DEPRECIATION OF THE GOLD COINAGE.

HC Deb 20 June 1842 vol 64 cc198-233

On the motion to read the Order of the Day for going into committee on the Poor-law Bill,

Mr. C. Buller:

As there was no other opportunity, he must now call the attention of the House to the state of the gold coinage, and to the proclamation issued by her Majesty's Government, by which that coinage had been affected. He was about to do it perfectly in order, and in conformity, he believed, with the strict rules of the House, by stating it as the ground of his objection to the reading of the Order of the Day, that whilst such a question was agitating the public mind, without any explanation from the Government, it was not proper that any other business should be proceeded with. He was exceedingly glad that there appeared to be no intention on the part of the Government to offer any objections to his taking this course; for, of all things, he should most deprecate a squabble about forms in a matter which ought to be discussed as much as possible without party feeling. He had no desire on the present occasion merely to criminate the Government, though it would certainly be his duty, in conformity with his opinion on this subject, to state his disapproval of the conduct which they had pursued, and to state the grounds on which he deemed that conduct improper. He hoped the House would bear with him patiently, as this was a matter of deep moment to the whole community, and, above all, to the poorest classes in the community. He heard the other day, when the hon. Member for Essex talked about the poor not being willing to take gold, that it caused a laugh, as if the idea of a poor man receiving or refusing gold could not be entertained without ridicule. The fact was, that the gold coin was required for all the small daily and weekly payments of the country above 20s., these payments being habitually made in gold. In this metropolis a vast proportion of the working classes received more than 20s. of weekly wages on Saturday in gold. Wages even of 10s. were paid in gold. The matter affected chiefly the working classes and the retail traders. The payments of the rich were made chiefly in bank notes, and by checks on the banker, credit in a great measure superseding with them the use of gold. But upon those engaged in petty retail business the weight, in great part of such a change as this fell. Now, he thought it necessary to state very distinctly what it was he complained of in the conduct of the Government, what was the nature of the proclamation, and what, as it struck him, were its effects. On the 3rd of June her Majesty's Government, without any previous notice, preparing the public mind, issued a proclamation, warning the public, that there was a great quantity of light gold in circulation, calling on the officers of the Government to enforce the law with respect to clipping and defacing the coin, and calling on her Majesty's subjects, generally, to do the same. There was no statement made in that proclamation of what was the law of cutting and defacing bad coin. It was vaguely referred to small retail traders of this metropolis, to a man with a tripe shop in Whitechapel, or to a baker in Tothil-street, to consider what the law was. When the House came to consider what the law was, they would find it was one which might lead them into very serious errors; which would make them, and not the counterfeiters of money, the sufferers—and it would appear questionable, whether the proclamation did not recommend a rather improper course to be taken. The proclamation was general and directed against the whole gold coin of the country. It was since understood that it applied specifically to the coin of the reign of George 3rd and George 4th. The effect, however, was to discredit the whole gold coinage of those reigns. Nobody could, after that proclamation, safely take those coins, as they had been taken for twenty-five years, merely by number, on the supposition that the impression was proof, not only of the fineness, but also of the weight. Every one was reduced to the necessity of taking them by weight. The effect must be that gold coin would be paid in in large sums to the Bank of England and to the Government officers authorised to receive it. It would drive the whole of that money out of circuculation, and, in fact, the proclamation amounted to a calling-in of the gold coinage of the reigns of George 3rd and George 4th. As that was done because the coin was depreciated, the loss of the depreciation would fall on those who were holders of the coin on the 3rd of June, when the proclamation was issued. Those persons were, as he had said, chiefly the poorer retail tradesmen, and a great many of the working classes. Now, in the first place, it appeared to him, upon every general principle, utterly improper that this loss should fall on the accidental holders of the coin. What was the cause of the deficiency of weight? They had heard a great many stories of plugging and sweating, and other processes by which the coin had been worn down. But he believed, the general opinion among all persons of authority on the subject was, that at present, though there had been some frauds on the gold coin, the principal deficiency was occasioned by wear and tear during twenty-five years circulation. It was monstrous, that such a loss should fall upon the accidental holder. Was it the fault of the accidental holder on the 3rd of June, that the coin had been reduced in twenty-five years of wearing? How could they know of the mischief that had been going on for that twenty-five years. They had committed no fault in the matter, and there was no justice in making the punishment fall on them? What was the good of it? Compare the infliction of this loss with other penalties. Whom would it deter? Would it deter the persons who played tricks with the coin—who plugged and deteriorated it—would they be deterred by the loss of the accidental holder? The persons who played those tricks with the coin always took care to get it as soon as possible out of their possession, and they were certain not to be injured. The person who damaged the coin would get rid of it at once, to prevent discovery. Therefore, the loss would fall almost entirely on the innocent, and it could have no good effect in deterring people from the commission of the offence. It was a loss very heavy to be borne by the individuals who held the deteriorated coin, while the amount would have been little felt if it had been suffered to fall on the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, that the average depreciation was 3d. in the sovereign, or about one-and-a-half per cent. It appeared, that there were about 6,000,000 of deteriorated sovereigns in the country, and the loss on them at one-and-a-half per cent, amounted to 90,000l. —a sum which he would not wish to see squandered away—but a sum very light for this country to pay for so great an object, as that of avoiding any doubt about the goodness of the coin of the realm. After all, this question was not to be argued as a matter of strict right between the public and individuals. The Government could not turn round upon individuals and tell them, "You have no law on your side, and we will take the utmost advantage we can against you." The custom of talking of the Government as one individual, and the whole community as another, did not justify the enforcement of the extreme rights of the former against the latter. The present was a question of policy. It was a question as to the party upon whom the loss might most conveniently fall; and he said, upon every ground of justice and expediency, it ought to be borne by the Government, as the representative of the public, and not on the individual holders of the coin. In impugning the plan adopted by the Government, he would not hesitate to state the course which he thought ought to have been adopted. In the first place, he wished to impress on the House that he was not condemning the course which the Government had taken upon any new-fangled notions of his own, but in accordance with every precedent at every period of our history, and every principle which had been laid down by the first Ministers of the Crown in this country, who had been always anxious to spare the public loss attendant upon renewals of the coinage. He ventured to say, that he could prove this distinctly from the course pursued by Parliament with respect to every re-coinage which had taken place since the Revolution. In every period of our history, a distinction had been made by Government between the loss occasioned by reasonable wear, and that caused by other means. The Government in every case, since the time of Elizabeth, and he believed since Henry 8th, specially exempted from loss those who held coin that was depreciated by reasonable wear. The 19th of Henry 7th, made this distinction between loss from reasonable wear, and that caused by clipping or otherwise diminishing the coin. The 29th of Elizabeth likewise enacted, that an abatement should be made for reasonable wear, and the amount was determined which was considered likely to be produced by reasonable wear. Various subsequent proclamations, down to the time of William 3rd, were issued on the same principle. There was a curious instance of the allowance for reasonable wear, contrasted with the course pursued by the Government on the present occasion. He found in the very last case, in which reasonable wear had been defined, and it was exactly the amount of depreciation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lately stated to have taken place. The royal proclamation of the 12th of April, 1776, issued at the time of the re-coinage of the gold currency, ordered gold coins to be current, though diminished by reasonable wear; and the amount allowed for reasonable wear was 1 l-10th per cent, or something near the present depreciation. The 14th of George 3rd, passed about the same time, made the same distinction in favour of deficiency from reasonable wear. He must say, that when her Majesty's Government issued orders to the officers of the revenue to cut and deface every sovereign and half sovereign which they might find light, they made their officers incur some peril; for, if they made any mistake in the weight, they would have had to pay the holders of such coin for the loss. A law, passed in 1832, enacted when gold or silver coin was tendered, which was suspected to have been diminished otherwise than by reasonable wear, the person to whom it was tendered, might cut, break, or otherwise deface it; but if the piece of coin so treated were found afterwards of due weight, the person cutting or defacing it was to receive it at the rate which it had been coined for. This enactment might have thrown the loss of coin, only diminished by reasonable wear, upon those who ventured to cut or deface them. But what was much more important, and what he wanted to point out to the House, from the whole history of the coinage of this country since the Revolution was, that in all cases where the old coinage was called in, and fresh coinage issued, that the deficiency had been borne by the public, and not by the individual holders. He had not found any precedent of a contrary nature, and he ventured to say that those which he could produce were perfectly decisive as to the principle which had been acted upon by the different Governments since the Revolution. We had, since that period, had three great re-coinages in this country. The first was in the time of William 3rd, in 1696, and in reference to that he would read an extract from Lord Liverpool's work on the coinage, which was allowed to be a work of standard authority. The hon. Gentleman read the extract, in which Lord Liverpool said that the Government bore all the loss of that transaction. He had never been able to obtain an account of the loss incurred by the deficiency of the old silver coinage, and the charges of the Mint for re-coinage, but that deficiency was enormous. The nation was then in the utmost distress and confusion, and the people were willing that any amount should be paid out of the public purse to relieve them from the difficulties and embarrassments which they were suffering in ordinary commercial intercourse. Such was the statement. Now, he readily agreed that the precedent of William 3rd was not one to be copied. At that time the Mint was ill-managed; and the business was not well done in spite of all the care of the Government. There was no doubt that while the old coinage was being called in, the practice of clipping went on, and the public was grossly cheated. But on account of the losses which the public thus sustained, did the Government of this country, on the next occasion of re-coinage, say that the whole loss should fall on the innocent holders of coin? The next great re-coinage was in 1774. What the deficiency on that occasion was, Lord Liverpool said would appear from the book of the