THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 3-32 
 
 'BS'7 5 
 V.20
 
 V^fliti 
 
 wmrimmm'mummi^Mk 
 
 Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 
 1} 
 
 '.'■» 
 
 L161— H41
 

 
 n 
 
 SQUitablr ^Iiiu0tment. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. W. HUSKISSON, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 Tuesday, the 11th of June, 1822. 
 
 MR. WESTERN'S MOTION CONCERNING 
 THE RESUMPTION OF CASH PAYMENTS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY J. HATCHARD AND SON, 
 
 PXCCADILLT.
 
 Printed by T. C. Hnnsard, Peferborcngh-court, rieet-g'rect, Lomk>B.
 
 M.ZO 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 X HE following Speech was delivered in 
 the House of Commons, upon a Motion 
 made in the last Session by Mr. Western, 
 the avowed object of which was, to obtain 
 what is now called an " Equitable Adjust- 
 ment," either by a revision of pecuniary 
 Contracts, or by an alteration in the standard 
 value of the Currency. 
 
 As " Equitable Adjustment," upon the one 
 or the other of these principles, is now 
 called for by Petitions to the House, and 
 notices have been given of Motions imme- 
 diately after the Easter recess,* to give 
 effect to the prayer of those Petitions, it 
 has been deemed expedient to point the 
 public attention to the impracticability, if 
 not the injustice, of the attempt. With 
 this view, this Speech has been extracted 
 from "Hansard's Parliamentary De- 
 bates," and reprinted in its present shape. 
 
 London, 20th March, 1823. 
 
 * Mr. Western, the lOth ; and Lord Folkestone, the 23rd of 
 April. 
 
 359.35i
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 ItjLR. Western having moved, "That a Com- 
 mittee be appointed to consider of the effects 
 produced by the Act of 59 Geo. 3rd c. 49, in- 
 tituled, ' An Act to continue the restrictions 
 ' contained in several Acts on Payments in Cash 
 ' by the Bank of England, until the 1st of May, 
 
 * 1823, and to provide for the Gradual Resump- 
 ' tion of such Cash Payments, and to permit the 
 
 * exportation of Gold and Silver, upon the Agricul- 
 ' tore, Manufactures and Commerce, of the 
 
 * United Empire, and upon the general condition 
 
 * of the different Classes of Society.' '* 
 
 Mr. HUSKISSON rose, and spoke in substance 
 as follows: — 
 
 The subject which the hon. Gentleman has 
 brought under the consideration of the House is one 
 of the greatest magnitude. It involves nothing less
 
 than an alteration of that standard of value by 
 which all property is secured, and all pecuniary 
 contracts and dealings measured and ascertained. 
 The course suggested for the attainnnent of this 
 object, is pregnant with consequences of the most 
 fearful importance. These considerations — the 
 magnitude of the subject, and the alarming con- 
 sequences to be apprehended from the present 
 Motion — will, I trust, be sufficient to induce the 
 House to afford a patient hearing to the discussion, 
 without any personal appeal to their indulgence, 
 even from an individual standing so much in need 
 of it as myself. 
 
 I have listened with every attention in my power 
 to the statements and doctrines of the hon. 
 Member, during his long and elaborate, but able 
 Speech. Some parts of it I have heard with 
 surprise ; other parts, I must candidly confess, 
 with regret ; — surprise, at the view which he has 
 taken of the subject, and the extraordinary positions 
 which he has laboured to establish ; — regret, at some 
 of his inferences and suggestions, which appeared 
 to be incompatible with every principle, not only 
 of private right and individual justice, but of public 
 honour and national faith : although I feel perfectly 
 assured, that, in all the relations of public or private 
 life, there is no man more incapable of countenanc- 
 ing any wrong-doing than the hon. Member for 
 Essex. 
 
 It was mv lot to be a Member of the House of
 
 Commons, in the year 1797, when Cash Pay- 
 ments were, for the first time, suspended. I have 
 continued to enjoy the honour of a seat in this 
 House for the long series of years which has since 
 ehipsed. During that period I have not been an 
 inattentive observer of the proceedings in Parha- 
 ment, and of the effect of those proceedings, in 
 respect to the Currency. In my opinions upon 
 this subject, it was my misfortune, in 1810, to differ 
 from some distinguished Members of this House to 
 whom I was personally attached, and in whose 
 political views I had generally concurred; but, 
 having formed those opinions deliberately and con- 
 scientiously, I could not honestly withhold them 
 from the Public. I shall not at present advert 
 more particularly to those differences, or to the 
 Measures adopted by this House after the Report 
 of the Bullion Committee ; but I own that if I had 
 been uninformed of all that had passed on this sub- 
 ject since the Suspension, I should have inferred 
 from the Speecii of the hon. Gentleman, this evening, 
 that it had been something of this sort. — First, 
 that the liability of the Bank to pay all its Notes on 
 demand in the legal Coin of the Realm having been 
 suspended in 1797? a difference had ensued between 
 the nominal value of those Notes and the real value 
 of the Coin which they purported to represent : — 
 and Secondly, that this difference had been acknow- 
 ledged by the Legislature, and acted upon by the 
 Public ; — that it had been allowed and compensated
 
 for in the Adjustment of all Pecuniary Contracts 
 made prior to the Suspension ; — that all dealings 
 since had been made in reference to that difference;. 
 — and, consequently, that it was a difference, which, 
 however fluctuating in its degree, was at any time 
 capable of being ascertained by exact measurement, 
 and set right by specific adjustment. 
 
 I should further have been led to infer, from the 
 reasoning and statements of the hon. Member, that 
 at some period of this long Suspension (perhaps 
 about 1811, when the difference between the 
 nominal value of the Paper and the real value of 
 the Coin was very considerable), an attempt had 
 been made in Parliament to prevent that difference 
 from being any longer acted upon in the adjustment 
 of pecuniary contracts ; and that, for this purpose 
 it had been proposed to enact, that all such con- 
 tracts should be satisfied by a tender of Bank Notes 
 at their nominal value, and to inflict penalties upon 
 any one who paid a Guinea for more, or received a 
 Bank Note for less, than its denominative amount. 
 But I should have felt quite sure, that this attempt, 
 whenever made, had been rejected with scorn and 
 indignation by the House, and particularly by the 
 Landed Interest: — that the leading members of that 
 interest had vied with each other in denouncing the 
 iniquity of a proposal calculated to defeat the just 
 claims of Age and Infancy — to rob a Parent of a 
 part of that dower which had been allotted to her, 
 in the old Standard of the Realm, long before the
 
 Suspension of Cash Payments — to defraud Orphan 
 Brothers and Sisters of a considerable portion of 
 those fortunes, which the Will or Marriage Settle- 
 ment of their Father had assigned for their Educa- 
 tion, and Maintenance in the world — or, if there 
 were no Widows to be curtailed of a part of their 
 Jointures — no Orphans to be stript of a share of 
 their Inheritance — was there no unfortunate Mort- 
 gagee (possibly a near Relation or Friend) to be 
 deprived of a part of that Interest which he had 
 stipulated to receive in the same Standard of Value 
 in which he had advanced the Money for his 
 Mortgage ? What ! could it be expected that the 
 great Land-Owners would suffer such a proposal as 
 this to be entertained, doing such violence to their 
 love of justice, so offensive to their best feelings as 
 men, at a moment, too, when they were conscious 
 that their Estates, whether liable to the portions of 
 younger Children, or charged with Dower, or in- 
 cumbered with Mortgage, had doubled in rent since 
 the commencement of the Suspension? — and, if 
 their persona] feelings revolted at a suggestion which 
 -was calculated to injure those who were near and 
 dear to them, their public feelings were surely 
 equally repugnant to the idea of a Measure not less 
 fraught with injustice, and calculated to blight our 
 National Character, in the case of the Public Cre- 
 ditor. 
 
 This is the inference which, in ignorance of all 
 that had really taken place, 1 should have drawn 
 
 B
 
 10 
 
 from the general tenor of the hon, Member'$ 
 Speech ; but it would even have led me one step 
 further: I should also have imagined, that the 
 ancient standard of value being now again restored, 
 some of those same Creditors who had been so 
 equitably dealt with during the departure from it, 
 were at this moment enforcing the higher nominal 
 payments which they had received during the de- 
 preciation ; and that the hon. Member had come 
 forward this evening, very properly, to claim the 
 interposition of the House against such an unfair 
 demand on their part. 
 
