I 
 
 PACK 
 ItfBX 
 
 SOME 
 
 o 27 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 541 
 
 UPON THE ARGUMENT DRAWN BY 
 
 MR. HUSKISSON 
 
 AND 
 
 THE BULLION COMMITTEE, 
 
 TROM THE HIGH PRICE OF 
 
 GOLD BULLION. 
 
 FIllST PUBLISHED IN LETTERS TO THE 
 EDITOR OF THE TIMES. 
 
 BY CIVIS. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY W. BULMER AND CO. CLEVELAND- 
 
 ROW, ST. JAMES'S ; 
 
 AND SOLD BY G. AND W. NICOL, BOOKSELLERS TO 
 HIS MAJESTY, PALL-MALL.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 1 H E following Letters were addressed to 
 the Editor of the Times, soon after the 
 appearance of Mr. Huskisson's Work, and 
 before the publication of the principal 
 Pamphlets which have since been written 
 in opposition to his opinions, and those of 
 the Bullion Committee. It was originally 
 the intention of the Writer, as it is intimated 
 in his first Letter, to have attempted an in- 
 vestigation of the whole question concern- 
 ing the state of our Currency : but he had 
 scarcely finished what is contained in the fol- 
 lowing pages, when so many works were 
 announced, having the same object, and 
 undertaken by persons so much better qua- 
 lified than he could pretend to be for the ex- 
 ecution of it, that he determined to desist 
 
 1313 

 
 from his feebler efforts ; which, as they only 
 sprung from a desire of resisting the pro- 
 pagation of what he conceived to be a most 
 erroneous doctrine, upon a subject of the 
 highest political importance, seemed to be 
 rendered unnecessary, when that resistance 
 was much more efficaciously opposed to 
 it from oth.r quarters. 
 
 It has, however, appeared to him, in 
 perusing the many sensible works which 
 have been published on this question, (to 
 the Authors of which the Public is more 
 deeply indebted, on account of the vital im- 
 portance of the subject, than is perhaps 
 generally believed), that less attention has 
 been devoted to the refutation of the lead- 
 ing argument in the Theory of Mr. Hus- 
 kisson and the Committee than that argu- 
 ment really deserves. He is therefore in- 
 duced to republish his observations upon 
 that part of their Theory, in the shape in 
 which they now appear, in the hope that they 
 may still afford some slight assistance to
 
 the more substantial labours of those who, 
 with the advantage of practical knowledge, 
 have, he trusts successfully, maintained the 
 cause of truth and sense, against the plausi- 
 ble but unfounded Theories of unexpe- 
 rienced philosophy.
 
 SOME REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 MR. HUSKISSON'S PAMPHLET, &c. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 OF the several works which have hitherto 
 appeared upon the important question con- 
 cerning the state of our Paper Currency, 
 which has lately been so much agitated in 
 and out of Parliament, there are three which 
 appear to me to be particularly deserving of 
 attention : the Report of the Bullion Com- 
 mittee, the pamphlet of Mr. Huskisson, and 
 that of Mr. Charles Bosanquet. 
 
 The two former of these contain, in ela- 
 borate detail, the theory of those persons who 
 maintain that our whole currency is depre- 
 ciated by the excess of Bank paper in circu- 
 lation ; and who insist upon the removal of 
 the restriction on the Bank to pay in cash, 
 as the only, but certain, means of restoring 
 
 *B
 
 CO 
 
 it to its natural value. Mr. Bosanquet's 
 work is a volume of practical objections, 
 very ably stated and reasoned upon, some- 
 times against the principles of this theory, 
 but more generally against their application 
 to the present circumstances. 
 
 The perusal of the last mentioned work 
 will hardly leave a doubt on the mind of 
 any unbiassed person, that the Committee 
 have, on some material points of the ques- 
 tion, formed their opinion much too hastily ; 
 that they have set up some principles with 
 too little consideration of the exceptions 
 to which they were liable ; that they have 
 passed too superficially over some important 
 facts and documents, which stand in the way 
 of their conclusions ; and that they have treat- 
 ed with too little attention, or rather with too 
 much contempt, the opinion of those "mer- 
 chants of extensive dealings and intelli- 
 gence," whom, for the sake, they say, of their 
 opinions, they thought it right to call before 
 them. In addition, however, to this mode of 
 refutation, which consists in comparing real 
 facts and the evidence of practical experience, 
 with the assumed necessary consequences 
 which constitute the theory of the Com- 
 mittee (and which mode of refutation, on such
 
 a subject at least, is unquestionably the truest 
 and the best), there is another way in which 
 it may be useful, if not necessary, to examine 
 the conclusions of the Committee ; I mean an 
 investigation of the theory itself by which it 
 is attempted to demonstrate, not merely that 
 those facts upon the existence of which we 
 are all agreed, may depend upon the causes 
 to which they assign them, but that they can 
 proceed from no others. Mr. Bosanquethas 
 shewn, by applying the test of practice to 
 their principles, that the Committee are much 
 mistaken in point of fact, in some assump- 
 tions, from which they dogmatically exclude 
 the possibility of error; my more humble and 
 less troublesome task, is an endeavour to show 
 that the internal structure of their system 
 is in some respects materially deficient; 
 and that, even in theory, if their premises 
 be carefully examined, their conclusions are 
 not always upholden by the foundation on 
 which they are made to stand. 
 
 The object, therefore, of this Letter, and of 
 some others on the same subject, which, if 
 you will allow me, I mean to address to you, 
 is principally to lay before the public the 
 grounds on which I differ in opinion, from 
 Mr. Huskisson, and dispute the validity of
 
 [ 4J 
 
 the proofs, by which he pretends to demon- 
 strate his theory. I deny many of his as- 
 sumptions ; I object to most of his practical 
 conclusions ; and I most earnestly deprecate 
 the measure which is recommended by him 
 and the Bullion Committee, as the remedy for 
 an evil, of which they presume that they have 
 at once proved the existence and the cause. 
 But before I proceed in this examination, 
 I cannot help adverting to the tone of per- 
 fect confidence, with which it is impossible 
 not to be struck on opening Mr. Huskisson's 
 publication. It exceeds even that of the 
 Report of the Bullion Committee. They 
 (the Committee) are indeed most " clear" 
 and " decided" in their opinions ; but he goes 
 quite beyond all matter of opinion ; and con- 
 ceiving that the subject, though, as he says 
 ( p. x. ), " of a complicated nature," is one 
 which admits of " strict proof;" he actually 
 arrives at demonstration. 
 
 Speaking of the mode in which he has in- 
 vestigated and formed his conclusion on this 
 subject, he says, in the last paragraph of his 
 preface, "I can however, conscientiously 
 declare, that whatever humble means I may 
 possess of discriminating bet ween truth and 
 error, between degrees of probability and
 
 [5] 
 
 strict proof, between conjecture and cer- 
 tainty, have been recently and anxiously 
 employed in the re-examination of the 
 opinion which I supported in the Com- 
 mittee." And before, (in the xiith page,) 
 
 " If I know my own mind, those opinions 
 have been formed as coolly and dispassion- 
 ately as they could have been upon any 
 point of abstract science ; and I should have 
 felt it as impossible to avoid coming to the 
 conclusion to which I have been led, upon 
 this subject, as to refuse my assent to the 
 demonstration of any problem in mathe- 
 matics." 
 
 From these two passages, which so dis- 
 tinctly describe the nature of that confidence 
 which is apparent in every part of his work, it 
 is evident that the mind of Mr. Huskisson is 
 in a state of perfect certainty as to the truth 
 of all his principles, and that he entertains 
 the most unqualified conviction of the cor- 
 rectness of all his conclusions. He is con- 
 scious of no bias on his judgment, he feels 
 his understanding free to receive and to dis- 
 cuss any objections to his theory, with per- 
 fect temper and impartiality ; he has in the 
 investigation of the subject used all the powers 
 of his mind, " all his means," as he ex-
 
 presses it himself, "of discriminating be- 
 tween truth and error, between degrees 
 of probability and strict proof, between 
 conjecture and certainty ;" and when the 
 extent of those means, the very great and 
 acknowledged experience which he pos- 
 sesses on subjects of this nature, his talents 
 and his assiduity, are taken into consideration, 
 it is not astonishing that, after such an inves- 
 tigation, he should feel a considerable degree 
 of confidence in any opinion which he may 
 thus have formed. But it is a little extraor- 
 dinary that he should so have mistaken the 
 nature of the subject of which he was treat- 
 ing, and the quality of the proof of which it 
 is susceptible, as to have embraced his con- 
 clusions as so many absolute and unqualified 
 certainties ; and that he should have consi- 
 dered his arguments as strict, unerring, and 
 infallible ; in short, as mathematical demon- 
 strations from which it is impossible to with- 
 hold assent. 
 
 Now, Sir, I contend, that it is a great and 
 an unfortunate error in the mind of Mr, 
 Huskisson, to have supposed the subject to be 
 capable of such proof; it is not susceptible 
 of it ; it is not an abstract subject to which 
 any understanding, however enlightened, can
 
 applymathematical demonstration ; and it 
 is, for mere than one reason, to be lamented, 
 that Mr. Huskisson has been led so to mis- 
 conceive it. I am confident that it is this error 
 alone which has induced him to use a tone, 
 and to assume a language, with regard to all 
 those who differ from him, such as are well 
 known to be far from usual with him. Had 
 he taken any other view of the subject than 
 this, (which, if correct, would certainly war- 
 rant him in imputing to all those who do 
 not agree with him, an incapacity to under- 
 stand a positive demonstration), it would 
 have been inconsistent with his feelings, to 
 have treated those who dissent from his 
 opinion upon it with such severity of con- 
 tempt as he has expresssed towards them. 
 But for the fancied elevation which this error 
 (as I conceive it to be) has given to him, 
 he would, I think, have replied to Mr. Handle 
 Jackson, without flatly impeaching his mo- 
 tives ; and to Sir John Sinclair, in any other 
 mode, rather than by a sarcastic depreciation 
 of his understanding ; his preface would not 
 have been sullied by the paragraph relating 
 to those gentlemen which appears in its 
 xiith page. 
 
 That the Directors of the Bank of Eng-
 
 C8 3 
 
 land, that all the practical merchants of the 
 city of London, who were examined before 
 the Committee, and have given their opinions 
 against the opinion of the Committee, may 
 have been mistaken, is certain ; and it could 
 not be expected that Mr. Huskisson, or any 
 man qualified like him to examine such a 
 subject, should surrender his judgment to 
 their authority ; but it might surely have 
 been expected that this mass of authority 
 against his opinion should have been treated 
 with a little of that respect, which would 
 have suggested the language of a more 
 moderated and unassuming confidence th.m 
 that which he has displayed. 
 
 And here, Sir, I must remark, that this 
 perfect and unsuspecting reliance on his own 
 conclusions ; this confident assurance in the 
 mind of Mr. Huskisson, that he has removed 
 all doubt and difficulty from a question hi- 
 therto considered as one too complicated in 
 its bearings, to admit of abstract demon- 
 stration ; the assumption that he had dis- 
 covered an exact science, in a path where all 
 those who have preceded him, have been 
 satisfied with collecting and weighing pro- 
 babilities ; so far from inducing a corres- 
 ponding reliance and confidence on my part,
 
 C9 3 
 
 when I perused his work, did, on the contrary, 
 excit an unusual degree of jealousy in my 
 mind, ami a deter mi nat'nn to examine much 
 more scrupulously his strict proof than I 
 should perhaps have been disposed to have 
 canvassed his opinion, if less positively 
 staged. For, the opinion of Mr. Huskisson 
 upon a ve; y intricate question, and one which 
 involves the consideration of a great variety 
 of causes and effects possible, probable, and 
 certain, would, on account of his acknow- 
 ledged talents and information, and his 
 practical acquaintance with the details of 
 business, have commanded a very great 
 degree of respect; and his authority would, 
 to the mind of a more humble individual like 
 myself, have been an additional weight of 
 no little consequence in the scale of probabi- 
 lities. But when he tells me that he has 
 adopted his present opinion, not because he 
 believes, but because he knows and can prove 
 it to be true ; when he treats all those who 
 think otherwise, as persons blind to the 
 conclusions of strict demonstration ; then, 
 indeed, the weight of his opinion, as a matter 
 of authority, is at an end ; his proofs are to 
 be examined : if his demonstration is clear 
 and perfect, his proposition must be admitted,
 
 ,J 
 
 but if there is any defect in it, he will, in- 
 stead of having added to the weight of his 
 opinion by an attempt to demonstrate his 
 subject, have very much diminished it, by 
 shewing that his mind was prepossessed by 
 a strong prejudice, which coulcl alone have 
 deluded him into such excessive confidence 
 in the grounds of his belief. 
 
 That he should have fallen into this mis- 
 take, appears the more extraordinary, when 
 we read his description of his opinions at 
 different periods on this subject, and of the 
 mode in which he was at last so suddenly 
 and decidedly converted, to that which he 
 now maintains. In defence of himself 
 against the charge, which, he says, some of 
 his friends have insinuated against him, in 
 the shape of these questions : " why did he 
 not give to the public an earlier warning on 
 the subject ; why not, while he was himself 
 in office, and before the evil had grown to 
 its present height ?" (page xiv.) he says, 
 that " when the great fall in the foreign ex- 
 changes first took place, he ascribed it with- 
 out hesitation, and perhaps without much 
 reflexion, altogether to the effect of the vio- 
 lent measures, political and commercial, 
 adopted on the Continent, and to the suspen-
 
 s ion of our intercourse with the United States. 
 But when that fall had continued for near a 
 twelvemonth, doubts arose in his mind/' &c. 
 (page xvii.) But they went no farther than 
 doubts, till Mr. Huskisson was furnished 
 with the evidence of the Governor, and 
 Deputy Governor of the Bank, that they did 
 not regulate the amount of their issues of 
 paper, by the price of gold and the state of 
 the exchanges; and being of opinion that 
 this conduct on the part of the Bank Direc- 
 tors was extremely wrong, and betrayed an 
 ignorance of what he conceived to be the 
 true criteria, by which they should govern 
 their conduct and limit their issues, what 
 does he do ? he comes to the conclusion that 
 he has discovered the cause, the only, the 
 all-sufficient cause ; the cause which is not 
 only so satisfactory, but so exclusively ad- 
 missible in accounting for the effect which 
 he deplores, that he turns his back at once 
 and for ever upon that other cause, namely, 
 " the violent measures, political and commer- 
 cial, adopted on the Continent/' to which, 
 but a month before, he had altogether as- 
 cribed the very same effects. Now, Sir, is 
 it not most extraordinary that a mind like 
 Mr. Huskisson's, so well versed in subjects
 
 C 12 3 
 
 of this nature, so well instructed in all the 
 branches of political ceconomy (which he 
 conceives himself to have reduced to a sci- 
 ence of abstract truth, capable of mathema- 
 tical demonstration ) is it not, I ask, most 
 extraordinary, that he should now be prepared 
 to demonstrate his former opinion to have 
 been so entirely erroneous, that the state, of 
 things which he lately thought alone suffi- 
 cient to account for the effects in question, 
 is in fact so far from being the cause of 
 them, or of having any influence in produc- 
 ing them, that if the newly discovered 
 origin of the evil were removed, every thing 
 would, in spite of the continued existence of 
 that state of things, be well? 
 
 If, now, Mr. Huskisson had been con- 
 tented to consider this, not as an abstract, 
 but as a practical subject, as one over which 
 natural and moral causes have their operation 
 and their influence, what would have been 
 the course of his mind, even supposing the 
 principles of the Governor and Deputy Go- 
 vernor of the Bank, newly revealed to him, 
 to be as erroneous and improper as he thinks 
 them? In my humble judgment, the natural 
 course of such a mind as his would have 
 been, to have felt indeed, that he had been
 
 mistaken, in looking only to the state of the 
 Continent for the cause of the evil, since it 
 appeared that the conduct of the Bank, might 
 have led to such an excessive issue of paper, 
 as would constitute an other operative cause, 
 productive of the mischief deplored; and 
 that, therefore, the political and commercial 
 measures abroad (which certainly were not 
 changed by this new discovery, and which 
 were at least as capable after as before it of 
 influencing the price of bullion and the ex- 
 changes) must be aided in producing that 
 effect by this other circumstance now 
 brought to light. The next step, I appre- 
 hend, would have been to have endeavoured 
 to ascertain in what proportions and degrees 
 these causes were, or might be operative 
 (supposing the Bank to have actually ex- 
 ceeded the limits which it was found they 
 might have exceeded); and above all, whe- 
 ther any, and what other yet undiscovered 
 and unsuspected causes might be conducing 
 to the same end : for one would naturally 
 think that this discovery of his previous 
 mistake in one important particular, should 
 have filled his mind rather with mistrust 
 than confidence ; and that when he found 
 he had been so much misled by relying too
 
 entirely on one conception, he would be 
 more careful of not relying too implicitly on 
 another. This would, I think, have been 
 the most natural course for him to pursue ; 
 this would have led him to survey the wide 
 field of this practical subject, with more dif- 
 fidence of his own opinion, and more respect 
 for that of others ; and we should probably 
 not have seen such a report as that of the 
 Bullion Committee, and certainly not such a 
 pamphlet as that of Mr. Huskisson. But, 
 unfortunately, this has not been the case; 
 his new discovery, instead of creating in hs 
 mind some doubt and diffidence, has hurried 
 him into a fancied certainty, which has closed 
 it against all further argument or informa- 
 tion. He raises his new opinion in the scale 
 of propositions to the rank of a mathemati- 
 cal truth, and gives it to the world with the 
 confidence of a philosopher in that abstract 
 science. 
 
 Now, Sir, the view which I take of this 
 subject is entirely different. So far from its 
 being an abstract subject, and capable of 
 strict demonstration, I consider it as a prac- 
 tical subject, affected by more circumstances, 
 and by a greater variety and combination of 
 causes, influencing and affecting the results,
 
 C153 
 
 in various and undefinable relations, than 
 almost any other upon which a question 
 could arise. And therefore, in attempting 
 to offer some observations, to shew the in- 
 sufficiency of Mr. Huskisson's arguments 
 and conclusions, I must protest against the 
 terms and conditions of his challenge, if I 
 rightly understand them. In the xith page 
 of his preface he says, " I am anxious to 
 meet upon a fair and equal footing those 
 persons who have publicly attacked/' (and 
 I presume all those who may publicly at- 
 tack) " the Report of the Committee. I 
 wish to draw from them an admission of 
 the principles which I state ; or a clear and 
 explicit exposition of their own. If they 
 admit the principles stated by me, it is for 
 them to reconcile their own deductions to 
 these principles so admitted; and to dis- 
 prove mine. If the difference between us 
 be as to principles, let them lay fairly before 
 the public those on which their theory is 
 built; and shew the practical consequen- 
 ces to which their own principles would in 
 their own opinion lead." Now, Sir, I by no 
 means admit that before any man can be 
 heard against Mr. Huskisson',s principles 
 and his theory, he must produce his own. I,
 
 C 16 3 
 
 for my own part, have no theory ; and if 
 by principles, is meant those accurate defi- 
 nitions and axioms, by means of which all 
 abstract theories are demonstrated, I must 
 freely confess that I have no such principles 
 which I can apply to this practical subject ; 
 a subject which I contemplate as one com- 
 posed of many mixed causes and consequen- 
 ces, the various bearings and limits of which 
 I do not presume to be able to ascertain ; 
 and which of course I cannot reduce within 
 the bounds of precise definition. I shall 
 content myself therefore with endeavouring 
 to shew that Mr. Huskisson has not suc- 
 ceeded in his attempt to do so ; that his de- 
 finitions are disputable propositions; that 
 his axioms require to be proved; and that 
 his conclusions are very far from being de- 
 monstrated. I shall afterwards take a more 
 general view of the subject, and state the 
 various considerations which induce me to 
 differ in opinion from the Bullion Committee. 
 But these must be the subjects of future 
 Letters. 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
 CIVIS.
 
 t '7D 
 
 i ' 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 MY former Letter described the general 
 impression which the preface to Mr. Hus- 
 kisson's pamphlet had left upon my mind. 
 I shall now proceed to examine the course 
 of his argument, and to point out some ob- 
 jections which appear to me to render it as 
 inconclusive as he seems to think it clear 
 and irresistible. 
 
 But it may here be proper very briefly to 
 state the leading points of this discussion, 
 with the grounds of proof upon which Mr. 
 Huskisson relies, and which I dispute. 
 
 The facts, admitted on all sides, are, ist, 
 the high price of gold bullion ; and, 2dly, 
 the unfavourable state of the exchange be- 
 tween this country and the Continent: both 
 of which have prevailed for some time. 
 
 These two facts constitute the evils which 
 are complained of: and they are traced by 
 the Bullion Committee to one only cause 
 an excess in the paper circulation of this 
 country; of which the high price of gold 
 bullion is, they say, the most unequivocal 
 symptom ; and, next to that, the low state 
 *C
 
 C 183 
 
 of the Continental exchanges : and they 
 recommend, as the unquestionable cure of 
 these evils, the obligation upon the Bank to 
 resume its payments in specie. 
 
 Mr. Huskisson goes something farther 
 than the Committee ; for he treats the high 
 price of bullion as a proof of the depreciation 
 of the Bank paper, admitting of demonstra- 
 tion in the strictest form. He likewise 
 pushes the argument drawn from the state 
 pf the exchange, in point of form, though 
 perhaps not in point of fact, beyond the 
 assumptions of the Committee. 
 
 His mode of proving the depreciation of 
 pur currency by the price of bullion will be 
 the subject of the present Letter. He com- 
 mences with an observation, that " the 
 various definitions of the word money, and 
 the different acceptations of it, have contri- 
 buted to produce much of the doubt and 
 uncertainty which prevail at this moment 
 respecting the state of our currency/' And 
 after a short examination of the defects in 
 former definitions, he gives us his own; 
 which, at the close of such a preamble, we 
 had a fair right to expect should be clear, 
 precise, and comprehensive. I cannot, how- 
 ever, think that these qualities will, on a
 
 r 193 
 
 careful consideration, be found to belong 
 to it ; for it appears to me to be not only 
 extremely defective, as a description of the 
 properties of money, but to be attended with 
 a circumstance particularly calculated to 
 defeat the precision which should belong to 
 a definition ; I mean the introduction of a 
 term, as synonymous for the word money, 
 which cannot in this stage of the argument 
 be allowed to stand as such : and this cir- 
 cumstance, if I do not much deceive myself, 
 will be found to occasion a great fallacy, 
 affecting the whole course of Mr. Huskis- 
 son's argument ; a fallacy which is observa- 
 ble whenever he uses the expression assumed 
 as synonymous for the word money. This 
 he does most frequently ; and in many cases 
 where the whole press of the argument may 
 be said to depend upon the question whe- 
 ther such expression is so synonymous or 
 not. 
 
 The definition I allude to is to be found 
 at the end of the first paragraph in the ed 
 page, in these words : " Money, or A GIVEN- 
 QUANTITY OF GOLD OR SILVER, is not only 
 the common measure and common representa- 
 tive of all other commodities, hut also the 
 common and universal equivalent" 
 
 *C2
 
 He defines money, therefore, to be the 
 common measure, common representative, 
 and universal equivalent of all other com- 
 modities ; and he gives his readers notice 
 that he intends to use the word money, and 
 the words a given quantity of gold and silver, 
 as equivalent and convertible terms. 
 
 There is no part of Mr. Huskisson's 
 work which shews more strikingly than this 
 definition, that it is necessary to follow him 
 with the utmost caution through the differ- 
 ent stages of his argument, and to watch his 
 assumptions with the greatest care; for if 
 the reader slurs over this definition, and gives 
 him credit for the accuracy of his explanation 
 of money, and the correctness of the syno- 
 nym, one most important point in the argu- 
 ment, one most contested question, is in a 
 great measure decided, and what ought to 
 have been the matter of proof is assumed. 
 
 Struck with the impropriety of this defi- 
 nition, and feeling that there were some im- 
 portant distinctions between money and 
 bullion, and those distinctions specially af- 
 fecting the present question, it occurred to 
 me as soon as I had seen it, to turn to such 
 books of reference as I happened to have by 
 me, for some of those former definitions of
 
 C 3 
 
 money, of the inaccuracy of which Mr. 
 Huskisson complains, and which he wishes 
 to supersede by his own. Among several 
 which I found, nearly to the same effect, the 
 two following appear to me to be the best; 
 " MONEY, a piece of matter, commonly 
 metal, to which public authority has affixed 
 a certain value and weight, to serve as a me- 
 dium in Commere." Encyclopedia Britan- 
 nic a. 
 
 " MONNOYE, en ge'ne'ral : C'est une portion 
 de quelque matiere que ce soit, a laquelle 
 1'autorite' publique, la coutume, ou 1' usage 
 ont donne" un poids et une valeur certaine, 
 pour servir dans le Commerce". Diction. 
 Universe! de Commerce, 
 
 We shall see in the course of the present 
 examination, with what right Mr. Huskisson 
 discards such definitions as these, for that 
 which he proposes to us. In both of the fore- 
 going, which apply to money in general, the 
 chief of those distinctions to which I have 
 alluded is clearly pointed out; I mean the 
 fixed value given to it by public authority : 
 but British money in particular, which is the 
 subject of our present consideration, has 
 other peculiarities which distinguish it from 
 the bullion of which it is made, viz. that it
 
 is a crime to melt it, to export it, or to ex- 
 change the coin of different metals with each 
 other at a higher or lower rate than the Mint 
 has assigned to them. 
 
 Any person who will look at Locke's 
 " Further Considerations concerning: rais- 
 
 o 
 
 ing the value of money/' will, I think, rea- 
 dily perceive, that Mr. Huskisson's definition 
 is compiled from the premises which are 
 there laid down concerning silver ; and I 
 apprehend that any person who will read 
 that treatise with attention, will admit that 
 it does nothing less than afford any autho- 
 rity for such a definition of money. He will 
 there perceive the meaning of the words 
 " universal equivalent," which, when applied 
 to silver as a general instrument of commerce 
 over all the world, are very intelligible; but 
 .which, when stated as one of the properties 
 of money, are at least very ambiguous. The 
 reader will likewise find in that work the 
 distinction between money and bullion, and 
 the effects of it in various practical points of 
 view very clearly pointed out ; a distinction 
 most important to the present question, but 
 which is entirely confounded in Mr. Hus- 
 kisson's definition, and quite sunk in the. 
 course of his argument.
 
 That Mr. Huskisson should have over- 
 looked these differences between money and 
 a given quantity of gold and silver y is of 
 course not to be suspected; they are too 
 obvious to every person to escape so acute a 
 man as he is ; and I am therefore bound to 
 suppose that he has either overlooked their 
 importance to the presentquestion, or, having 
 considered them, has satisfied himself that 
 they were not important to it. It is worthy of 
 remark, however, that in the whole course of 
 that part of his work which comprehends 
 his attempt to prove the depreciation of our 
 paper by the mere fact of the difference of 
 price between coin and bullion, he never once 
 adverts to these most material distinctions, 
 although he notices them elsewhere, (as in 
 pages 16, 89, and 90), when it suits his ar- 
 gument in another point of view ; and he 
 closes his preliminary observations with the 
 following paragraph : " there is not, there- 
 fore, nor can there be, any difference what- 
 ever between any given coin and an uncoined 
 piece of the same metal of equal weight and 
 fineness, except that the quantity of the 
 former is accurately ascertained and publicly 
 proclaimed to all the world by the stamp it 
 bears," That is to say, that 5dwts. 9 grs.
 