Treasury. It was impossible to get at those books, excepting, perhaps, by moving that they should be printed for the use of Members, which would be rather expensive. The plan adopted by the Government on that occasion would be best seen from certain resolutions adopted by the House of Commons, to which be begged leave to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were as follows:— That the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, be called in by degrees: and that it is proper to proceed therein as fast as the occasions of circulation will allow, and as the officers of the Mint are able to re-coin the same. That, for the purpose of calling in the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, it is proper that certain days be appointed, after which they shall not be allowed in payment, or to pass, except only to the collectors and receivers of the public revenues, or to such persons as shall be appointed by his Majesty to receive and exchange the same; and that certain other days be appointed, after which they be not allowed to pass in any payment whatsoever, or to be exchanged in manner before-mentioned. That all such guineas half guineas, and quarter guineas, be re-coined according to the established standard Of the Mint, both as to weight and fineness. These were the specific provisions for calling in the old coin and re-coining it. And upon whom was the loss to fall? The 9th resolution was as follows: — That the public bear the loss arising from the deficiency and re-coinage of the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, provided such deficiency does not exceed the rates settled by the order of the commissioners of his Majesty'a Treasury, of the 23rd of July last, and provided they be offered in payment to the receivers or collectors of the public revenue, or are brought to such person or persons as shall be authorised to receive and exchange the same, within the times to be appointed according to the foregoing resolutions. There was thus a specific undertaking by the Government of the country, that it should bear the whole loss of the re-coinage. He had not been able to make out the amount, and Lord Liverpool said he could not ascertain how much it was. But he found in Macpherson's "Annals of Commerce," that in the estimates for 1774 there was a sum of charged for making good the deficiency of the coinage, and that was separate from all expense of the re-coinage. It was the deficiency occasioned by the light weight of the guineas. In 1777 he found a further sum of 105,000l. for deficiency and for re-coinage; so that supposing the two sums to represent the whole expense, it would be 151,000l. The next great instance of re-coinage was that of silver in 1816. There was no gold coinage at that time, for a very sufficient reason, that there was no gold to re-coin. In the year 1816 the silver coinage was more depreciated than was ever known before. The Government determined to call it all in and re-coin it. Did they adopt the views of the present Government, that the holders should bear the loss? They did no such thing. It was provided that the loss should fall on the public funds of the country. The amount of silver coin called in on that occasion was 2,500,000l. It was stated by Lord Liverpool, in his speech on the subject, that the depreciation on that coinage was no less than 30 per cent. The sixpence was, in most cases, not worth more than 3½d. Taking the deficiency at 30 per cent., the loss on 2,500,000l. was 750,000l. That loss was borne by the public in 1816. He had now the advantage of speaking to a Conservative Government who venerated the wisdom of the past, and the principles laid down by former Tory Mi- nisters. He could not, therefore, do better than read to them the principle on which Lord Liverpool said the Government proceeded on that occasion. In his speech to the House of Lords in May, 1816, he said:— With regard to indemnity, he felt disposed to propose, and he was sure the House would feel disposed to adopt, the most liberal principles. Their Lordships were aware that when a new coinage was issued in other countries and the old currency called in, the Government received the deteriorated money from the holders of it by weight, and not by tale; so that the public incurred the loss that accrued from the wearing or clipping of it when in circulation. It became the Government and Legislature of this country to be more liberal. This was before the Reform Bill. Well, what did he propose?— He proposed, therefore, that all the silver Which could be considered as legal tender, by having the proper marks, should be received at its current value when called in. The same principle was laid down by another great authority, who might have been consulted before the late proclamation was so rashly issued—he meant Lord Maryborough, who, as Mr. Wellesley Pole, introduced the subject to the House of Commons in May, 1816, and said:— The public had for a very long series of years been left Without any regular supply of silver coinage; the consequence was, that the coin of the realm, by wearing and the various accidents to which time infallibly renders the precious metals liable, must be very much reduced in its value; and yet the people had no alternative but to receive it in circulation. It Would, therefore, be an extreme hardship to allow them to suffer for What might be called the fault of Government. He should therefore feel it his duty to propose the exchange of all the coin of the realm in circulation, however reduced it might be in weight. This, be It observed, was said when the reduction Was far greater than l½ per cent. Mr. Wellesley Pole added:— But while, on the one hand, he was anxious to preserve the public from so heavy a loss, he was, On the other, equally desirous that Individuals, particularly those of the poorer classes, should suffer as little as possible. It was, he feared, however, quite impossible to prevent many persons from sustaining a loss from the calling in of the old coin; all that Government could do was to make the burden as light as possible. Thus at that time every man who had a shilling with any mark upon it of having come from the Mint, might present it to persons who were appointed in thousands through the country for the purpose, and receive a perfectly new coin in return. Possibly her Majesty's Government might make out that all this told against him. They might say that the operation of Lord Liverpool in 1816 was an example to deter rather than a precedent to be followed; that it was proper to adopt an entirely new course, instead of following the example of the Tory Government of that time. He would only say, that to the principle of that Government the objection was fifteen times as strong then as it was now, because the deficiency as then fifteen times as great. It might be said that the Government of 1816 did not pursue the same course with respect to the gold coinage. It should be remembered that upon the first issue of the present sovereigns and half-sovereigns, there were no sovereigns to call in. The coinage of gold at that time could not be drawn into a precedent. It was not are-coinage, but an entirely new coinage. There was no old gold to be sent in. The whole amount of gold in the country, in 1816, was about half a million. A report of the House of Lords of that time, states there was in the Bank about50,000,000 in notes and silver, leaving gold out of consideration as being of so little importance. The fact was, therefore, that no allowance was made for gold, because there was no gold to make allowance for. He said that in condemning the course of the Government he would point out that which he thought ought to have been taken. He thought they ought to have adopted, as nearly as possible, the course pursued by former Governments with respect to re-coinage. He knew the objection which would be made—that if Government said they would call in the coin on a certain day, receiving by tale and not by weight, good sovereigns and light ones indiscriminately, all the fraudulent practices of cutting, clipping, and sweating, would come into full operation. But might not the Government have avoided this by taking some time about the measure, and by proceeding without making what they were doing public? Granted that the depreciation of the coin was an evil, and that the Government was bound to put a stop to it, the evil did not require to be stopped in a moment. It was not an evil until it became generally known. What made the depreciation now so intolerable was the Government declaring that the coin was light. This alarmed everybody, and gave rise to the utter discredit of the gold coin at the present moment. Suppose the Government had said to the Bank of England, "Whenever you receive a light sovereign—a sovereign not depreciated by more than 1½per cent., take it, and we will give you a good sovereign for it." The light gold would have been gradually got in, and the whole loss to the Government would have been about 90,000l., as he said before. It might have taken two or three years to get in the old coinage in this way. Sovereigns depreciated more than 1½per cent. might be refused. The public would thus learn that a very small quantity of the gold coinage was below weight, and fraudulent persons would find that they would gain nothing by deteriorating the coin below the amount he had stated. It would be said that some time hence the same thing would be to do over again, for the same frauds would be practised with this new coin. He really believed that the Government of this country, if they took pains, might adopt some mechanical precautions which would prevent abrasion of the coin, at least to the extent now complained of. But, granting that the process which he had described would have to be repeated ten or twenty years hence, would not the payment of 90,000l. every ten or twenty years be a small evil in comparison of the evil of discrediting the whole gold coin of the country? It might be that many hon. Gentlemen would not go along with him in saying, that the whole loss in cases of this kind ought to be borne by the Government—they might not agree with him as to the propriety of following the precedents of former times, in calling-in the gold coinage and issuing new coin in its place, the Government bearing the loss. However, he came now to the measure taken by the Government—he came to the mode and circumstances under which the proclamation had been issued, and he asked the House whether there ever was a measure of such importance taken with so little precaution? Why, the Government seemed to have issued the proclamation as one of the most ordinary things in the world, about which it was not necessary to communicate with anybody. There was not a word of explanation to Parliament or to the country, but, without notice, the whole gold coin of the country was discredited. People were all at once sent to weighing the sovereigns before they could take them, and without a word of explanation from the Government. He knew that a measure of this kind made the public more cautious about taking money. What greater evil could there be than rendering the whole of the public cautious about money. What was the advantage of coined money? Confidence, and the facility of exchange which flowed from it. This excessive caution did away with the very advantages of coined money. It was driving men to the use of gold and silver bars. Look at the multiplication of doubts and uncertainties to which the distrust of the coin led in commercial transactions. Consider the loss of time and the inconvenience which it caused to the industrious classes. If this extreme caution continued, we should be driven to some of the practices which prevailed in the middle ages, and Gentlemen who had to receive money would have to go about, as the Jews did of old, with scales in their breasts, and pull them out every time that sovereigns were offered in payment. People were not sensible of these evils, having experienced nothing of the kind for the last twenty-five years. For twenty-five years such a thing as weighing sovereigns in the ordinary course of business had been hardly known, and the people had either forgotten or never knew the enormous evils occasioned by it. One of the things which gave him most alarm was the expression of an opinion in some quarters that the only remedy for the great evil of a light gold coinage was the return of the "good old one-pound notes." It was thought by some that that would place the currency on a sound footing. For his part, he dreaded nothing so much as the restoration of the one-pound notes; and he thought that Parliament should not, without extreme deliberation, come to such a remedy as that. Let them, he said, look to the precautions that had been taken in 1776. The matter had been going on for two or three years before it was finally determined. In 1773 an act was passed; in the next year it was mentioned in the King's Speech. There were debates on the subject. For two successive years there were debates in Parliament on the same matter; so that the public mind was perfectly prepared for a change in the gold coinage. In 1816, too, when the matter was before Parliament, it was found that everything was prepared before anything was done. Let them, he said, mark the precautions that had been taken at that time. The old coin was not rashly called in, but the public was perfectly prepared, first, by the debates that took place on the measure previous to its adoption; and next, what was still better, on the change occurring, by a good silver coinage being ready to be issued. Mr. Wellesley Pole, in the speech to which he had before referred, showed that every precaution had been taken—he declared that nothing had been done with the old coinage until the new was ready—that no proclamation was issued until then, and even went so far as to apologise for the delay that had taken place, showing that Government was obliged, for the purpose of having this new coinage to come to Parliament for an act to enable them to issue it; otherwise Mr. Wellesley Pole said, that the new coinage would have been ready. He was himself old enough to recollect what had then happened with regard to the coinage, and that then every one received a new shilling for the old one he delivered in. No loss was then sustained by the public. And now, he asked, what had the present Government done? They had no new coinage to supply the place of the old; they had no preparatory measures adopted. They had not even adopted proper precautions to meet the wants of individuals; they had no certain places fixed, where parties might deliver in the old coinage and get new coinage in its place, supposing that the individuals were to bear the loss. Supposing it to be right that the individual should bear the loss, still he ought to have a new coinage in place of the old. How was the difficulty now created to be met, but by substituting a new coinage for the old? What had the Government been doing? Nothing in order to provide a substitute for the old coinage, except publishing a recent proclamation for the issue of half-farthings. That was the new coinage of the Government. The Government seemed to know the wants of the people. Knowing the diminution of the circulation; knowing how moderate were their means, and how impoverished their circumstances, a proclamation was issued for a coinage which would enable them to make very little payments. But then there was another proclamation, stating that certain sums of money would be changed—though only very large sums. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never ventured to suppose that there could be a man who had only a sovereign, or half a sovereign. No, he could not believe there was such a thing, and therefore he took the precaution that the holders of fifty sovereigns might, at a stated place in the Bank, find persons ready to buy his fifty sovereigns from him. But for any sum below that there were no means of having it changed. He was quite astonished at the very cavalier way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated this matter when the subject was before mentioned to him; for then it seemed to occur very suddenly to him, and as if for the first time in his life, that a man might have at his command a less sum than fifty sovereigns; and then the right hon. Gentleman said he would try whether he could not discover some method for taking smaller sums. Gentlemen opposite had put their heads together, and they actually devised a plan by which a man having twenty sovereigns could now go to the Bank and have them changed. But there was another matter, in which the carelessness of the Government was still more extraordinary, and much more culpable. If the holder of light coin was to be at the entire loss, then it should have been only the legitimate and the actual loss that ought to have been imposed upon him. It was the duty of a wise Government to take care, when they issued such an alarming proclamation— one that announced that the sovereigns and half-sovereigns then in circulation were light—at least to have told the people the average amount of the depreciation. If the right hon. Gentleman had said in his proclamation what he said to the hon. Member for Malton last week—that the average deficiency was 1 and 1½per cent.—how many poor persons would have been saved from being cheated of their fair earnings. It was the part of the Government to have done this. The Government told the public that the coin was depreciated, but not how much—and what was the consequence? The week before last, the poor man was left completely at the mercy of the shopkeepers. It was almost incredible the amount of fraud committed— all of which was caused by the carelessness of the Government. The fraud was in truth quite frightful. He had heard in Pimlico of several instances in which the wages of women—ten shillings a week—a shilling Was stopped; and in the wages of men— a sovereign a week—2s. were stopped— that was 10 per cent. out of the earnings of the poor. What must it have been When houses in town stopped 6d.out of every sovereign! There was hardly a shopkeeper who did not stop twice the amount that he ought to have deducted. In many cases shopkeepers made a merit of only stopping 3d. out of every sovereign, which was about three times the amount that ought to be taken. To show them the way, the intricate way in which the fraud was carried on, he should mention that which had been told to him since he came into the House. An employer sent to the Bank for money; he got sovereigns for the purpose of paying his men with them; the workmen took the sovereigns, which were Weighed at the Bank, and could have been So proved by the person who brought them, as being full weight: and yet the tradesmen to whom they were brought all refused to take them except with the deduction of 6d. There was, in truth, no knowing the extent to which this fraud had been carried. Now, what ought the Government to have done when they came out at once upon the public to tell them that the coin Was depreciated? They Ought to have said, "We mean that you should bear the loss, but the loss is only to such an amount, and if any one seeks to make you suffer a greater, he is attempting to cheat you." The Government did hot do this. They only told the public in vague terms that the coin was depreciated and then they left to the mercy of the fraudulent the poorest persons in the community, who happened to be the holders. The losses incurred and the frauds that had taken place, he said, were to be attributed to the carelessness of the Government. It was mentioned very generally out of doors, that all the time that the Bank was refusing to take light sovereigns it Was issuing light sovereigns. It was said, that people going to the Bank and paying Fight sovereigns, a deduction was made: that a man receiving sovereigns in One part of the Bank and going to make at payment With the same sovereigns to another part of the Bank, they were declared to be light, and rejected. In many cases, too, it Was mentioned, that when the Bank paid sovereigns, it frequently happened, afterwards, when they were weighed, that they were found wanting. It had, too, been mentioned that it was the Bank that had urged the Government to adopt this plan with respect to the coinage. It was, he thought, really too bad that a public body while it refused bad money with one hand should be issuing bad money with the other. He thought it right to bring this matter formally before the House, because a very great loss had been inflicted on the country, and he might well ask what period was chosen by the Government for inflicting upon the country the mischief of a discredited currency? It was a period of the most unexampled distress—a period when, from other causes, trade and commerce were never so much paralysed—when the labourer could obtain little employment and less remuneration —a period of much greater affliction than was known of in the history of their country. He should have thought that the course of a wise Government, knowing the unavoilable pressure which there was upon the public from other causes, would have been to be exceedingly cautious, and not to do anything that could add a further burden to that which weighed the public down. They might assuredly have waited, and they ought to have adopted every precaution, in order that the blow might fall as lightly as possible upon the public. He knew not to what cause to attribute this carelessness in the Government. He knew that the right hon. Baronet was regarded as the father of the acts of the Government; but yet he did not know that they were to fix the blame of this on him. There was, to be sure, his right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint; but then that Gentleman was very usefully employed in the public service as Vice-President of the Board of Trade; and he supposed the Atlantean double duties were more than his Herculean shoulders were able to bear. He supposed that the zeal of his right hon. Friend in the one department did not permit him to have any leisure for the other. As Vice-President of the Board of Trade, his right hon. Friend had the tariff to concoct —he had to meet deputations, and to get rid of them—-and then he had to come down to that House, and to defend every article in the tariff, which Gentlemen might be assured was no light task, because he had to prove to those sitting on the Opposition benches that what he proposed to do would be a great advantage to the consumer; and then he had to turn to those on the Ministerial benches and to convince them that those reductions he was proposing to make would occasion no reduction at all. Under all these circumstances, he said, that such was the mischief occasioned by his right hon. Friend being so much engaged, that he wished to God he had let the burden of the tariff be shared by others; because, he ventured to say, wonderful and admirable as the tariff was, that there was inflicted more harm upon the poor people by the loss on the coinage, in one fortnight, than the tariff would make up to them in the course of a whole year. He assured the Government that his object was not merely to incriminate them for what had occurred; he had another object in view; because he should be most satisfied if they could come forward and explain the reasons (that which they had not yet done) for this sudden and unexpected act. He might be allowed to remind Gentlemen and the public, that this was not a time, when a Government would take the high course of following out their own ideas, of doing that which might involve the best interests and deal out injury to the great classes of the community, without their vouchsafing to give to the public the grounds for the course they had taken, and that they had deemed it proper to adopt. The working classes were not, at at the present moment, in a humour to be trifled with in this manner. They were intelligent; they were in some degree suspicious of the manner in which their rights were dealt with; and it would not be sufficient to tell them merely that what was done was the simple act of authority. Never was there a period when a full explanation on the part of the Government could be made to the good sense of the community with a greater certainty of producing a good effect. If the Government would show that there was no trifling, and no careless interference with the interests of the public—if the Government could show that its acts were taken with a view to the welfare of the community— then they might be sure that the people, whatever were their sufferings, would be content, since they were convinced that a wise and just course had been pursued. If the right hon. Gentlemen could give a satisfactory explanation, which he hoped he could do—if the right hon. Gentleman could show that, the conduct of the Government was wise, and founded on sound principles—if he could show that the Government had consulted the best interests of the public—if the right hon. Gentleman could show that what he himself had done was proper—and if the right hon. Gentleman could show that he was unjust when he charged him with a want of precaution, there was no one who should more sincerely rejoice in this than himself; and he thought that he was doing the Government great service when he enabled the right hon. Gentleman to give such an explanation. If, on the contrary, the Government should fail in making out a defence, then he maintained he was doing a good service to that House by showing that, however poor or however helpless people might be who suffered from the conduct of the Government, there were those in that House who felt a sympathy for their sufferings, and who would not permit them to be ill-treated without seeking at least to procure for them redress.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer,

in replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, had to ask for the indulgence of the House, though he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in bringing this question forward when it was not intended as the immediate topic of the evening, had adopted a course which, if generally followed, would be found most inconvenient. They would be hearing speeches on the Order of the Day, having no reference to what was the business they had met to discuss, and must only cause that business to be postponed to an indefinite period. He promised to confine himself to the subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman had discussed, — and not to delay the House one moment longer than was necessary to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained of the measures taken to withdraw from circulation a portion of the gold coin which was not of the current value. The House ought to bear in mind what was the the state of the law on this subject. The principle laid down by the law was, that when gold coin was reduced under a certain weight, it was to be no longer a legal tender—no person could be compelled to take it—and the person who so took it, could not compel another to take it at the value of the coin current of the country. It followed, therefore, that when there was a considerable portion of the geld coin deficient in weight, it was not a legal ten- der in payment—it might be refused; and it could not be an advantage either to the poor or the rich, to have such a circulating medium amongst them. On the contrary, it must be injurious to every one connected with land, trade, or manufactures. He was quite ready to admit the inconvenience, and when he stated the inconvenience, he did not undervalue the inconvenience which every measure that might be adopted with regard to the current coin of the realm must occasion. It was impossible for human ingenuity to devise a plan by which these changes, as to the coinage, must not press more or less upon society, and necessarily it must do so most on the lowest orders in society, because they were the most easily deceived by those disposed to make a profit of their ignorance. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them of the evils that had followed from the proclamation with respect to the depreciated coinage; but let them see what would have been the consequence if some measure were not taken to resist the progress of this depreciation. He was quite ready to admit, that it would be far more for the advantage of every interest in society if the public were more frequently warned, from time to time, as to what was the exact state of the coinage. He took some blame to himself, that when he was in the Home Office he had not communicated to the public, by proclamation, the provision of the law in this respect. He thought it unfortunate at a subsequent period, when a quantity of light coinage was in circulation, that some measure to the same effect had not been taken. But then it was said, that this was not the particular moment at which the proclamation ought to have been issued. It was very possible that the moment of distress was not that at which the evil of the depreciated coin, they could best apply the remedy so as to produce the least inconvenience; but then, if they admitted that it would be more advisable that the public should from time to time be reminded that coin under a certain weight was not a legal tender, then they must admit, that for a longer period to allow the evil to grow greater and more intolerable, was not the mode which the Government could best adopt to save the people from loss and inconveoience. The evil and the pressure of the evil must be always in the proportion that the light coin bore to the whole coin in circulation. If they were to allow the light coin to circulate, the evil would considerably increase, and the quantity of light coin would be considerably magnified. When the circulation of the coin was healthy, there was but little temptation to use fraudulent means with respect to it; for then the light coin could be easily detected; but when a considerable portion of the coin became light, nothing could be more easy than to reduce the weight of the good coin, and make a profit by the deterioration. Under these circumstances it was necessary for the Government to take the earliest possible measure to withdraw the light coin from circulation. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that no measures had been taken to let the public know, before the proclamation was issued, that a large portion of the gold coin was under the weight required by law. He said, that it was a matter neither known to Parliament or the public. He believed there was no man engaged in any branch of the public service who was not aware that a portion of the gold coin was of diminished weight. It had been brought distinctly before the committee on the banks of issue. The country banks complained that there was a refusal on the part of the Bank of England to take the light coin from them, and that it exposed them to considerable risk. If that coin were not to be taken in discharge of their obligations—if it were not a legal tender, it followed, that the banks were exposed to a considerable risk, and might lead to consequences which would affect all connected with the country banks. This had been stated distinctly before the committee on the banks of issue. The Bank had made repeated communications to the Government of this growing evil; and when he entered into office he had had repeated communications, not merely from the Bank of England, but he could truly affirm, that communications had been made to the Government by banks in the country, of the greatest respectability, and the most conversant with the monetary system, all complaining of the evils which this light coinage was inflicting upon the trade and the interests of the community. The evil was generally complained of. As far as the Bank was concerned, the law had been strictly adhered to. It had neither issued nor received sovereigns, except they were of full weight. Some branches of the revenue acted in the same manner. Though there might not be a general weighing of the coin, yet the conduct of the public departments was well known to every private banker. There was the constant indication that no coin would be received below the weight authorised by law. Under these circumstances his right hon. Friend had judged it right that measures should be taken to withdraw the light coin from circulation, and it was the more necessary to do this because he must beg the House to observe that the measure was one that could not be taken at every moment. The hon. Gentleman said, why not defer it for a longer period? The evil, he said, would be but the more aggravated by the addition which the intervening period would give to the amount of depreciated gold coinage. He found that the quantity of gold was increasing in the country; that the period was one when the light coin could be withdrawn with the least possible inconvenience. This might be done now; but the next year, or the year after next, the exchanges might take a different turn. The evil was now great; but if not checked, it would grow with an aggravated velocity. When he saw this, it was his duty to take measures of security, and not to permit the evil to proceed until it could not be borne any longer. These were the reasons why the present measure was adopted; but then the hon. and learned Gentleman said, in doing this, that the measure adopted was entirely at variance with former precedents. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone through a number of precedents from a very early period, and said that he thought the present Government would at least have followed those precedents, from its veneration and respect for those who had set them. Now he must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had selected his precedents with peculiar infelicity. So far as these precedents bore upon the conduct of the present Government, they were directly of the opposite tendency to what the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. He did not mean to go so far back as Henry 7th. He meant to content himself with going to the precedents set in modern times. First, he took the precedent set of the silver coinage in 1816. The hon. and learned Gentleman's precedent was exclusively confined to the silver coinage. The hon. and learned Gentleman had re- ferred to what was done in 1816, when Lord Liverpool and Mr. Wellesley Pole were First Lord of the Treasury and Master of the Mint. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that an arrangement had then been made for a distribution throughout the country, for the purpose of giving new coin instead of the old coin. Then, the arrangement was made that the public should bear no loss. Now he had to call to recollection that the principle on which the gold and silver coinage was established was totally distinct. The silver was a mere "token." The Government had a large profit on it, by the seignorage, and it would be most urgent that it should not exchange the old tokens, on which it had made a profit, for the new. He next came to the period of 1773 and following years. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the course then pursued was, in effect, though not in terms, that now adopted. It was noticed in a proclamation that the coin was under a certain weight; what was its Mint price, and what the deductions to the public? The coinage called in was taken at 3l. 17s.10½d., instead of at a lower rate, which the gold might only produce in the market. The effect of the proclamation was to divide the loss between the holder of the coin and the public, and to make each proportion bear the loss. In 1773 and the following year that principle was laid down and acted upon. Now he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman must see from the account itself that when the amount of this changing of the coinage was set down at 157,000l., that of the whole loss the largest proportion must have fallen upon the holders of the coin. When they calculated what was the mere expense of re-coining, they must see that but little remained as an equivalent for the diminution of the weight. The difference between the cases of the year 1775 and the present time was this, that at the former period the deterioration in the coinage was universal. It was not a partial, but a general deterioration, and it was to avoid placing ourselves in the situation in which we then stood—a situation which the hon. Gentleman who had read Lord Liverpool's treatise upon the subject, must be well aware was one pregnant with evil, and it was for this purpose that it was determined to withdraw that portion of the coin which was below the proper value from the circulation of the country.

The hon. Gentleman had stated that the mode in which Government had dealt with the question was a most objectionable one. He complained of the proclamation as having given a too hasty and abrupt notice to the public, and as taking it by surprise. He should be glad—for no man less wished to surprise the public than he did—he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would tell him how he could give a notice which would not take the public by surprise. If he had whispered to the hon. Gentleman in confidence that there was a large portion of ' the current coin of the realm extremely light, and if he had added an injunction not to mention the fact to any body, he very much doubted, despite the high opinion which he entertained of the discretion of the hon. gentleman, whether the whole matter would not be published the next day in the newspapers and proclaimed at Cha-ring-cross, coupled with an intimation of all the evils which a light currency would tend to produce, and, in addition, a hint that he should have lost the confidence of the public for not having taken effectual means for remedying the progress of the evil. The best way was to deal openly and straight-forwardly. They could not make confidential communications to individuals as to the state of the coinage, which, if it were allowed to go on, would fall heavily on that very class which he was most anxious to protect; for if there was one class which suffered more from the coin of the realm being depreciated, than any other, it was that involving the humbler orders of the community. That class was at present suffering under pressure it was true, a pressure which could only be justified by saying that it necessarily took place in consequence of the dishonesty of certain persons, and by arguing that the light coinage, was an evil which, if permitted to go on, would get beyond all the remedies which the Government could apply to it. But the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had a plan by which the object could be effected in a better manner than it had been by the plan of the Government. His method, as he understood it, was this, that to all the towns throughout the country a large amount of gold should be sent down, with an announcement that on certain days, or up to a certain time, light sovereigns would be exchanged for those of the genuine weight. Now, what would be the effect of this? It would impose on the public a most enormous charge, which would operate in its reflux upon the class now principally suffering, by imposing on them a heavy amount of taxation, in order to provide for that loss which would ensue, if, when a portion of the coinage only was light, arrangements should be made for exchanging the whole. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Bank should have been directed to take sovereigns of a certain weight as if they were genuine legal tenders. This was to be confidential. But if the Bank did so, he feared there were certain gentlemen in the city of London who were skilful enough in the mode of reducing the coin to the value at which the Bank was to accept it, to render it pretty certain that were such a plan adopted, they would have to exchange many new sovereigns, because they had undergone the operation—an operation which, he could tell the hon. Gentleman, was much more skilfully and easily performed now than in former times. The progress which had been made in chemistry and mechanical science could be brought to bear against, as well as in favour, of the public interests, and not only would every sovereign be exchanged for new, but the new issue would as speedily be reduced and returned, so that the cost falling on the public would be actually indefinite. That was the reason why he should object to the plan of the hon. Gentleman, and he could not but think that had he adopted that plan, be should have had objections urged against it more strong than any which had been alleged against that of the Government. He sincerely regretted that persons had taken the opportunity of imposing on the public in this matter—he regretted that there were persons who had not been contented with asking for a reduction on light sovereigns, but had absolutely refused to take sovereigns of the legal weight without making a deduction from the amount. Such a course was at variance with the law, and it was advisable that the public should know that those who did refuse the current coin of the realm, of legal weight, rendered themselves amenable to the law, and liable to imprisonment. This was a piece of information which he was happy to have the opportunity of stating in the House, because, as far as regarded that part of the evil, he hoped that his statement would put an end to it. With respect to the other portion of the evil, arrangements were on foot to enable those who held light coin, in all cases to obtain the full value; and from all he had heard, he had reason to believe that the evil had considerably subsided, and that the public, understanding the real value of the coin which they held, were generally receiving the amount of the Mint price for defective coin. He did not believe that it would be necessary for him to proceed more at length in answer to the objections of the hon. Gentleman. He was quite aware that under whatever arrangements a withdrawal of light coin could be effected, that withdrawal must be attended with cases of individual evil; but he was bound to balance against that evil the individual injury which would ensue if the proportion of light coin were permitted to accumulate, and the evils which it would produce, not only in respect to that class which was at this moment principally suffering, but the injury which such an accumulation would produce to the general trading and commercial interests of the country. Believing, therefore, that by interposing at this moment—at a moment which, from circumstances which he had already stated, was a peculiarly fit time for the withdrawal of the light coin—he had not hesitated in recommending and adopting the measure now before the public, convinced that whatever its pressure might be, the Government had taken all pains to render it as light as possible; that it was a measure of precaution against those greater dangers which Government could not only not overlook, but which it was their bounden duty to prevent. It was on these grounds that the measure in question had been adopted and promulgated to the public; and he had no doubt that after the first pressure had passed away—a pressure the existence of which he deeply deplored—there would be a general feeling that the withdrawal, accompanied as it must be by clear intimations in future from time to time of the state of the law upon the subject, thereby calling the attention of the public to the necessity of weighing coins, he had no doubt, he repeated, that they should experience the benefits of the change, and that they would get rid of that load which pressed so heavily upon the monetary interests of the country.

Mr. Hawes

thought that, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend was quite justified in adopting the course which was open to him of calling the attention of the public to the subject; for, had he adopted another course, he would have been obliged to wait for a committee of supply, or the subject must have been postponed until the object in debating it had passed away. But what was the amount of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?— what was complained of? If his hon. Friend had undervalued the evils of a light currency—if he had undervalued the importance of a change when it became needful in the currency—if he had said that it was not expedient for the Government to step in and prevent the proportion of light gold from increasing—if his hon. Friend had made any of these assertions, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have been appropriate; but it was in reality a speech addressed against observations which had never been made to the House. His hon. Friend never under-valued the object of Government—he never said that Government should not interfere. What he did say was this— that the measure having come into operation without notice having been given, and without due provision having been made for' exchanging the coin, that these circumstances proved defects in the plan which had not marked any similar plan of former years; and that, therefore, the Government was chargeable with indolence and carelessness in adopting the plan which they had selected. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the precedents quoted by his hon. Friend were not in point, and that the greater number of these precedents had reference to the silver coin. As respected the latter assertion—granted. Take the case of 1774 and the subsequent years, what were the resolutions of the House?—what was the course adopted by the Government? Was it similar to the course which had lately been taken? It was said that the difference between the cases was, that in the former instance the whole of the gold coinage was deteriorated, but at present only a portion of it was depreciated. He could see no distinction in principle between the two cases, because by discrediting the whole coinage, they created to all practical purposes the evil which then existed, and they were about to take some means to remedy it. In the year 1774 the subject was a matter of discussion in Parliament, resolutions were voted, and a bill was founded on these resolutions. The whole matter came under consideration, and the result was, that it was determined that the loss should be borne by the public. In addition to that, it was described by Lord Liverpool in his treatise as a fundamental principle, that when a change of this sort was necessary, it should be effected at the public expense, and not at the expense of the individuals holding the light coin. It was not their fault that the coin was under weight.—there could be no justice in punishing the last holder. Gold coinage was a great instrument of exchange, and why was the last holder to pay the penalty for all the tear and wear which it had received through a long circulation? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied that the House had recognised the expediency of Government sustaining the loss when light sovereigns came to be exchanged. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that in the 7th resolution, passed in 1774, it was stated:— That, for the purpose of calling in the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, it is proper that certain days be appointed, after which they shall not be allowed in payment, or to pass, except only to the collectors and receivers of the public revenues, or to such persons as shall be appointed by his Majesty to receive and exchange the same; and that certain other days be appointed, after which they be not allowed to pass in any payment whatsoever, or to be exchanged in manner before-mentioned. And in the 9th resolution it was stated:— That the public should bear the loss arising from the deficiency and re-coinage of the said guineas, half-guineas, and quarter-guineas," &c. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated that silver coins were merely tokens, and that a great distinction existed between silver and gold coinage, because Government made a profit by the re-coinage of the latter. He could not see the distinction. If the re-coinage of silver yielded Government a profit, and if the gold yielded no profit, why were individuals to pay for the lightness? There was no ground on which the course adopted by the Government could be justified. At former periods, when a necessity for similar changes existed, the Government called in the aid of distinguished men, and asked their advice upon the subject. In the reign of William 3rd, Locke, Halley, and Newton, were consulted. Locke, it was true, stated it to be his opinion, that the individual should bear the loss; but Parliament acted against this opinion, and decided that the public should bear the loss. Therefore, although he must give up the opinion of Locke, he had in his favour that of Parliament recorded against it. In 1774, Sir Joseph Bankes was consulted. Now, gold coin was called in without any previous inquiry being made into the causes of the deficiency in the weight—the whole of the gold coinage was discredited, and not one remedial measure did the Government adopt. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consulted eminent men — if he had come to his conclusions on their authority—if it was admitted, that a deficiency existed—if he had told the House the mode in which he proposed to remedy it—if he had done all that, they would also have done all in their power not only to remedy the existing deficiency, but to prevent the recurrence of such a circumstance. But the right hon. Gentleman had jerked forth a proclamation, unaccompanied by any sort of precaution—he had placed the poor man in a situation of great difficulty, and made him who could the worst afford bear the loss? What right had Government to throw on the last holders the burden of keeping up the gold coin in its original state? In the time of King William, it was thought requisite to impose a new tax for this purpose. A house duty was laid on, which was to endure for seven years, in order to provide for the expenses of the re-coinage and, therefore, his hon. Friend was right in stating that all precedent was in favour of the public bearing the loss; and all precedent, too, was in favour of the course, that whenever the alteration did take place, that it should be accompanied by some measures for facilitating the exchange, and for preventing the re-occurrence of a similar deficiency. He might easily suppose, that improvements might take place in the art of coining, and that by chemical and scientific means the chances of abrasion might be diminished. At the time of the re-coinage in 1774, the opinions of Bolton and others were taken, and Lord Stanhope proposed certain plans. In the year 1842, with all the recent improvements in mechanical science at our hand, no means were inquired into or suggested either for the exchange of the gold, or for preventing the recurrence of similar circumstances. His hon. Friend had done quite right in bringing the matter before the House, and the conduct of the Government was deserving, as he believed, of much animadversion. He thought, that a committee should be appointed to inquire and to discharge that duty, which the Government had so grossly neglected.