 But, Sir, instead of this having been the real state 
 of things, what is the course which has been 
 pursued since the Suspension of Cash Payments ? 
 Did the Legislature recognize a difference between 
 Paper and Coin? Were pecuniary transactions 
 adjusted with a reference to that difference? Were 
 dealings entered into, or contracts made, under 
 stipulations founded on that difference ? Did not 
 the law, on the contrary, compel every Creditor, 
 whether public or private, whether his Contract 
 was prior or subsequent to the Restriction, to accept 
 Payment in Bank Notes, according to their deno- 
 minative value? Did not that same law prohibit 
 him, under severe penalties, from having reference 
 to any other than the Nominal Value of the 
 Currency in the adjustment of any pecuniary trans- 
 actions, either retrospective or prospective? If 
 these were the regulations in force during the
 
 n 
 
 depreciation, what is proposed now that Money is 
 restored to its former value ? Why, that having 
 had hitherto one measure of justice for the Creditor, 
 we should now have another measure of justice for 
 the Debtor : — that the latter having been protected 
 by one law in paying according to the Nominal 
 Value, when that Value was less than the standard 
 in which he had contracted, he should now — and 
 for no other reason than because that standard is 
 restored — be protected by another law in paying 
 less than that Nominal Value ? It is no sufficient 
 answer, to state — " that most of the pecuniary 
 " Contracts now in force have been entered into 
 " since the Year 1797, and that they were con- 
 " tracted in a depreciated Currency.'^ Be it so, 
 for the sake of argument. — But then all contracts 
 prior to 1797 have been liquidated in that same 
 Currency. By what rule of right can you allow 
 for its depreciation in the one case, and not in the 
 other ? By what designation would any impartial 
 man describe that equity which should grant an 
 abatement of Interest upon the Debt of 1311, and 
 refuse a compensation for Interest paid short upon 
 a Debt prior to 1797? 
 
 This, however, is the new principle of equity 
 which the Speech of the hon. Member inculcates, 
 and which it is the object of his present Motion to 
 establish, as a remedy for all the injustice of depre- 
 ciation, and all the evils which now press upon the 
 Country. He has taken a distinction between the
 
 12 
 
 interference of the state to decrease, or to increase, 
 by artificial means, the denominative value of 
 Money — and what is that distinction ? — Is the one 
 course more moral or more just than the other ? 
 This, indeed, is not the position of the hon. Member, 
 — but that it is politically more expedient. A 
 constantly progressive depreciation of Money, is, 
 according to the doctrines of the hon. Member, the 
 great secret of public prosperity. This is no new 
 theory. He only proposes to revive the Scheme 
 of the famous Mr. Law in a more mitigated shape. 
 If once adopted by any country, it must end, as 
 his scheme ended. You may retard its progress to' 
 maturity, but you cannot perpetuate the delusion. 
 You must either retrace your steps, or the bubble 
 must burst at last. This was the fate of Law's 
 scheme, as it must be of any project founded on the 
 principle now recommended to the House. During 
 the existence of that scheme, what country was 
 apparently so prosperous as France, what financier 
 so popular as Mr. Law ? exultingly mentioned by 
 a French Political Writer of that day, in the follow- 
 ing terms " a Minister far above all the past age 
 *' has known, that the present can conceive, or that 
 " the future will believe." — Mr. Law, it is true, 
 outhved his popularity and his scheme. He brought 
 distress and ruin upon thousands, and died, himself, 
 in misery and want. The more wary Theorists of 
 the present day might prolong the duration of arti- 
 ficial excitement, but they could not prevent the
 
 13 
 
 final decay and overthrow of the system. There is 
 no escape from this result in any country that has, 
 through inadvertency or a temporary necessity, once 
 lost sight of a fixed standard of value, except by its 
 Restoration. 
 
 This Restoration, I know, cannot be effected 
 without pressure and difficulty. But I cannot admit 
 the justice of the distinction which the hon. 
 Member has taken between the loss to the Land- 
 owner by an increase in the value of Money, and 
 the loss to his Creditor by its decrease. The hon. 
 Gentleman's illustration was this — " By decreasing 
 *' the value of Money to one-half,^' he said, "you 
 *' reduce the Creditor of 500/. a year to 2501., and 
 ** again by decreasing that sum to one-half, to 125/., 
 *' but still he is left with some income. Now, on 
 ** the other hand, a man who purchased an estate 
 " having a rental of 1,000/. a year, when the value 
 " of Money was decreased one-half, is reduced to 
 " nothing if Money is restored to its former value, 
 " and the purchaser has to pay 6001. a year out of 
 " the Estate.'* 
 
 Passing by, for the present, the right of any 
 government in which the nature of property is 
 understood, and the principles of justice respected, 
 artificially to raise or lower the standard of value, let 
 us examine a little more closely this practical illus- 
 tration. Let me for a moment reverse the data of 
 the hon. Member's comparison, which, ingeniously 
 enough for his purpose, assumes the Land-owner to
 
 J4 
 
 be in debt, and the monied man without any similar 
 demand against his income. Let me suppose on 
 the one side, a Land-owner with an estate unencum- 
 bered, and his rent doubled from 500/. to 1,000/. a 
 year during the depreciation, and on the other, a 
 monied man, who, with 500/. a year in the three 
 per cents, purchased at 90/., had borrowed one half 
 of the purchase Money, and found himself com- 
 pelled to repay it when the price had fallen to 50/.; 
 —or, to come still nearer to the hon. Gentleman's 
 comparison, take the case of an income of 1,000/. a 
 year, liable to an obligation to pay abroad an annuity 
 stipulated for in some foreign currency. If that 
 annuity had been satisfied with 500/., when the 
 exchange with such foreign country was at par, it 
 would have required the whole income, when by 
 depreciating our own Money one half, the same 
 exchange was turned in that proportion against us. 
 But I must protest against this description of argu^ 
 ment altogether. The price of land may rise or fall 
 from natural causes, as may the price of commodi- 
 ties. Every holder of the one or the other is liable 
 to such fluctuations ; but that which is the common 
 and fixed measure of all price is not to be tampered 
 with and adjusted, to countervail these fluctuations. 
 In this country, where gold is the standard of 
 value, what is it which the parties stipulate for, and 
 the state guarantees, in every contract for a Money 
 Payment ? Why, that the sum tendered, in satis- 
 fection of such payment, shall not be less in weight
 
 15 
 
 and fineness than is required by the Standard ; but 
 the contract does not stipulate, neither does the state 
 guarantee, that the quantity of gold contained in 
 that sum shall bear, at all time to come, the same 
 value, in relation either to land or to other commo- 
 dities, as it did. at the time when the parties con- 
 tracted together. It is among the highest and first 
 duties of the state, in relation to property, to main- 
 tain that standard inviolate and immutable, and it 
 is because we have neglected that duty, that we are 
 now suffering all the evil consequences of our 
 neglect. 
 
 But, admitting that a certain quantum of injustice 
 has been done to one class of the community 
 during the Suspension, and that now, by its removal, 
 a consequent degree of injury and hardship is in- 
 flicted upon another, does it follow that we are 
 either to perpetuate and aggravate the first injustice, 
 or that it is wise or practicable to attempt to revise 
 and re-adjust all the pecuniary transactions of the 
 last twenty-five years? The hon. Member, indeed, 
 seems to think that nothing is more simple than the 
 first of these courses, but he only looks at one side 
 of the question. He . puts the case of hardship to 
 the land-owner who encumbered his estate during 
 the depreciation ; but let me ask him to recollect 
 the mortgagee who lent his Money before that 
 event. Let me suppose the hon. Member himself 
 (and there is no man to whose candour and sense 
 of justice I would with more confidence apply my-
 
 16 
 
 self in this illustration) to Iiave two mortgages upon 
 his estate — the one dated in 1796, and the other in 
 1811. How has he hitherto settled with his two 
 creditors, and how does he propose to settle with 
 them now? Has he two measures of justice and 
 value — one for the creditor of 1811, and another 
 for the creditor of 1796 ? What the hon. Membei: 
 now says to the mortgagee of 1811, in substance is 
 this, *' When I signed your Mortgage the Currency 
 was depreciated 40 per cent, and my rents have 
 since fallen in nearly the same amount : if, there- 
 fore, I now reduce your claim in that proportion 
 there can be no real injustice.". Against the fair- 
 ness of this proposal what says the Mortgagee? 
 " I lent my money,*' herephes, " without reference 
 to that difference, and I produce the Act of Parlia- 
 ment which prohibits any such reference : — I further 
 appeal to the repeated and solemn declarations of 
 the legislature, that Cash Payments should be re- 
 sumed on the Restoration of Peace. I ask, if the 
 depreciation had increased from 40 to 60 in the first 
 year after our contract, and from 60 to 80 in the 
 year following, would you (the mortgagor) have 
 compensated me for these differences ; or would 
 you not, if it had suited your convenience, have 
 paid me off without any such compensation ? If 
 you did not pay me off, it may be, because you 
 assumed that the value of money would go on fur- 
 ther diminishing from year to year, but you had no 
 right to assume that it might not be the other way ;
 
 17 
 
 and, at any rate, you were distinctly forewarned,' 
 that, in one contingency, which from the nature of 
 things could not be very remote, the ancient standard 
 was to be restored.'' Notwithstanding this answer, 
 conclusive, I conceive, as to the strict legal right of 
 the Creditor, it may be said, that the case of the 
 Debtor may be such as to entitle him to an equitable 
 consideration. Be it so. But then, what becomes 
 of the other mortgagee who had lent his Money in 
 1796 .^ Has he been paid during the whole of the 
 Suspension in depreciated Money? In 1811, for 
 instance, did his Debtor force him to accept pay- 
 ment in the currency of that year ? Did he tender 
 to him Bank Notes, depreciated, as he says, forty 
 per cent, together with the Act of Parliament which 
 prohibits any reference to that depreciation ? Against 
 such a tender, backed by such a law, what would 
 the Mortgagee of 1796 have to urge? Might he 
 not say, — *' At the period when I made this ad- 
 vance, I relied on the public faith. The Money 
 which I lent you was of due weight and fineness ; 
 according to that standard which had remained un- 
 altered since the reign of Elizabeth. To preserve 
 that standard for ever inviolate, I knew was the 
 declared policy of the state, and that Parliament, in 
 each succeeding reign, had passed laws for that 
 purpose. Resting upon an unbroken pledge of near 
 three centuries, upon the positive enactments of 
 law, upon the universal understanding of the coun- 
 
 C
 
 19 
 
 try, upon the obvious justice of the case, upon the 
 avowed intention of Parliament, recorded in every 
 statute that imposed or continued the Suspension, 
 —that Cash Payments should be resumed as soon 
 as possible, and upon the implied assurance, involved 
 in this declaration, that it w^as not intended, by 
 these temporary Suspensions, to alter the standard 
 of our Money — upon all these grounds, I claim to 
 be paid with reference to the existing difference 
 between Bank notes and that standard." " No !" 
 replies the mortgagor, " Here is a law which forbids 
 ^hat reference, and by that law I will abide, whether 
 the difference be 40 or 80 per cent, whether the 
 rent of my estate upon which your mortgage is se- 
 cured, has been doubled or tripled in consequence 
 of that difference." 
 
 Now, I ask of the hon. Member, in these two 
 cases, could he claim an Equitable Adjustment in the 
 one, and refuse it in the other? Could he require 
 an abatement upon one mortgage, without account- 
 ing for the arrear due upon the other? If the two 
 mortgages were held by different persons, I will not 
 say that the man does not exist . (certainly not the 
 hon. Member), who might, and perhaps would, 
 contend with each separately for such an arrange- 
 ment ; but, if both securities were held by one and 
 the same individual, it would require no small share 
 of ingenuity to satisfy him, that he was about .to* 
 receive an equal measure of equity in both in^i 
 stances. For my own part, I should as httle envy
 
 19 
 
 the casuistry which could countenance, as I should 
 the justice which could award, such a decision. 
 
 But, whatever may be the difficulty in respect to 
 mortgages, would an Equitable Adjustment be 
 more easy in other pecuniary contracts, for instance, 
 with the Public Creditor ? Far from it. Here the 
 principle is the same, but the difficulty would be a 
 thousand fold. In the mass of the Public Debt, 
 can we distinguish each separate Loan, and the 
 original subscribers to that Loan ? and if we could, 
 can we hope to trace, and unravel, and identify, 
 every separate purchase and sale connected with 
 that Debt, between the year 1797, and the present 
 time? How should we distinguish the bona Jide 
 holders prior to 1797 — those who became holders 
 during the depreciation, and during each diffisrent 
 stage of it, — and those who have become holders 
 since the year 1814 or 1819 ? — ^and, if we could dis- 
 tinguish them, must we not trace the money of 
 each purchase since 1797, through all its previous 
 career ? Can we hope to follow every Bank Note 
 through all the transactions, and to fix the date of 
 each, in which it has formed a part? It may, for 
 instance, happen that the present holder of any 
 given quantity of Three per Cents, purchased when 
 paper was at its greatest depreciation, had made 
 that purchase with money received in discharge of 
 some old mortgage. Is he to be amerced, or is the 
 loss to fall upon the seller of the stock who re- 
 ceived that Money, or upon the mortgagor who
 
 20 
 
 paid it ? or are we to trace this particular sum in all 
 its component parts, divided and re-united in a 
 thousand different wa3's, through all its prior and 
 subsequent combinations, and to follow it up 
 through all their ramifications ? To attempt such a 
 task would be as hopeless as to endeavour to iden- 
 tify, in the great mass of waters, the particular 
 share of each tributary stream which has emptied 
 itself into the Ocean for the last twenty years. 
 
 The same difficulties would occur in the revision 
 of all the private transactions of the community ; 
 and if we are to engage in this undertaking, we 
 shall not satisfy the equity of the case, unless it 
 embrace, not only all pecuniary contracts existing 
 prior to 1797, and all which have been made since, 
 and which are still in force, but likewise, all which 
 have been closed and settled. Surely, every man 
 must see that such a revision is impracticable ; that 
 it cannot be entertained without involving all the 
 dealingsof the community in inextricable confusion, 
 and that any partial application of a principle, w hich 
 nothing but a general re-adjustment could justify, 
 would only tend to destroy all confidence and credit, 
 and to aggravate all the evils which it is intended to 
 remedy. 
 
 In arguing upon an assumed depreciation of 40 
 per cent, I am anxious to be understood as not 
 admitting, that, upon an average of the whole pe- 
 riod, or indeed at any part of it, the depreciation 
 actually reached that extent. The hon. Member
 
 21 
 
 says, " the depreciation is not to be measured by the 
 *' difference between the Mint and the Market price 
 of Gold." I should wish to ask him, by what other 
 test he would determine its extent? If, in 1811, 
 it was open to any man, in any part of Europe^ 
 England excepted, to have bought 100 Guineas 
 (or 105/.) with 130/. in Bank Notes, how can it be 
 contended, that the difference between the no- 
 minal value given and received, was not the mea- 
 sure of the depreciation of the Paper ? I can con- 
 ceive no other measure ; although I not only ad- 
 mit, but have uniformly maintained, that, having 
 once parted with all our coin, we could not again 
 resort to a Metallic Currency, without, in some de- 
 gree, raising the value of the Precious Metals all 
 over the world. This is a good reason, as I have 
 stated before to this House, for using them as spa- 
 ringly as possible, and for maintaining the circula- 
 tion with as small a proportion of Gold as is con- 
 sistent with the preservation of a Metallic Standard. 
 But, in as much as any diminution in the value of 
 the Precious Metals, either from natural causes, such 
 as an abundant supply from the Mines, or from legiti- 
 mate causes, such as the substitution of Paper, really 
 payable on demand, or the other contrivances of 
 credit — involves no breach of a pecuniary contract, 
 however prejudicial to the Creditor ; so, on the 
 other hand, an increased demand for the Precious 
 Metals, in this or in any other country (for the 
 effect would be the same should the demand arise
 
 29 
 
 elsewhere), or a diminished supply from the Mines-, 
 aflfbrds fio ground for the interference of the State 
 with the conditions of that contract, by which it 
 would be violated for the benefit of the Debtor. 
 
