantity of money
will perhaps double prices, which at once reduces the
thousand pounds to 5001. while 1 am in possession of a
large share of the original debt. By the same process
all other recent contracts are violated. The yearly ser-
vant to whom I am to give 91. at the end of her service,
is still to receive 91. but only half the quantity
of commodities. Its effect upon commerce will be
fatal, and thousands of manufacturers would be reduced
to misery and starvation. The Ministers know the
valise of Peel's Bill, as it respects our commerce.—And,
lastly, there is no manner of necessity for this measure,
because an equitable adjustment offers itself, which will
do justice to all, and injustice to none. I hope Mr. Att-
wood will notice this part of the subject, as 1 think lie
has said in some part of his writing, that his plan would
not be productive of injustice to any one.—Tour's, Sic.
Geo. FORDHA3I,jUt.
Sandon, Jan. 25,1923: