XXI. 1828. and falling 1s. by every shilling the price advanced, till at CHAP. 73s. it became 1s. only. The bill met with considerable opposition, the agriculturists contending for a higher, the Liberals for a lower rate; but at length it passed both Houses by large majorities, that in the Commons being 202 1 Ann. Reg. to 58; in the Lords, 86 to 19;-so firmly fixed was the 1828, 111, agricultural interest at this period, in both Houses, at no Deb. xviii. great distance, in point of time, from an organic change 1364, 1442. which was to deprive them of all protection whatever.1 118; Parl. 1379, 1411, suppression notes. So strongly was the cheapening party, notwithstand- 102. ing this, intrenched in the legislature, that Government Bill for the brought forward a bill to prohibit the circulation of of small Scotch bank-notes in England. These notes, being for £1 each, were found to be extremely convenient in practice, and accordingly they everywhere crept across the Border, and were received at last in all the northern counties of England, as far as York and Preston. This was justly complained of as a grievance by the English bankers, who, restrained from issuing small notes themselves, found this profitable branch of their business taken out of their hands by strangers who still enjoyed the privilege of doing so. It never occurred to the legislature that the system of excluding such notes from circulation was the really erroneous thing; and that the English public would not testify such anxiety to get Scotch notes, unless their circulation was found to be convenient in business and advantageous to the operations of commerce. All these considerations yielded to the desire felt to contract the circulation, and rest it entirely upon a metallic basis; and in this desire the landed interest, in total blindness as to the effect of such measures upon their own fortunes, for the most part concurred. Sir James Graham-whose tenantry at Netherby, on the western border, had largely shared in the benefits of the Scotch notes, and who himself had published an able pamphlet against the existing monetary system-in vain moved for a committee to inquire into the subject. He CHAP. XXI. 1828. was answered by the argument, that to make any inquiry would be tantamount to going back on our whole monetary system. The result was that the bill passed both Houses by great majorities-in the Commons by eighty-two to seventeen-and the circulation of Scotch notes in England was entirely stopped. Very great distress was in consequence brought on the northern counties, especially among the small traders and farmers, who had long been supported by the advances of the Scotch bankers in the same way as they everywhere were to the north of the Tweed. This law, which excited little attention at the time, deserves to be noted as one of the many circumstances which concurred at this period. 1 Parl. Deb. to spread distress among the industrious classes, and con1033; Ann. sequently dissatisfaction at existing institutions, and which were silently but irresistibly preparing a change in the constitution.1 * xviii. 982, Reg. 1828, 79, 83. The next important question of the session, however, was * This bill did not pass without the strongest opposition and clearest prophecy of future evils from the few in the House of Commons who entertained views different from those of the majority on the subject. Sir James Graham, who made a most admirable speech on the occasion, thus expressed himself: "To think that things could return to what they were before the war, was one of the most dangerous errors that could be entertained. The gentlemen opposite had contrived, however, not only to reduce corn to the standard that it maintained before the war, but in 1822 to 43s., lower than it had been since the Revolution. This miracle was produced by a very simple process-merely that of tampering with the currency, from which the landlord is sure to be the first to suffer. The value of money was heavily increased, while all contracts remained fixed to their nominal amount. The change bore down the amount of the landlord's receipt for his produce, while all the fixed charges and incumbrances on his property were increased. He was bound to pay in a currency 30 per cent higher in value than that in which he had borrowed, and the consequence was that he must retrench, abandon the hospitality and liberality of his ancestors, and live like a niggard and degraded man, and squeeze his tenants like an oppressor, or the monied man in five years walked in and took possession. The error was in the system: we had attempted a change which we could not bear, and we should be compelled to abandon. A decrease in the quantity of money in any country is the first step in the high-road to ruin. The right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr Peel) had said the other evening, in the debate on the Corn Laws, 'that the calling in the one-pound notes would increase the value of money, and consequently increase the amount of those duties out of which the protection was derived.' Suppose there should be a bad harvest. It is admitted that there is not more in the country than would afford a short supply. How was this to be 66 XXI. 1828. 103. the Test and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which, in them- CHAP. selves momentous, acquired additional importance at the period when it was brought forward, from its being an obvious step to Catholic emancipation. To understand this Repeal of subject it is necessary to premise that, by the 13th and Corporation 25th Charles II., all persons, before they were admitted Acts. into situations in corporations, or received into any office, civil or military, or any place of trust under the Crown, were obliged to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the Church of England. By the 16th George II. certain penalties were removed from persons who had not qualified in terms of this Act, who were appointed to situations under Government; but still it remained in force, especially so far as regarded situations in corporations, and acted as a barrier against the admission of Dissenters into places of trust and emolument at their disposal. As such it was regarded as one of the most important bulwarks of the Church of England; for not only did it prevent persons of adverse religious principles from getting into situations of trust, but it se made good but by an importation from abroad; and how could that be got but by an exportation of gold from this country? Here, then, would a want of currency be felt; and what was certain on the one hand would be uncertain on the other; for the intended limitation of the small paper currency would prevent the re-issue of the notes, and this would bring about such a difficulty as was felt in 1825, the only difference being that the one case was a domestic demand for gold, the other would be a foreign. The results would be the same. It was foolish in the extreme, because the paper system wanted regulation, to abolish it at once, without inquiry as to the probable effects of the abolition. It would be just as foolish to dash a watch in pieces because it wanted regulation. The paper currency was one of the great wheels of our system, and if it worked smoothly and without jerks, it was a most important one, for it was cheaper, and better, and more easily managed. I would say of a paper currency what was said in the Inferno of Dante to be inscribed over the gates of hell, 'Who enters here leaves all hope behind.' We have begun and gone on too far with the paper system to recede. The debt had been for the greater part contracted in paper, and must be paid in paper. It was impossible to think of taking any other course with effect."-Parl. Deb., xix. pp. 999-1010. One of the most curious things in history is the clear manner in which the consequences of measures are seen by some people, and the entire blindness to them in others. This might pass for a description of the monetary crisis of 1848, deduced from its real cause. Still more curious perhaps is the way in which, after the truth has been clearly seen, it is lost sight of, in after times, even by the same individual, XXI. 1828. CHAP. cured the advantages of such situations to those of the orthodox creed. On the other hand, the Dissenters alleged with reason that such distinctions were unjust and invidious between persons professing at bottom the same religious belief, and that it argued little of the strength in reason of the Established Church when it required to be propped up by such temporal considerations. 104. Argument The question came on for debate on the 18th March, when it was argued by Lord John Russell, Lord Althorpe, for the re- Mr Smith of Norwich, and Mr Fergusson* : "However peal. necessary and proper these restrictions may have been at the time they were originally imposed, to guard against an existing and overwhelming danger, that necessity no longer exists. There then did exist a party in the country which was set upon undermining our institutions, and whom it was perhaps necessary to exclude from situations of power, lest they should carry their designs into effect; but is it possible to assert that any such danger now exists? What pretext is there for any sacramental or other test to protect the Church from danger? Had any complaint ever been made against the principles and practice of such of the Dissenters as had got into office by the tests being not exacted during the last half-century? Practically speaking, the act has been for nearly a century in abeyance, in Government appointments, and no danger had accrued to the Established Church. All that is now required is, to efface an obsolete but invidious and discreditable act from our statute-book. When it has been ascertained by experience that no danger exists, is it either just or wise to keep up distinctions introduced and justified only by its reality? It is never expedient to presume disaffection against any class of society: such presumption is more likely than anything else to work out * Of Craigdarroch in Dumfriesshire, afterwards Judge-Advocate of England, and a barrister of great ability in Calcutta, who had lately returned with a splendid fortune from India, and redeemed his ancient paternal inheritance in Scotland, and had been returned member for the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright. XXI. 1828. its own realisation. Better, far better, to leave the opinion CHAP. to prevail, that all men are equally bound to obey the laws upon the same obligations of common compact, than to take for one class as against the rest a form of words as a security which elsewhere was deemed unnecessary. 105. "Look at Scotland: the Presbyterian religion is the established faith of that country. It is therefore a State Continued. religion as well as that of England; yet its members are affected by these laws, and prevented from serving their King, but at the risk of incurring these penalties, or renouncing their religion. Why proscribe a whole nation, upon the pretext that it is necessary to defend the Church and State as by law established? Why deny a community of privilege to those who encountered equal dangers, and bore equal burdens? On what occasion have the people of Scotland failed to contribute their full share to the support of Great Britain? Did the Church of England aspire, like the Mussulmans of Turkey, to be exclusively charged with the defence of the empire? If so, let the Presbyterians and Dissenters withdraw, and it will be seen what sort of defence it will have. Take the battle of Waterloo, which has crowned the renown of the most illustrious leader of these times. Take from the field the Scottish regiments; take away the aid, too, of the sons of Ireland; what would have been the chance of their arms, divested of the Scottish and Irish soldiers who filled their ranks, and served their navy in every quarter of the globe? If, then, they sought their aid in the hour of peril, ought they to deny them their confidence in times of tranquillity and peace? 66 106. Equally futile is the argument that these laws are necessary as a security to the Church, which must always Concluded. find its true protection, not in exclusion, but in its moderation, its fair temper, and decent worship, conformable to the sentiments and consciences of the majority of the people. The Dissenters can have no views against Church property; for they did not hold that great wealth was a |