 I trust that I have satisfied the House, that re- 
 taining the present standard of value, an Adjust- 
 ment between Debtor and Creditor, to be Equitable, 
 must embrace all contracts, as well prior as subse- 
 quent to 1797, and that such an Adjustment is im- 
 practicable. I would next inquire, what would be 
 the effect of altering that standard, without a.ny 
 reference to such an Adjustment ? An extensive 
 alteration to this effect, I take to be the plan of the 
 hon. Member for Essex. In the first place, it is 
 evident, that such an alteration would be nothing 
 less than a direct breach of faith to all creditors gencT 
 rally, without any discrimination between debts 
 contracted before the period of the depreciation, or 
 during that period, or since the restoration of th^ 
 Currency. Is the House of Commons prepared to 
 sanction such a sweeping and monstrous principle 
 as this ? Is it prepared to say to the old Creditor — 
 *' the full measure of injustice which you suffered for 
 " many years, we are now about to acknowledge, not, 
 " however, for the purpose of repairing, but of per- 
 " petuatjng, that injustice:" — andtoall Creditors who 
 have entered into contracts since the restoration of 
 the standard-^" we aie about to rob you of 40 pe? 
 '* Cent of your property, because there are other Cre- 
 " ditors in this country who m^de theircontracts when
 
 23 
 
 '^the currency was depreciated to that atiiount." 
 Can any legislature, not lost to all regard for character, 
 and to every feeling of common honesty, listen for a 
 moment to such morality, and such proposals as 
 these ? But, apart from these considerations, let us 
 examine this measure on the narrower grounds of po- 
 licy and expediency : — if, indeed, the House can 
 allow itself to suppose, that the present case may be 
 an exception to the general rule — that the interests 
 of the state can never be promoted by the violation 
 of public justice, and the forfeiture of public ho- 
 nour. How strange must be the condition of this 
 country, if it can only prosper by a violation of 
 national faith and a subversion of private property ! 
 If it can only be saved by a measure, reprobated by 
 all Statesmen and all Historians — the wretched 
 but antiquated resource of barbarous ignorance and 
 arbitrary power, and only known among civilized 
 communities, as the last mark of a nation's weak- 
 ness and degradation ! Does not the hon. Member 
 see, that such a measure would be the death blow 
 to all public credit, and to all confidence in private 
 dealings between man and man ? Does he not see, 
 that if you once lower your standard, it will be- 
 come a precedent that will be resorted to on every 
 future emergency or temporary pressure — resorted 
 to the more readily, as credit and every other more 
 valuable resource, on which this country has hi- 
 therto relied, will be at an end ? Does he not see, 
 that the expectation of such a recurrence will; pro- 
 duce much of the mischief of its realitv ? — that when
 
 $4 
 
 men find, that in England, there is no security in 
 Pecuniary Contracts, they will seek that security 
 elsewhere ? — If we once embark in this career — if 
 once openly and deliberately we avow and recog- 
 nize this principle, England, depend upon it, will 
 rapidly descend, and not more rapidly in character 
 than in wealth, to the level of those countries, in 
 which, from ignorance and barbarism, such expe- 
 dients are not yet exploded. 
 
 But, Sir, whatever fallacious expectations of 
 relief to the country the hon. Gentleman may 
 have conceived from a plan so pregnant with mis- 
 chief and disaster, fortunately there is little danger 
 of its being adopted. In the mysterious councils of 
 Despotism such a project may be matured, so as to 
 burst by surprise upon the country. Here it must 
 be discussed in Parliament, and would be examined 
 and understood by the Public long before it could 
 be ripe for execution. I will venture to say, that if 
 this House were even to entertain such a proposi- 
 tion by a vote, the country would be in alarm and 
 confusion from one end of the kingdom to the 
 other. All pecuniary dealings would be at an end ; 
 all pending transactions would be thrown into dis- 
 order ; all debtors would be called upon for imme- 
 diate payment ; all holders of paper circulation 
 would insist upon its being converted into Coin or 
 Bulhon ; and all the Coin and Bullion so with- 
 drawn, whether Gold or Silver, would be hoarded. 
 Neither the Bank, nor the London bankers, nor the
 
 93 
 
 Country Banks could survive the shock. Every man 
 would be struggling to call in credits, whether in 
 pubHc or private hands, and either by converting 
 those credits into goods, or by sending them abroad, 
 to place them beyond the reach of the hon. Mem- 
 ber's Bill. What a scene of strife, insolvency, 
 stagnation of business, individual misery, and gene- 
 ral disorder, would ensue ! — All this would precede 
 the passing of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, whilst it 
 was proceeding in its several stages in this, and the 
 other House of Parliament. It would be a waste 
 of the time of the House, to follow the measure in 
 its effects when it should have become the law of 
 the land, because such an event is happily impossi- 
 ble. Let the House give the hon. Member his 
 Committee, after the speech in which he has pro- 
 posed it to night, and I am perfectly sure, that this 
 first step, in furtherance of his object, would, even 
 to-morrow, create such a commencement of stir and 
 alarm in this Metropolis, and very soon in every 
 part of the country, as would induce the hon. 
 Gentleman, himself, to be among the first to pro- 
 claim his abandonment of all such desperate expe- 
 dients. The House, I am sure, must be satisfied of 
 the dangerous principle, and immediate tendency, 
 of such a proposal; but, it may not be altogether 
 inexpedient to examine, a little, the extent to which, 
 as I understand the hon. Member, he would be 
 disposed to go in the execution of his purpose. 
 That extent I take to be, in substance, this : — 
 
 D
 
 2ft 
 
 That he would lower the standard of the currency, iiiy 
 or nearly in, the proportion of the difference between 
 the average price of wheat taken for the period be- 
 tween 1797 and 1819, and the average price 
 between 1819 and the present year : — for instance, 
 if the average price in the latter case should be 45, 
 and in the former 80 shillings ; he would provide 
 that, henceforward, 45 shillings should pass for 80 
 shillings ; and, consequently, that, for every debt 
 or contract now existing, a tender in this proportion' 
 should be a payment in full. 
 
 The hon. Gentleman, in order to pave the way 
 for this proposal, has laboured hard to prove that 
 corn is a better standard than gold. Like most 
 gentlemen who claim to be exclusively practical 
 men, and w^ho rail at those whom they are pleased 
 to designate as theorists, and political economists-— 
 for no other reason than because they argue from 
 principles which their adversaries cannot controvert, 
 and proceed by deductions which they cannot refute 
 or deny — the hon. Member has, himself, launched 
 into some of the wildest theories, and drawn his in- 
 ferences from some of the most extravagant positions* 
 which were ever promulgated in this House. 
 
 As the foundation and groundwork of his plan, 
 he lays down in principle, " that the standard of 
 value in every country, should be that article which 
 forms the constant and most general food of its 
 population ;" and therefore it is, that he fixes upcwi 
 wheat. It follows from this principle, that wheat 
 could not be the standard in Ireland. There potatoes
 
 must be the measure of value. This, indeed, is a 
 novelty even in theory. We heard a great deal, in 
 1811, of fanciful standards — the ideal unit — the ab- 
 stract pound sterling — and so forth ; but who ever 
 heard before of a potatoe standard ? What a beau- 
 tiful simphcity of system, and what facility it would 
 afford to the settlement of all transactions between 
 the two parts of the same empire, to have a wheat 
 standard for the one, and a potatoe standard for 
 the other ! 
 