Mr.Baring

wished shortly to state his opinion upon the subject under the notice of the House. He believed, with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the present time was a fitting one for taking steps with respect to the gold currency, and he believed, that the flow of gold into this country placed it in the power of the right hon. Gentleman, without causing any very serious public danger to withdraw from circulation the light sovereigns. Nay, he believed, that the right hon. Gentleman could not justify himself, were he to delay longer in adopting some measure for the purpose. Having said so much, he might state that he considered his hon. Friend fully justified in bringing a subject of such importance before the House. It was a great advantage to the public that there should be some discussion in the House upon the point, not only as it might prevent them from being so much misled as they had been, but in order that the Government should have an opportunity of stating the grounds on which it had acted. As far as he understood the matter, he concurred in that view which held that the loss had been fairly divided betwixt the holders of coin and the revenue. The loss had been divided between the parties who held the coin and the revenue, and that was the course, as he believed, which was the fairest in itself, and the least open to inconvenience. If they were to admit to exchange light coin in all cases, the result would be a heavy charge on the public revenue, and a gain to those who deteriorated the coin. He must say, also, he did not think the change could be effected without becoming known to the public, and he was sure, that on this point his hon. Friend relied too much on the secrecy of officials, and had not sufficient confidence in the intelligence of the public. He might state, moreover, that it was absolutely necessary on many occasions for the Government to give notice to the whole public at once, and in doing so, they must sometimes run the risk of not having their preparations entirely perfect; though he was not prepared to say, that on the present occasion some arrangements might not have been made by which the inconvenience attending the present measure might have been rendered lighter.

Mr.Bernal

said, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, as he always did, the facts and the law of the case most correctly, but the right hon. Gentleman forgot, that in a country like this, the prosperity of which was based upon commerce, there was something else to consider beyond the strict letter of the law —there was expediency. When the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was well known that the Bank for some time past refused to accept light gold, did he not recollect that not a private banker in the country would dare to refuse tenders of sovereigns, whether of or below the standard weight? The right hon. Gentleman was right, no doubt, in attempting to check the progress of the evil of deteriorated coinage, but the public were not prepared for the proclamation. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that within the last eight days the pressure on certain classes in the country had been quite intolerable—that the channels of business had been choked up—that trade had been paralyzed by the impossibility of passing gold coin, whether legal or illegal—and that dishonest people had availed themselves of the opportunity to impose on the public? When the first notice was given, it was intimated at the Bank that sovereigns, in numbers amounting to fifty, would be received and exchanged. He then drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject upon a question asked by an hon Member. A large class of the people were not likely to have such sums as fifty sovereigns to take to the Bank, and what were they to do At present the Bank took sums amounting to twenty sovereigns. But even that did not meet the evil. People who were paid perhaps 1l, or 1l. 5s., or ll. 10s. per week, could not carry a balance in their pocket to weigh all they received. He was sure there was no hon. Member who had not experienced the inconvenience caused by the late proclamation, and what must that inconvenience amount to with working men, and to retail dealers in the country? The speech of his hon. Friend, and the reply from the right hon. Gentleman, applied to the question whether it was good policy to keep up the gold coinage, because, if that coinage was exposed to the deterioration which it had already encountered, what was to prevent it from undergoing a similar depreciation in a fortnight after its re-issue? What was to prevent them from finding themselves in a similar dilemma again? He ventured to say, that if the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had consulted his friends in the city, they would have advised him not to have proceeded as he had done.

Sir R. Peel:

Nothing is more discouraging in the performance of a public duty than to question the propriety of acts which can be traced to no motive but a zeal for the public service. I do not think the Government make any idle boast when they claim credit for having the courage to take steps to prevent the gradual deterioration of the gold coinage. If the evil were allowed to go on increasing, it is impossible to say what the consequences might be. It is impossible that such a step as that determined on should be taken without causing a good deal of individual suffering, and that such cases of hardship should not be urged as a conclusive reason for the postponement of a remedy. Every hour of delay, however, must aggravate the evil, and increase the ultimate suffering. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last seems to "think that suddenly, and without any previous communication, her Majesty's Government had determined on issuing this proclamation. No Gentleman on this side of the House, the hon. Gentleman complains, was aware of the intentions of her Majesty's Government. That is perfectly true; and such a measure is of a nature that no private intimation should be given of it. When the community is likely to suffer from partial disclosures as to the course meant to be taken, I am persuaded that the intention of the Government and the nature of the change should be promulgated at the same moment. So far from thinking the abstinence of the Government in communicating their intentions to bankers holding Conservative opinions, and thus enabling their friends to prepare for the change, or what would be equally unfair in authorising certain ex officio paragraphs in newspapers as to the supposed intentions of the Government, I think such an omission the highest compliment which could be paid to her Majesty's Ministers. But has not public attention been called to the subject? Were bankers not aware of the depreciation of the gold currency, and did they make no communications to the Government on the subject? On the 20th of January the bankers of London wrote to the Treasury to this effect:— We feel it our duty to represent to your Lordships the great inconvenience which arises from the light gold coin in circulation, and we beg to suggest that power should be granted to the Bank to cut such sovereigns as are under proper weight, and that arrangements should be made for issuing them in accordance with the Mint price of 3l. 17s. 10½d. per ounce. This letter was signed by Barnett &Co., Masterman &Co., Loyd &Co., Prescott, Grote, &Co., and several other leading banking firms. So sensible, then, were those gentlemen of the evil of continuing light coin in circulation, that they wrote to the Government in the terms I have stated, anticipating, of course, the danger which must arise, if no remedy were applied. But it is contended by the hon. Member who originated the discussion, that in consequence of the general suffering and distress, this change ought to be postponed to another period. I think, on the contrary, that we cannot select a more favourable opportunity than that presented by the present state of the exchanges, and the influx of gold, which gives peculiar facility for such an operation. There is an authority on this subject, to whom every committee on banking affairs, and every Government, is deeply indebted—I mean Mr. Horsley Palmer. That stated in a communication which has been placed in my hands:— It is necessary for those connected with the management and use of the currency, to press upon her Majesty's Government, through Sir R. Peel, the great and growing evil we are all sustaining from the depreciation of the gold coinage. I believe that the Bank of England has done everything in its power, by constant and frequent representations upon the subject, both to the late and present Ministers. The evil has been admitted, but no remedy whatever has been suggested by the Government to the present day. The prominent points are as follow.—' 1. The effect upon the foreign exchanges, which, in the event of an unfavourable course again existing, will either be exhibited in an advance from 1½per cent. on the price of standard gold above our Mint price, judging from the character of the present depreciation, or by draining every sovereign from the vaults of the Bank, the consequence of which you can estimate as well as me. 2. The present abstraction from circulation of a very considerable amount of currency, consisting of the surplus light gold that the bankers in London and the country are unable to pass through the Bank of England, or in payment to the receivers of the revenue. If an arrangement be made for such sovereigns being received upon good terms for account of the Mint, bank-notes would immediately issue to the extent of the receipts, and so far increase the money circulation of the kingdom. 3. The last, and which may, per. haps, be considered the most important objection in a public point of view, is the great inconvenience to which the public are subject from this depreciation.' Having thus briefly referred to the evils that exist, it seems to me that a very prompt and easy remedy may be afforded, if Sir Robert Peel can be induced to adopt it—viz., to apply to Parliament, as one of his first measures after Christmas, to authorise the Bank to clip all sovereigns presented, which power was formerly possessed in the case of guineas, and at the same time, to sanction the receipt of such light coin for account of the Mint at the standard price of 3l. 17s.l0½d.per oz. Although we might have avoided much clamour by postponing again the present measure, we thought at this time we were peculiarly called on to take immediate steps for fixing definitely the value of the gold coinage. I need, however, say no more on this point, after what has been in so fair and manly a spirit stated by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose practical knowledge of such subjects is indisputable, and who admitted that representations had been often made to him while in office, that nothing but the peculiar position in which he was placed, prevented him from dealing with the evil, and that he approved generally of the measures we had taken, though he objected to some of the details, as not calculated to effect the object we intended. That is the testimony of one than whom there cannot be a more competent judge. I do hope that the hon. Member for Liskeard is himself convinced that this evil is one which can only be aggravated by delay until it ultimately becomes too great to be stayed by any efforts which the Government can make. I am quite aware of the sufferings of the people, and the impoverished state of trade; but these constitute no justification for postponing to another year the appli- cation of an obvious remedy to a gross abuse in the state of our coinage. I have now disposed of one part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The other, and the main ground which the hon. Member took was, that the public treasury (and I think there was some confusion in the authorities of the lion. Gentleman on this point), and not individuals ought to bear the burdens of this charge. Now, I wholly differ from that position. I believe that the great safeguard against a lavish expenditure on this subject, is the Treasury and not the House of Commons. And the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring) confirms my view, for he says we have divided the loss with perfect fairness, and that there is no cause of just complaint, that the Treasury has not taken the whole burden on itself. The Treasury does bear the whole expense of the difference in value of the gold contained in a sovereign, when it is given out to be coined, and its value when it is converted into coin, but the hon. Member maintains on great authorities that the Treasury should also bear the expenses of wear and tear. I differ from him entirely. I do not think that in Queen Elizabeth's time the Treasury bore any such charge. I do not apprehend that the treasury of any foreign country bears such a charge. When the silver coinage was re-coined in King William's time, Mr. Locke (as stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth) was consulted. True, he was consulted, but his opinion was not followed. Here is the history of the transaction, as given by Lord Liverpool:— In the re-coinage of the silver coin in the reign of William 3rd., Mr. Locke was of opinion that the old silver coin should be received according to their intrinsic value, by weight. The House of Commons, however, being of a contrary opinion to Mr. Locke, consented to pay the loss arising from the defects of the silver coinage, and ordered the public receivers to take the clipped money as payment. The consequence was that this regulation acted as an encouragement to the further clipping of the coin, and gave the clippers all the advantage they could desire, as they were now sure of a market for clipped money, whatever the defect of its weight might be. So that what had been held, and hitherto escaped, underwent the same fate. The historians who give an account of this transaction, think it not improbable that more coin was clipped under this general license than there had been before. I have never been able to obtain an account of the charge incurred for compensating the deficiency of these silver coins. This compensation, as well as the charges of the mint for recognizing these deficient coins, was enormous. Such was the state of distress (and this observation is not inapplicable at present), and even confusion, that the people were ready to pay anything out of the public purse, in order to relieve themselves from the difficulties to which their private concerns were exposed. Such was the result at that time, and, depend upon it, similar consequences will follow if you adopt the same course now. If you will act, not suddenly, by issuing a proclamation, but whispering about that the Government contemplate taking some such step, and that the public should compensate each individual holder for the deficiency of the coin—I tell you the effect of your delay and liberality will be, that every clipper would immediately apply himself to clipping the gold coin; and the present extent to which clipping and debasement has gone will afford no test at all of the depreciation that may follow. The moment it is known that —refusing to act with rashness and precipitancy, but permitting it to creep out in authorized paragraphs in newspapers, or by taking steps with regard to the receivers of the revenue which would apprize the public that the Government were about to adopt measures on the subject— the moment it is known that, not content with sustaining the loss of the variance between the amount of the gold when issued and the amount at which it can now be taken by law, you will sanction some other estimate of loss which the possessor of light coin may hereafter prefer—if you act upon that principle, do not suppose that it is the poor man who happens to hold gold coin depreciated by wear who will chiefly reap the advantage, for there is not one who fraudently debases the coin who will not claim the advantage in an infinitely greater degree than the poor casual possessor. I hope this House has a higher regard for the interests of economy than to sanction such a profligate loss which such a course of proceeding must necessarily involve. I trust I have now proved that the great bankers of this metropolis were fully sensible of this evil, and that the Government did not lightly and capriciously act in taking some effectual remedy. I trust I have also satisfied the He use that it would be the reverse of prudence for the Treasury to undertake to bear the loss which individuals might sustain. And I hope I have also, with my right hon. Friend, proved that there was no medium between a sudden and straight forward proclamation announcing the intention of the Government, and resorting to an indirect mode of intimating it, which must always give one class of individuals an unfair advantage over others. With respect to the proceeding of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although I did not consider it right—involving, as it did, an attack on the Government—to avail myself of any technical grounds to prevent its being brought forward, I must own I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has set an example which will be most inconvenient if lightly followed. I make no complaint in the individual case; the importance of the question, and the extent of loss sustained by individuals, may have justified him; but when he mentioned that the Government had appropriated to itself so many days, I must say I have exercised that privilege, when pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite who had motions to bring forward, in a manner which hardly justifies his remark: and I can only say, if this practice of introducing a motion, making a speech, and leading to a debate, on the ground that an order of the day which he supports ought not to be read—if this practice be followed, it will supersede all our regulations, and very serious inconvenience to the public business must inevitably result.

Mr.Buller

was duly sensible of the indulgence of the House in allowing him to have made his statement; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that nobody else should be allowed to do what he had done. He had never contemplated a private intimation such as that supposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he hardly knew how the right hon. Gentleman drew this inference from his speech; for though he complained of the want of information as to the expense in 1774 and 1816, he never pretended that the announcement as to the coinage was not of a public nature. He had suggested two plans; first, that if the agency of the Bank were employed, the compensation for the deficiency should be limited to 1½per cent.; but supposing that they should not determine on that course, ample means existed for providing an exchange according to real value.

Mr. Hume

said, that this change should have been so effected as to fall as lightly as possible on individuals. At present the chief sufferers were the middle and working classes. Government ought to have sent into every town in England (as to Scotland and Ireland the step was unnecessary, as paper was the general medium) a public officer for the purpose of exchanging sovereigns under-weight at a certain charge. 6d., 8d., 9d, and 1s,, were now paid indifferently. An hon. Member near him had a friend who at a railway was obliged to give a shilling for change of a sovereign before he was allowed to proceed to town. He heard, on good authority, that a gentleman wished to get 500l. in silver from a bank in the city, which, on application to the Bank of England was refused. Such was the effect of this question, as to the value of gold. The right hon. Gentleman's fears as to a further depreciation of the gold currency proved too much, for it showed that a gold currency was not the most desirable. There was one inconvenience, which was deposed to before the Bank committee of which he was a member, which ought to be looked to, and that was, that though a certain number of sovereigns were in the gross the legal weight, eight or nine of them were a grain too much or too little. He did not see why the Bank should not have a compensation for the loss which was sustained on gold out of the issue of paper, on which it had a profit. So far from complaining of the proclamation, he thought there ought to be a proclamation once a year. This would keep our monetary system in proper order—an advantage to every man, high or low.

Subject at an end.