France, as 100l. were in 1814. Thus he proves himself that 30 per cent. according to his estimate of the CHEAPNESS, is in fact only so much DEARNESS of money, and of course gives no benefit in the foreign market, whilst at home it takes away 30 per cent. from the wages of the labourer, by whom the goods are produced, and as much from his employer, leaving the taxes and burdens of both undiminished. I trust he does not so far adopt those Parliamentary tactics, to which I have alluded, of misleading his auditors, as to intend to make them believe that this difference of the exchanges is only a balance of commercial bills, which he knows can occasion only a difference to a very small compa

consequence of increased skill, industry, and other facilities. I must say, it is marvellous he should so shape his argument as to allow the possibility of such a misapprehension, still more extraordinary if he should not know that three-fourths or more of the change of price is owing to the change in the value of the currency, by the operation of Peel's Bill. Can he mean to say that a low price, the consequence of a diminished quantity of money, is equally beneficial, or the same thing, as low price is the consequence of improved skill and industry? He cannot, surely; it would be preposterous, and is not to be presumed in a man of his knowledge; and yet it is almost impossible to know what else he does mean. Mr. Alder-rative amount. And yet when he says, man Waithman had shown him, from custom-house returns, that before Peel's Bill, 36 millions of British goods exported, measured in quantity by what is termed official value, produced of declared, that is, money, value 54 million pounds sterling; whereas in 1828, 54 million of goods returned only 36 million of pounds sterling (fractions omitted): very true, says Mr. Huskisson, here is the price and quantity exactly reversed; this only shows that things are CHEAPER now than they were then; and he goes on to say this cheapness enables us to sustain our extensive foreign commerce. Now really, to impress upon his auditors the opinion that this cheapness arises from improved skill, machinery, &c., or to leave them under such possible misapprehension, is what I cannot understand. But observe, he, a little further on, says,-in 1814, before Peel's Bill, the exchanges were thirty per cent. against us, now they are in our favour, and adds, must not such a difference produce a considerable effect? What is that but PROOF that the value of our MONEY has, according to his own admission, since that time, RISEN thirty per cent.; and that seventy pounds sterling now is just as much as one hundred was then; or, that the price reduced from 100l. to 70l. is No real reduction? for that 70 pounds sterling now are worth as many francs, for instance, in exchange with

must not this produce a considerable effect, it seems that he meant it to be supposed that the difference in the exchanges did not arise from the altered value of our currency, and that it was much in favour of our FOREIGN trade. Another difficulty, indeed, presents itself to my mind in the attempts to solve his meaning, from the recollection of his having, upon a former occasion, convinced the House that an unfavourable state of the exchanges was favourable to an increase of our exports, while it tended to check our imports from foreign parts.* Mr. Huskisson knows perfectly well, that a great many persons, in and out of the House of Commons, imagine that a rise in the price of manufactures, though the consequence of an INCREASED QUAN TITY of MONEY, or diminution of its value, would be destructive of our foreign commerce and no man knows better than he does, that it would produce no such effect! They say, if we have more paper, for instance, and if we are to have WAR prices again, away goes our FOREIGN commerce. I am surprised that such an erroneous idea should prevail, and I regret that Mr. Huskisson should, by neg lecting all explanation upon this point, assist in confirming the error, rather than exposing it. But, in order to get a clear view of the subject, we will suppose that we had the war currency and war prices,

Par. Deb. vol. xiv., p. 236.

1

and that, in consequence, a yard of su- value of money is thus proved by the perfine cloth, which sells now for twenty exchanges. I should have thought it shillings, should in such WAR CURRENCY was yet more obvious that any change sell for thirty. Why, then, the French-whatever in the denomination or quality man, who sent his yard of silk to ex-of our metallic currency would make no change for this yard of cloth, would find difference in regard to foreign comthat such yard of silk would fetch thirty merce, and yet I believe the error preshillings in the English market, which vails throughout; the fact is, that before would fetch only twenty; and so foreigners care not what we choose to would all other foreign commodities call our money, or of what quality we rise as our own rose, and thus would our make it, or what we make it pass for foreign commerce remain precisely upon here, which is merely a conventual sign the same footing. To explain this in amongst ourselves. The metallic money another way, it will be remembered, they resolve into its INTRINSIC worth that during the war currency, one pound for instance, if we were to coin a pound sterling British would only exchange for, of silver into ninety shillings instead of at one time, I think, SIXTEEN francs: sixty, which is an advance of fifty per it fluctuated generally from 16 to 20 cent., and then a pound sterling become francs; now one pound sterling will worth thirty shillings British in the new exchange for 26 francs all but 20 cents. coinage, the foreigner would see that the And here, by the bye, is one decisive 30 shillings British would, in such case, proof of the alteration of the value of contain only the same quantity of silver Our currency, and which shows distinctly which twenty shillings did before, and that so much as is the difference between would say, alter the coin of your coun26 and 16, is rise in the value of our try as you please; I shall only give you money, and not CHEAPER price, as Mr. 26 francs for the thirty, as I would have Huskisson calls it, of the commodity. done for the twenty shillings. This In the time I allude to, 100l. sterling change of the silver coin would make a British would only exchange for 1600 yard of cloth, which sells now for francs, or one hundred pounds worth of twenty shillings, sell for thirty in Enggoods, in the war price British, would land, but the manufacturer would be as only produce 1600 francs; now 641. well content to take 26 francs for it in sterling British, or sixty-four pounds France as he was before, because the 26 worth of goods British, will fetch iden-francs would be equal to the thirty shiltically the same sum, viz., 1600 francs; lings of the new coinage. He could, or one hundred pounds British will now indeed, afford to sell his yard of cloth exchange for 2600 francs instead of lower than before, inasmuch as this al1600; in other words, a manufacturer, teration of our money would exactly, to who has goods to the value of one hun- the extent it was carried, lower the dred pounds in our present currency, pressure of taxation upon him, on the cannot afford to sell them in France for present hypothesis, 50 per cent., to less than 2600 francs, whereas a manu- which extent, at least, it was increased facturer having one hundred pounds by Peel's Bill. It is, in truth, the presworth of goods in the war currency sure of taxation, occasioned by the heavy could afford to sell them for 1600 francs. weights or high value of our money in If I were to argue therefore as Mr. Hus- the Peel Bill currency, that has run kisson does, I might say, give us again away with ALL the profit of the manuour war currency, and we shall get a facturer, and indeed forced him to drive great advantage in our foreign trade. a losing, instead of a profitable, trade, We can afford to sell one hundred pounds and of course disabled him from paying worth of goods for 1600 francs instead adequate wages to his men. But, say of 2600. It would not be more absurd Mr. Huskisson and other statesmen, our than his arguing in favour of that cheap-exports are immensely increased; so es which is the consequence of a they may be, but they turn a deaf ear to higher value of money, and which higher the declarations of all the exporters,

who tell them that they are losing in- year, whilst sinking, to be chided for stead of gaining. The unexampled ef- complaining, and be told by some Board forts that have been made to force a of Trade minister that they are thriving trade are, I think, easily accounted for. more than ever; whilst another less The manufacturers and merchants of daring statesman says, year after year, this country possessed immense capital," Wait a little; depend upon it all will powers of every kind, energy and enter- "" come round; the country will right prise unexampled. It was hardly possi-" itself." She has righted herself, it is ble to subdue their spirit, perseverance, true, under many a severe blow received and power. They found all at once that at the hands of her statesmen; but the the products of their industry lost fifty instrument with which she has at length per cent. of their money value, The been struck touches the heart, and unNECESSARY annual returns are wanting. less it is extracted, will bring on fatal They go to work naturally to increase convulsion of the whole frame. Minisquantity, and force sales, to make up this ters next tell us that the consumption deficiency; they struggle on in the same of exciseable commodities is increased, way year after year; they struggle and that therefore the condition of the against each other; they compete un-lower class must be comfortable; this fairly; they even look, some of them, proves too much; at least it is attemptwith complacency upon their neigh- ing to establish a point so at variance bours' fall; they press down the wages with the fact, and the experience and of their men to the lowest possible de- knowledge of all men, as to be quite gree they are obliged to do so. They disgusting. It is pretty strong to tell make them work sixteen hours instead masters they are thriving when ruin of ten; they thus go on still unsubdued, stares them in the face; and next to in hopes of better times; they do by offer proof of the comfortable condition these means lower the price of commo- of their men, when we know they are dities; that is to say, by a sacrifice of suffering, in many cases, an EXTREMITY their own profits, and exhaustion of of distress, and have been in that state their workmen's health and strength, for years. The increased consumption, and so far Mr. Huskisson may, if he as appears by excise revenue returns, is, pleases, exult in the cheapness of our I believe, in no small degree the effect commodities. I can allow him but very of greater vigilance in the collection of little for improved machinery and skill, those duties. Another reason is the disbecause the produce of the earth and position of the English to hold to that excommodities, where no such improved penditure which is combined with indulmachinery can be applicable, have be- gence and comfort, giving up in prefercome cheaper, as he calls it, in the same ence many necessaries. And then I beg you ratio as manufactures. Mr. Huskisson to consider our case always that of a lion will say, if they did not get a profit they caught in the toils of an insidious foe: would turn their capital into other chan-he struggles with his wondrous power nels; undoubtedly they would Ir they for a long time against the gripe of the could, but they cannot by any possibi- subtle cords that bind his limbs, and lity; that truism in the abstract, that moves as erect almost as if he did not delusion in practice, viz., that capital feel them; but he will at last sink under and industry will fly from profitless to exhaustion, and so shall we sink, and our profitable channels, will not hold at all exhaustion is beginning to be very perin our present state; for all trades are ceptible. In fact, I have always conalike profitless. There is no hope or tended, and it cannot be denied, that prospect in change, unless, indeed, they when we were struck by that insidious seek some more genial clime than ours instrument, the most destructive which is become, and that is a dreadful alter-ever man levelled against the welfare and native, to be driven from their native cherished country by the ignorance and pertinacity of their rulers, year after

happiness of a country, we were in a state of extraordinary health and strength, and, dreadful as was the blow, we have made

such gigantic efforts, that those who are opposite opinions in the place of those, so themselves yet untouched, and whose rational, which he then entertained, I thoughts wander little beyond their own have no clue to discover; a material selfish atmosphere, are hardly conscious change of circumstances may make a of the depth of the wound that has been different course of action necessary, but inflicted upon the more industrious and no change of circumstances occurred less fortunate millions, who are now in-between 1815 and 1819. He certainly deed beginning to smart almost to desperation under it.

is subject to a change of vision at different times of the day; his admiration of the Corn Bill of 1815, which, on behalf of all the interests of the country, he earnestly recommended to the adoption of the House; his lamentation, in 1828, from the bottom of his soul, over the mass of evil and misery and destruction of capital which that

years' operation, produced, are remarkable proofs of this propensity to see subjects in different points of view at different times. I do not make these remarks in order to impugn his patriotism, his talents, or his industry, but to show that the old adage, Humanum est errare, applies to him as well as to others; that he is not oracular, as many gentlemen in the House of Commons seem to think. He certainly possesses very considerable influence in the House, especially upon such subjects as that I am now discussing, and it is desirable to prove that he is not an infallible guide. At one or other of the periods I have alluded to, he must have been egregiously wrong, and at the earliest of those periods, he could neither plead youth nor inexperience nor want of information to extenuate his errors,

Mr. Huskisson's advocacy of Peel's Bill, or joint authorship I might say, with a little junta of the learned, at all events his advocacy of the bill, and the prices thereby fixed upon commodities and labour, astonishes me more than that of any other statesman of the party, because, in 1815, he in so striking and re-same law had, in the course of its twelve markable a manner insisted always upon the necessity of high prices after the war. In the debate, upon the Corn Bill in 1815, he said there was a great dimiaution in the value of money; that the farmers' charges were doubled; that to talk of prices returning to what they were before the war, was to inculcate a most dangerous error; if the entire rental was given up it would not be possible. He then adverted to the amount of taxation before the war, which he said did not exceed sixteen millions, whereas he could not calculate upon a peace establishment much below sixty millions. Would this, he said, make no difference in the money price of articles? and then reiterated his surprise that any body should contemplate a price of corn less than very near the double of what it was before the war. Now it is quite clear that his good sense and good feel- In reference to Peel's Bill, perhaps he ing would alike revolt at the idea of such thought with Mr. Ricardo and others, doubling of the price of corn by means that it would only make a difference of of scarcity of corn; he meant, of course, price to the extent of four per cent., and a doubling consequent upon the DIFFER- that the Legislature having, with sinENT MONEY in which the prices were told, gular concurrence of opinions amongst nor could he imagine the possibility of the statesmen on opposite sides of the corn bearing a high price, and other com- House, acted upon this idea, it would modities and labour a low price; he be better to drag the country through could only mean that the war had effected any difficulties, and counteract the missuch changes that every product of in-chief by sinister operations, than expose dustry and the wages of labour must to the people the astounding errors into return double the quantity of money that which their rulers had fallen. He might they did before the war, or the fifty or sixty millions of taxes could not be borne by the country. What arguments induced him to substitute his present very

be too deeply impressed also with the difficulty of undoing what they had done. I can give him and others credit for their motives, but not for their wis

dom, in pursuing this course; there is nothing like dealing fairly and openly with the people; depend upon it the credit of the country would never have suffered a moment under the avowal of an error honestly made; and that there is always on the other hand great danger if the people discover that false lights have been held out to them, and they find themselves deceived.

the restoration of that same currency here, would restore the same prices abroad as measured in that currency; the whole character of foreign competition would be at once altered by the change, and its ill effects neutralised. In corroboration of the embarrassments produced throughout the Continent, by the contraction of the currency and consequent low money prices forced on - I beg now to call the particular at- them by Peel's Bill, I refer to the retention of landowners and farmers to port of the Committee of 1821, where some opinions I shall submit to them, it is stated that a proportion of the deand which may not be in accord alto-pression of prices prevailing in other gether with some established notions, countries, is to be ascribed to the reand appear at variance with some Istoration of our currency, which restormyself entertain. In the first place I ation the Committee stated to have dedeclare my conviction, that the most ranged, in some degree, the markets of perfect exclusion of foreign corn would every part of the civilized world. not give a price of wheat above an AVERAGE of 45s. by the Winchester quarter, if Peel's Bill is to remain and | be in full force. In the next place I do believe, that if we had now the war currency, we might at this moment open the ports freely to foreign corn, and that the price would rise materially notwithstanding, and be maintained permanently on an adequate scale. The price of every thing would rise; wages would rise also; indeed if the wages of labour did not rise, the price of corn would not, and never can (except from a scarcity of corn), because the laborious classes are the great consumers, and the markets must be governed by their ability to purchase, and we should have plenty of money and plenty of corn. The price would rise upon the Continent simultaneously with the price here. Prices upon the Continent are in a variety of ways affected, and, in the dealings of the Continent with us, in a great measure governed by our currency laws; and the Continent has felt, in a material degree, the dire effects of the contrac-for the growth of wheat. Our facilities of tion of the currency of this country, being, in truth, a diminution of the aggregate circulating medium of all nations in commercial intercourse with us. The high prices at which alone, during the war, the Continent could sell us grain, were, in a great measure, the necessary result of our war currency; or, in other words, cheap money, and

I do not by any means intend to admit that I think a permanent importation of corn desirable or safe, because there is nothing I should so much dread as reliance upon foreign countries for any portion of our daily food. I think our independence would be gone, our people would be the subjects of those who fed them. I think we have AMPLE means to feed ourselves in general, and to extract a surplus of any other country when we WANT it; in short, with superior wealth we should always have the best chance to extract occasional supply from our neighbours; but I contend that we can grow and bring to market, corn as CHEAP as any country in the world; by cheap, I mean REALLY cheap, that is, with as little cost of labour and seed; our soil and climate taken altogether are as favourable as that of other countries. Set the prime of our soil against the prime of other countries; compare, in like manner, the middling quality and bad; and we shall be found little, if any, inferior

conveyance to market, lighten considerably the price; then the force of superior capital and skill are wonderfully effective to insure and to increase produce. I say then, we can grow it at as low a labour price as any nation upon the Continent. More than the first half of the last century, our price was as low, and often lower, so that we had a