 I will admit to the hon. Member, that there is no 
 positive and absolute disqualification, either in wheat 
 or potatoes, to prevent the one or the other being 
 a standard of value. Wheat, like any other com- 
 modity, possessing value, is capable of being made 
 the common measure to which the relative value of 
 all other commodities shall be referred, and the 
 common equivalent or medium by the intervention of 
 which, they shall be exchanged the one against the 
 other. But this is only saying, that a given measure 
 of wheat, a bushel for instance, instead of a given 
 quantity of gold, a sovereign for instance, shall h^. 
 the money and legal tender of the country. For 
 such a purpose,"^ for reasons obvious to all who have 
 ever turned their attention to the subject, wheat is 
 one of the commodities the least adapted — always 
 however with the exception of the new Irish 
 standard, potatoes. But the hon. Member, I shall 
 be told, does not propose to make wheat the cur- 
 rency, but only the standard. I am aware of it; but
 
 28 
 
 how does this help his theory ? How can a given 
 weight of gold, of a given fineness, and of a certain 
 denomination, which in this country is now the 
 common measure of all commodities, be itself liable 
 to be varied in weight, fineness, or denomination, 
 according to the exchangeable value of some other 
 commodity, without taking from gold the quality of 
 Money, and transferring it to that other commodity? 
 All that you do is, in fact, to make wheat Money, and 
 gold the representative of that Money, as paper now is 
 of gold. But to say, that one commodity shall be 
 the Money, and another the standard of that Money, 
 betrays a confusion of ideas, and is little short of a 
 contradiction in terms. As well might you propose, 
 that the Winchester bushel should be the measure 
 of corn, and the price of a yard of broad cloth, the 
 standard by which the contents of that bushel should 
 be determined. What the hon. Gentleman, 
 therefore, aims at, as I conceive, is, not that wheat 
 should be either Money or standard ; but that the 
 standard of Money, instead of being fixed, once for 
 all, should be varied, from time to time, according 
 to the price of wheat ; so that if wheat, upon an 
 average of ten or twenty years, should fall, the 
 standard should be lowered, or, what is the same 
 thing, the denomination of our Money be raised, 
 and, vice versa, if wheat should rise, that the 
 standard should be raised. This appeared to me 
 the hon. Member's general doctrine, but perhaps I 
 have mistaken the application of it : for although he
 
 29 
 
 suggests the lowering the standard when the 
 price of wheat falls, I heard nothing about 
 raising it when the price rises : — and, certainly, to 
 do the latter, however called for by reciprocity 
 and justice, would militate against his other leading 
 principle — that the prosperity of a state depends on 
 the gradual but constant depreciation of its currency. 
 One thing, indeed, would rather confirm my suspi- 
 cion that this reciprocity forms no part of his plan ; 
 for, during the twenty years which preceded 1819, 
 we never heard from him, or any other practical 
 gentleman, a proposal to revise the standard, by a 
 comparison of the average price of wheat for ten or 
 twenty years preceding : the result of which might 
 have been, that every Debtor, instead of discharging 
 a debt of 80,y. by the payment of 45*. would have 
 had to pay nearly 80s. for every 45 of his debt, 
 during ten or twenty years to come, according as 
 the one or the other of those terms might have been 
 fixed upon for the periodical revision of the standard. 
 Without stopping to inquire, on the one hand, 
 what would have been the effect of such a a perio. 
 dical revision at stated intervals, since the discovery 
 of the mines of America, or how that effect might 
 be varied hereafter by the future productiveness of 
 those mines ;^and without adverting, on the 
 other hand, to the obvious objection, that, in this 
 attempt to adjust the standard of Money by the 
 price of corn, the precious metals may be 
 stationary in their relative value to other commo-
 
 30 
 
 dities, whilst their variation in respect to corn, may 
 arise from peculiar circumstances bearing upon 
 the price of that commodity, — .such as the growth 
 of wealth and population in any particular coun- 
 try, — its state of dependance or independance of 
 foreign supply, — the state of its corn laws, — its 
 state and relations of peace or war, — the fluctuation 
 of the seasons for a given number of years, — and a 
 variety of other circumstances of which we have 
 witnessed the powerful effects during the late war, 
 and since the restoration of peace. I say, without 
 dwelling on these considerations, I would ask what 
 would be the condition of a civilized and opulent 
 country in which every pecuniary contract was to be 
 revised and altered, every ten, or every twenty years ? 
 The wit of man, I am sure, could not devise a 
 scheme bettter adapted to destroy all confidence and 
 credit. Suppose they could survive it (which how- 
 ever is impossible), to what speculations, and strug- 
 gles, and devices, would not the system give rise, to 
 raise or depress the price of corn, according to the 
 conflicting interests of the parties? If a Corn Law 
 now agitates the country from one end to the other, 
 what would it do then ? With what anxiety would 
 the averages be watched in the last year of the term, 
 and if their fairness be called in question now, what 
 would be the suspicions at a time when every pe- 
 cuniary contract for a pound sterling might be 
 lowered to ] 5s., or raised to 25s. for the next term, 
 according to the striking of that average ? Is this
 
 31 
 
 the visionary plan which the Member for Calhngton 
 (Mr. Attwood) propounds, which the member for 
 Essex inculcates, whilst they are branding their op« 
 ponents as theorists ; because they maintain the good 
 old principle, — that the standard of Money once 
 hxed ought to be immutable; because they consider, 
 it as the guarantee, not only from the State to its own 
 Creditors ; but the pledge, as far as the power of the 
 state can extend, that, in pecuniary dealings between 
 man and man, property shall be respected, and that 
 all contracts entered into with sincerity, shall be 
 settled in good faith, and executed in justice ? 
 
 The first essay of this notable plan, if now adopted, 
 would be founded on an average taken from a period 
 of war, during which the country did not grow corn 
 enough for its own consumption, during which it was 
 afflicted with several harvests calamitously deficient, 
 and forced to draw corn from abroad under every 
 disadvantage of freight and expense, and during the 
 greatest part of which period, too, Ireland was ex- 
 cluded from our market; — compared with an 
 average taken from years of peace and general 
 abundance, and when that abundance, joined to the 
 immense produce of Ireland, has created a glut in 
 all the markets of the empire. 
 
 Several other strange theories and positions were 
 laid down by the hon. Member in the course of 
 his elaborate speech ; but as they do not appear to 
 me to have much connexion with the immediate 
 object of his motion, I shall not waste the patience
 
 32 
 
 of the House by observing upon them at any length. 
 There is one, however, which I cannot help ad- 
 verting to ; because it is a point to which he seemed 
 to attach great importance, and to illustrate by 
 many calculations. That point, if I understand the 
 hon. Member, is this, that we ought to measure 
 the pressure of taxation by the price of corn. " In 
 1813,^' says the hon. Member, " the price of 
 wheat being 108*. 9fi?., and the taxes 74,674,798/. 
 13,733,296 quarters of wheat were sufficient for the 
 payment thereof: in the present year, the price of 
 wheat being 46s. — very nearly double that amount 
 of quarters are necessary to pay the taxes thereof." 
 I wonder, when he was making these comparisons, 
 that he did not extend them to a few other years. If 
 he had, he would have found in 1812, for instance, 
 that the taxes being 70,435,679/. and wheat at the 
 moderate price of 12^5. 6d. — 11,224,809 quarters 
 of wheat were sufficient for the payment thereof. 
 In 1815, that the taxes being 79,948,670/., and the 
 price of wheat only 64*. 4df. — 24,854,508 quarters 
 were requisite for the payment thereof. But, then, 
 1817 was again a prosperous year; for the taxes 
 being reduced to 55,836,259/., and wheat having 
 risen to 945.9c?. — ^11,786,017 were sufficient for 
 the payment thereof. Now, according to this state- 
 ment, the years 1812 and 1817, must have bee?i 
 those of the hghtest pressure, and 1815 and 1821, 
 those in which that pressure was most severe. If 
 distress bordering upon famine, if misery bursting
 
 3^ 
 
 forth in insuiTection, and all the other symptoms of 
 wretchedness, discontent, and difficulty, are to be 
 taken as symptoms of pressure upon the people ; 
 then I should say, that 1812 and 1817 were two 
 years of which no good man can ever wish to wit- 
 ness the like again : but, if all the usual conse- 
 quences of general ease in the great masses of our 
 condensed population, and all the habitual conco- 
 mitants of contented industry, are indications of a 
 better state of things, then I should say, that 1815 
 and 1821 — periods of the severest pressure of tax- 
 ation, according to this new measure of its pressure, 
 — are among those years, in which, judging from 
 their conduct, the labouring parts of the community 
 have had least reason to complain of their situation. 
 The high price of the necessaries of life is, at all 
 times, a delicate topic for public discussion, from 
 thfe misconceptions to which it is liable. I am not 
 one of those who are indiscriminate advocates for 
 cheap bread ; on the contrary, I am ready to main- 
 tain, that a price moderate and reasonable, but, 
 above all, as steady as possible, is most for the inte- 
 rest of the consumer; though I cannot admit that the 
 amount of the public burthens, in any particular 
 year, is in the inverse ratio of the price of corn, or 
 that a scarcity price is a fair test, either of relief 
 generally, or of the alleviation of that particular 
 pressure. This forms no part of my creed of poli- 
 tical economy. Indeed, I should think I was much 
 nearer the truth in contending, that such a price of 
 
 E
 
 corn as that of 1812, instead of mitigating the 
 pressure of the taxes, had a tendency to abridge the 
 profits of capital and the confiforts of the people, in 
 much the same way as they would certainly be 
 abridged by any great addition to the amount of 
 the previously existing taxes. 
 
 The hon. Member, however, is so convinced 
 that, whatever inconvenience the consumers may 
 have experienced from the extreme dearness of corn, 
 they are suffering still more severely from its pre- 
 sent cheapness, that he did not hesitate to offer, in 
 support of this inference, a comparison between 
 the quantity of corn imported into London in the 
 years 1812 and 1821. In 1812, he says, " the 
 quantity imported was 386,921 quarters; and in 
 1821, 365,535 only. Here,'' says the hon. Mem- 
 ber, " it is undeniably proved, that with an increas- 
 ing demand, we should suppose, from a generally 
 increased population, there was a less consumption 
 in 1821, at 50*. a quarter than in 1812, at 125*. a 
 quarter." The quantities may be correct, but the 
 explanation is obvious. In 1812, the country dis- 
 tricts, as well as the metropolis, were fed in a great 
 degree by foreign corn imported into the port of 
 London. In 1821, all the country markets were 
 glutted with corn of our own growth, and the de- 
 mand in Mark-lane being supplied from those mar- 
 kets, it was, of course, limited to the consumption 
 of London. This is the simple solution of the 
 hon. Gentleman's paradox; and I really believe
 
 .15 
 
 that the inference which he has drawn from it is 
 entitled to about as much weight as his unquahfied 
 assertion — " that misery and distress are rapidly in- 
 creasing among all ranks of the people, not except- 
 ing those in humble life; and that the proofs of it 
 are to be found in the great increase of bankruptcy 
 and crime.'* 
 
 Except in the increase of the revenue, I have not 
 the means at hand of refuting, by documents and 
 figures, the gloomy statements of the hon. Mem- 
 ber; but the revenue has certainly increased in all 
 the articles of consumption, and is, I understand, 
 still increasing. The hon. Member must either 
 disprove this fact, or explain how it happens that 
 universal distress leads to an increased consumption 
 of commodities, most of which constitute the com- 
 forts and luxuries of the middling and inferior 
 classes of the community. I believe him to be 
 mistaken in respect to the increase of insolvency 
 and crime. Sure I am, that Great Britain, as far as I 
 can judge, appears to be more quietand easily governed 
 than at almost any period, which I can recollect, of 
 those halcyon days when money was depreciated, 
 and when, from that depreciation, among other 
 evils which it inflicted on the labouring classes, the 
 necessaries of life were not only generally rising, 
 but liable to great and rapid fluctuations, within 
 short intervals of time, to which the price of labour 
 could not accommodate itself. 
 
 Let it not be supposed, however, that I am in-
 
 36 
 
 sensible to the magnitude of the pressure which 
 bears upon other classes of the community. It is, 
 as I have said before in this House, the inevitable 
 consequence of having tampered with the currency. 
 It is an evil which has visited all classes in succes- 
 sion, and from the experience of which, I trust, future 
 times will take a salutary warning. But the hon. 
 Member seems to think this evil has fallen with dis- 
 proportionate severity on the Landed Interest. This 
 I cannot admit. It appears to me that its operation, 
 in this respect, is rather a question of time than of 
 degree, by a comparison with other interests. Dur- 
 ing the progress of depreciation the evil did not 
 reach the land-owner with an unencumbered estate. 
 In the rise of his rents he found a full compensa- 
 tion for the cheapness of Money, aye, more than a 
 compensation, by the excessive speculation to which 
 the stimulus of that cheapness gave rise. If his 
 estate was encumbered, it is obvious that he was 
 relatively still more benefited. By the fall of rents 
 the encumbered estate, in its turn, feels that fall 
 more severely ; but it is as Debtor^ in common and 
 in the same degree only with all other debtors, that 
 the interest of the land-owner is affected. Taking 
 the land-owner, therefore, abstractedly from any 
 pecuniary engagements, he has been the most fa- 
 voured class of the community. During the de- 
 preciation he was compensated to its full amount ; 
 and he is no loser if he gives up that compensation, 
 now that the evil which it countervailed no longer
 
 37 
 
 exists. To this extent a fall of rent is to him no 
 injury, although it will diminish the nominal nett 
 income paid into his banker's hands. On this 
 point of rent, I know what prejudices and alarms 
 exist at this moment ; I know that it is a tender 
 subject in this House ; I know by how many other 
 circumstances, independent of depreciation, the 
 rents of land may be varied ; and I also know the 
 inconvenience of indulging in predictions on public 
 matters ; but I feel the opinion so confidently, that 
 I will not hesitate to state it — that, after the struggle 
 incident to the present re-adjustment of rents shall 
 be over, the result of that re-adjustment, speaking 
 generally, will be a very considerable permanent 
 increase upon the rental of 1797 ' — and I state this 
 opinion with the more assurance of its being 
 realized, because such an increase is the natural 
 consequence of circumstances unconnected with 
 depreciation, and over which the return to cash 
 payments can have no control. Taking, therefore, 
 the land-owner, simply as such, with his income 
 doubled during the war, to meet depreciation ; and 
 with his income, when that depreciation ceases, 
 considerable larger than when it began, is there any 
 other class which has escaped with so little injury ? 
 It is no answer to this question, to talk of increased 
 taxation, and the local burthens upon the land. 
 These are evils greatly to be lamented; but the com- 
 parison is between the 7ieti Money income of the 
 landlord, available for his own purposes after idi
 
 5^ 
 
 local burthens have been paid, and the nett income 
 of another member of the community, for instance, 
 the annuitant. Both are liable to the same general 
 taxation ; and the 100/. received from land, or the 
 100/. derived from the funds, have no preference or 
 distinction in this respect. 
 
 There is, indeed, I state it with deep regret, ano- 
 ther class, connected with the land, whose losses 
 are more severe, and whose reverse of fortune is 
 one of the greatest calamities which the deprecia- 
 tion, in its consequences, has inflicted upon the 
 country. I mean the Tenantry. For that most 
 meritorious body of men, I feel the greatest com- 
 passion. But here again the same distinction applies 
 as in the case of the land-lord, between the tenant car- 
 rying on business upon his own capital, and the 
 tenant under pecuniary engagements. Suppose 
 the former to have commenced business in the year 
 1797, with a stock of his own worth 1,000/., and 
 money at the end of ten years from that time, 
 to have been depreciated 50 per cent, his stock 
 would then have been nominally worth 1,500/., 
 but, in fact, he would not have been one 
 penny the richer, all other commodities having 
 risen in the same proportion : and, if money had 
 then been restored to its former value, his stock 
 would again have become nominally 1,000/. with- 
 out his being in reality one penny the poorer. But 
 if he had borrowed that 1,000/. and at the end of 
 ten years had reckoned himself (as he had a right to
 
 39 
 
 do) worth 500/. more than he owed, that gain is 
 now lost, though the capital in both cases remains 
 the same. Still worse if he borrowed the 1,000/. 
 during the depreciation, he is now insolvent. In 
 this illustration, the House will trace the progress 
 of the evils growing out of a Depreciating Currency. 
 The man who has borrowed 1,000/. and finds it in- 
 crease to 1,500/. naturally concludes that he has 
 been very successful in business. — He enlarges his 
 expenses, and style of living — his neighbour, who 
 witnesses his prosperity, is tempted to follow his 
 course ; and hence arises a spirit of competition 
 which raises the rent of land far beyond even the 
 quantum of the depreciation. The same state of 
 things which led to this eager disposition to borrow, 
 created also an unbounded facility lo lend. What 
 was the result upon the moral habits and feelings of 
 the community ? The sober expectations of industry, 
 together with the old maxims and prudent courses 
 by which those expectations have heretofore been 
 realized, were neglected and exploded. — Profit from 
 depreciation became confounded with the legiti- 
 mate return of capital, and, in too many instances, 
 the ancient spirit of the British tenantry degenerated 
 into dashing speculation, and consequent extrava- 
 gance. But, will any man say, that the gain arising 
 from a constantly growing depreciation, is the fair 
 profit of industry, that it is the profit which the law 
 intended to countenance or encourage, or that such 
 a principle, if once avowed, would not soon defeat
 
 40 
 
 or destroy itself? Can there be a man so short- 
 sighted as to beheve, that, in the state in which we 
 found ourselves at the close of the war, we could 
 content ourselves with doing nothing ? There was 
 no alternative between resorting again to a fixed 
 standard of value, or going on in a career of con- 
 stantly increasing depreciation, which must have 
 hurried the country at last to a general catastrophe ; 
 for, I believe, there is no instance of an opulent 
 country led away by such a delusion, where it has 
 not ended in a convulsion of the property, and ge- 
 nerally of the power, of the state. 
 
 Having to make an option between these oppo- 
 site courses, Parhament in 1819, resolved to return 
 to the ancient standard of value. It is this decision 
 which the hon. Member arraigns, and proposes to 
 you to rescind. It would be difficult for him to 
 contend, that it was not the most manly and the 
 most honest course ; and, I think, he has failed to 
 prove that it was not, under all circumstances, the 
 wisest and the best. Could I entertain a doubt in 
 that respect (which I own I do not), it would by no 
 means follow that we ought to undo in 1822 that 
 which we had done in 1819 ; and when we have 
 undergone all the sufferings and privations incident 
 to the restoration of health, that we should again 
 plunge into the same vicious indulgences and irregu- 
 larities as had first brought on the disease. 
 
 In deciding upon a matter of state policy, of this 
 complicated and delicate nature, we cannot do
 
 41 
 
 better than to take experience for our guide ; be- 
 cause, in looking to the opinions of the wisest phi- 
 losophers, and the proceedings of the greatest states- 
 men of former days, under similar circumstances, 
 we may at least be sure that we are resorting to au- 
 thorities entitled in all respects to the greatest de- 
 ference, but, above all, from their being free from 
 the possible suspicion of their judgments being in- 
 fluenced by the prejudices, the passions, and the 
 interests of the present day. I feel it necessary, on 
 this occasion, to resort to these authorities, not on 
 these grounds only, but because I have heard again 
 from the hon. Member to night, an assertion which 
 astonished me when it was first made, in a former 
 debate, by the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir 
 F. Burdett), " that nothing hke this Depreciation 
 " and Restoration of the Currency ever occurred in 
 " any country before'^ — an assertion which astonished 
 me the more, as, if my memory does not deceive 
 me, that hon. Baronet referred, on the same occa- 
 sion, to the occurrences of King William's reign. 
 Now, Sir, I affirm, without fear of contradiction. 
 First, that the state of the Currency in King Wil- 
 liam's time, prior to the year 1696, was, in princi- 
 ciple, exactly similar to the state in which it was 
 prior to the year 1819. Secondly, that the Resto- 
 ration of that Currency in the year 1696, was a 
 measure precisely similar, in principle, to the pre- 
 sent Restoration of our ancient standard [of value. 
 Tliirdly, that it brought upon the country difficulties 
 
 F
 
 4g 
 
 precisely of the same nature : and lastly, that the 
 remedies then proposed for those difficulties, and 
 rejected by Parliament, as I trust the remedies now 
 proposed will be rejected, were exactly the same as 
 those which are in the contemplation of the hon. 
 Member. 
 
 No man can read the writers and historians of those 
 days, or the Journals of Parliament, without being- 
 aware that the Currency was then greatly debased ; so 
 much so, that the Current Price of the ounce of silver 
 (in the silver coin of the realm, then the only legal 
 tender) fluctuated from 6s. 3d. to near 7*., whilst the 
 standard or coinage price was 5*. 2d. Is not this, 
 in principle, the same depreciation as that which we 
 have witnessed in our time ? In this state of things, 
 parliament in the month of December 1695, ad- 
 dressed the king to take measures for the restoration 
 of a Sound Currency. What were those measures.^ — 
 the calling in of all the clipped coin (which, having 
 lost nearly half its standard weight, till then had 
 passed at its full nominal value), and recoining it 
 of full weight according to the ancient standard. 
 Again, is not this, in principle, precisely what we 
 have lately done ? To show that the Currency was 
 then as much depreciated as I have stated (a depre- 
 ciation at least equal to any which we have experi- 
 enced, taken at its most exaggerated estimate), it is 
 sufficient to mention, that it appears, by a return 
 made from the Mint at that time, that 572 bags of 
 the silver coin called in, which ought to have
 
 43 
 
 weighed 221,418 ounces, did actually weigh only 
 113,771, leaving a deficiency of 107,647, or very 
 nearly one half. 
 
 In respect to my third position, that this Restora- 
 tion of the standard by King William, brought upon 
 the country difficulties of a similar nature to those 
 which are now complained of, I might content 
 myself with referring to historical memoirs, which 
 have been long known to the world. But the 
 recent publication of a most interesting Correspond- 
 ence between King William and his Minister, the 
 Duke of Shrewsbury, so strikingly displays the extent 
 of those difficulties, and so directly proves, atthesame 
 time, and in the most authentic maner, my last position 
 — that the remedies suggested were similar to those 
 which are now proposed ; — that I am sure the House 
 will permit me to read to them a few short extracts 
 from that Correspondence. For its publication the 
 world is immediately indebted to arch-deacon Coxe, 
 who introduces this part of it with the following 
 statement. Speaking of the year 1696, he writes as 
 follows: "The evils arising from the dilapidated 
 *' state of the coinage had been so long and deeply 
 *' felt, that in tho preceding year, an act had 
 " passed for the immediate recoinage of the silver 
 ** money which was clipped, and otherwise much 
 ** decreased in value. The measures, however, 
 *' which were adopted to accomplish so desirable 
 *' a purpose, created a great, though temporary 
 •* aggravation of the evil : for such a check to the
 
 44 
 
 "circulation immediately ensued, that all the ope- 
 '* rations of trade were cramped, the collection of the 
 " public supplies was suspended, guineas were 
 " raised to the value of 30 shillings, and paper cur- 
 " rency was reduced to an alarming discount : Bank 
 '* notes falling 20, and tallies and other government 
 *' securities 60 per cent. By these causes the army 
 '* was deprived of its regular pay and supplies; 
 *' and the letters of the King feelingly detail 
 " the mischievous consequences which ensued/^ 
 Here we see, that the evil, like the depreciation 
 which it has fallen to our lot to remedy, had been 
 of long standing; and I think this description of its 
 effects, does not fall short even of the most 
 desponding and exaggerated pictures of our present 
 difficulties. In fact the fall of prices, upon the then 
 Restoration of the standard, was quite as great as 
 upon the present occasion. The guinea, which was 
 then a commodity fluctuating in its current value 
 according to the price of bullion, fell from 30,9. to 
 2U. 6r/.— -Wool from 36s. to 20^. a tod, and all 
 other commodities in nearly the same proportion. 
 But let us refer to the Correspondence itself. On 
 the 15th of May 1696, we find the Duke of 
 Shrewsbury writing to the King as follows ; " Upon 
 " the receipt of your Majesty's commands this 
 " morning, I engaged the rest of the justices to re-- 
 " present the case of the army abroad, to my Lord 
 " Godolphin, but found your Majesty's new letter 
 " to him, had made him sufficiently sensible of theiy
 
 45 
 
 *' condition. We discoursed this morning with 
 *' several of the most eminent goldsmiths, and with 
 ** some of the Bank, and had the dismalest accounts 
 " from them of the state of credit in this town, and 
 " of the effects it would soon have upon all the 
 *' traders in money : none of them being able to 
 " propose a remedy, except letting the parliament 
 " sit in June" (an inconvenience it would seem 
 much dreaded by our ancestors in this House, but 
 to which we submit with resignation), " and en- 
 " acting the dipt money to go again, the very hopes 
 " of which locks up all the gold and good Money, 
 " and would be to undo all that has been done." 
 
 Enacting the dipt Money to go again ! undoing 
 all that has been done! Is not this precisely what 
 the hon. Member points at by his Motion of this 
 evening? 
 
 I [shall now read a very short extract from a 
 letter of the King to the Duke of Shrewsbury, 
 written after he had received a communication from 
 the Lords Justices to the same effect as the above. 
 " Camp of Altere, 20th July, 1696. The letter 
 " from the Lords Justices, of the 14th, has quite 
 '* overcome me, and I know not where I am, since 
 *' at present I see no resource which can prevent the 
 '• Army from mutiny or total desertion.^' On the 
 28th July, after holding another council, the Duke 
 of Shrewsbury writes to the King as follows : ** It 
 " was universally the opinion of all here, that a 
 " Session in your absence, and in the divisions the
 
 46 
 
 '* Nation labours under now, would produce nothing 
 " but heat among themselves, and petitions from 
 *' all the Counties about the state of the money ; 
 " that they could afford little help as to a present 
 " supply^ but by the expectation they would raise, 
 *' that dipt Money should be Current again, or a 
 *' recompense allowed for it; that the Standard 
 " should be advanced^ and the price of Guineas im- 
 " proved.'' Would not the House almost suppose, 
 that instead of reading a dispatch dated in 1696, I 
 was describing, from some letter written during the 
 present Session, the feelings which parts of the 
 Country have expressed, and the advice which the 
 weakness of some individuals has suggested for our 
 present difficulties? I will only read one short 
 extract from the answer of King William to this 
 letter; it is dated, " Camp at Altere, 6th August, 
 1696." *' May God relieve us from our present 
 " embarrassment ; for I cannot suppose it is his 
 *' will to suffer a Nation to perish, which he has so 
 " often almost miraculously saved/' 
 
 When we reflect, that this extract is not taken 
 from a Speech to Parliament, or any document in- 
 tended to meet the public eye, but from a confi- 
 dential letter from a King to his Minister and 
 friend, the pious confidence which it breathes, and 
 the beautiful simplicity of the language in which 
 that confidence is expressed, are equally calculated 
 to raise the general character of that great Prince in 
 our estimation. But let us see a little, in more im-
 
 47 
 
 mediate reference to the present subject, under 
 what circumstances this affecting letter was written. 
 It was written at the head of his Army by a King 
 not insensible to mihtary glory. But, was military 
 glory all that King William had then at stake? 
 Was he not at the head of that Army to defend 
 his native land from the encroachments of an 
 ambitious and too-powerful neighbour ? Was he 
 not engaged in a struggle for the liberties of this 
 Country — for the liberties of Europe — and (as far 
 as a personal object could weigh with him in such 
 a struggle) for the Crown of England, which had 
 been placed upon his head by the Revolution of 
 1688 ? It was in order to procure the pecuniary 
 means of sustaining that struggle, that in the Spring 
 of I696, he had sent the Earl of Portland to Eng- 
 land. After long consultations with the Ministers, 
 with the Bank, with the Monied Interest, that 
 noble person returned to the King, confirming the 
 Reports of his Council, that no mode of extricating 
 him from his difficulties could be suggested, except 
 that which we have already seen described, namely, 
 '■' the re-issuing of the Clipped Money, and the 
 " undoing all that has been done.'' Did King 
 William listen to this suggestion, and dishonour his 
 reign by lowering the Standard of our Money ? 
 No, Sir. He was a man that knew how to meet 
 adversity. His life had been one continued struggle 
 with difficulties ; but it had been the fixed rule of 
 that life to encounter them with an unsliaken
 
 48 
 
 fortitude, and a rigid adherence to what he con- 
 sidered to be right. This was the quahty of his 
 mind without which his other virtues would have 
 lost all their lustre, a quality which did not forsake 
 him on this most trying occasion. 
 
 Instead of re-dispatching the Earl of Portland to 
 England to concert measures "/or undoing all that 
 " had been done,'' he sent him privately to sound 
 Louis 14th, and to endeavour to bring about a 
 negotiation for peace; and coming himself to Eng- 
 land, he met his Parliament on the 20th October, 
 1696. In his Speech from the Throne on that 
 day, he earnestly called their attention to the state 
 of the Currency, and the difficulties in which the 
 Country was, in consequence, involved. At that 
 period, this subject agitated the Country from one 
 end to the other. The Secretary of the Treasury 
 Mr. Lowndes, had recommended the lowering the 
 Standard from 6s. 2d, to 6s. 3d. the ounce of Silver 
 — an operation equivalent to the lowering of the 
 Gold Standard, at this time, from 3/. I7s. \0^d. to 
 41. I4s. 6d., — a degree of depreciation which, to 
 begin with, would, I believe, almost satisfy even 
 the hon. Member for CaUington. The popular 
 feehng was all on the side of this advice. That 
 feeling was manifested in petitions from several 
 counties, and most of the great towns. But, did 
 Parliament adopt this advice ? Far from it. With 
 true wisdom, on the very first day of the Meeting, 
 immediately after voting an Address in answer to
 
 40 
 
 the Speecii from the Throne, on that same 20th of 
 October, 1 696, Mr. Montague, the then Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, proposed, and Parhament 
 adopted, the following resolution : — " That this 
 " House will not alter the Standard of the Gold and 
 " Silver Coins of this Kingdom in fineness, weight, 
 *' or denomination." The circumstance of cominsr 
 to a resolution of this importance, on the very first 
 day of the Meeting, is the more remarkable, as in 
 those times, the Address, in answer to the Speech, 
 was sometimes not voted till some days after the 
 opening ; but the Ministers of King William felt 
 the great importance of removing all doubts, and of 
 at once settling the Public mind on this point. We 
 know what followed. The ancient standard was 
 maintained ; the difficulties gradually subsided, and 
 ever}" thing finding its proper level, all the transac- 
 tions of the country were restored to their former 
 facility. " The receiving [i. e. the calling in) the 
 *' silver money,*' says a writer of that period, 
 " could not but occasion much hardship and many 
 " complaints among the people ; yet the greatest 
 " part attributed this to the necessity of affairs, and 
 " began to hope, both from the prospect of a peace, 
 " and wisdom of those at the helm, that they should 
 " enjoy more favourable times." 
 
 We are now fortunately in the enjoyment of a 
 peace dictated by ourselves, and I trust likely to be 
 durable; but it must be admitted (the Shrewsbury 
 
 G
 
 50 
 
 Correspqndence leaves no doubt upon the subject), 
 that the peace of Ryswick, a peace by no means of 
 the same lofty character, was hastened by the diffi- 
 culties incident to the Restoration of the Currency. 
 By that peace most of the objects of the war were 
 either sacrificed or postponed. It was considered 
 at the time as little better than a hollow truce, sub- 
 mitted to from necessity. But this only confirms 
 the paramount importance which the government of 
 King William attached to the Restoration of the 
 Currency. Their view of the peace of Ryswick was 
 certainly a just one ; and we all know that, after a 
 few years of a feverish armistice, it was followed by 
 a long and arduous war. If I refer at all to that 
 war (the war of the Succession), it is to recall the 
 recollection of the great share and the glorious ex- 
 ertions of England in that contest ; and to satisfy 
 the House, that whatever were the streights to which 
 the country was reduced in I696, the firm and wise 
 resolution then adopted was not incompatible with 
 the speedy restoration of prosperity and power. If, 
 in 1696, this House, having then so recently restored 
 the ancient land-marks of property, refused, under > 
 the strongest temptation, both from the state of the 
 war on the Continent, and from popular feeling at 
 home, again to alter them ; shall we, after those same 
 land -marks have now been replaced for three years, 
 adopt a measure, which would be as fatal to our na- 
 tional character, as it would to the security of indi-
 
 51 
 
 vidual possession, to the maintenance of credit in 
 private dealings, and to the very existence of the 
 public credit of the state ? 
 
 When projects of this nature are afloat out of 
 doors, and when they are now propounded to this 
 House, shall we, with such mighty interests at 
 stake, hesitate to manifest our firm determination to 
 maintain the present standard of value ? Shall we 
 shrink from the precedent of 1696 ? I am as little 
 disposed as any man to call upon parliament to bind 
 itself to any general or abstract principles, but I 
 own this appears to me an occasion for such a pro- 
 ceeding. Under that impression, however conscious 
 of the humble station which I hold in this House 
 and in the country, and of its immeasureable dis- 
 tance from that held by the great man by whom the 
 resolution of 1 696 was moved ; but with the same 
 feelings for the honour and best interests of my 
 country, which actuated his bosom on that occasion ; 
 I shall conclude (thanking the House for their in- 
 dulgence) by proposing to amend the motion of the 
 honourable Member, by substituting for it the reso- 
 lution of 1696 ; viz., " That this House will not 
 alter the Standard of Gold or Silver, in fineness, 
 weight, or denomination.'' 
 
 T. C. Hansard, Pbinteb, 
 Pcterboro'-court, Fleet -street, London.
 
 wmmsm:-
 
 ''■■"^^^sMMMvS^^

 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112 062406811