 t 4l 
 
 of gold issued from the Mint in the shape 
 of a guinea, for twenty -one shillings in 
 silver, (or in Bank paper for 21 twentieths of 
 a pound) and which is current and ex- 
 changeable at thai rate and at no other, 
 within the limits of British law, and which, 
 moreover, is not legally exportable, and 
 therefore not applicable to the purposes of 
 foreign commerce, is the same to all in- 
 tents and purposes as 5 dwts. 9 grs. of un- 
 coined gold, a merely merchantable article, 
 having none of these properties and restric- 
 tions ; and that there neither is nor can be 
 any difference whatever between them ! If 
 I should say that a piece of paper bearing 
 on the f ce of it an obligation on the part of 
 the Bank to give the holder 20 shillings, was 
 to all intents and purposes the same thing 
 as a piece of paper of the same size and 
 quality having no such writing upon it, I 
 should advance an absurdity precisely ana- 
 logous to this of Mr. Huskisson. 
 
 With such assumptions and definitions as 
 these, and such statements of law and fact 
 as we shall soon see arising out of them, 
 Mr. Huskisson may certainly prove any 
 thing he pleases to his own satisfaction, 
 but the really must abate somewhat of the;
 
 confidence with which he expects his readers 
 to agree with him. 
 
 I proceed now to his application of his 
 preliminary observations on coin and bullion 
 to the currency of this kingdom. 
 
 " I assume/' he says, " as admitted, that, in 
 Great Britain, gold is the scale to which all 
 prices are referred, and since the 39th of 
 the King, the only legal tender, except for 
 payments under 5/." I have the misfortune, 
 Sir, to be perpetually at variance with Mr. 
 Huskisson on his assumptions. I am aware 
 that it has been recommended by several 
 writers, and that it has been strongly 
 insisted upon in a treatise deservedly ce- 
 lebrated, and to which Mr. Huskisson 
 frequently refers (Lord LIVERPOOL'S Letter 
 to the King), that gold should be made the 
 only measure of value in this country. 
 LOCKE recommended silver for th,e same 
 purpose; but Locke was more consistent than 
 Lord Liverpool, because, in order to make 
 one metal the measure of value, he recom- 
 mended that the other should not be bound 
 by law in any fixed relation to it; but should 
 exchange for more or less against it, like 
 any other commodity in the market. It is 
 quite obvious that this is the only way in
 
 which one metal alone can be the common 1 
 measure of value, while the other is in 
 circulation with it. And I find some obser- 
 vations in an article of the Edinburgh Review 
 so applicable to the present question, that I 
 cannot refrain from transcribing them. 
 
 " In opposition to Mr. Locke, who con- 
 tended that silver was the money of account 
 all the world over ; our author ( Lord Liver- 
 pool) maintains that in this country gold has 
 become the standard of value; and having, 
 by the natural course of events, usurped, in 
 fact, the place of silver, ought, he thinks, to 
 be confirmed in its new capacity by the 
 public authority. We suspect there is no 
 small inaccuracy of language in this dispute, 
 and that the combatants, as often happens, 
 would be much nearer one opinion than 
 they are aware, were their terms defined. If 
 regard is had to the origin and etymology of 
 the language in which all modern contracts 
 are conceived, and if this is allowed to be a 
 fair test of the sense in which the words are 
 taken ; then, no doubt, silver is the commo- 
 dity meant to be conveyed away in ^every 
 bargain of sale, and referred to as an equi- 
 valent or common measure in all compara- 
 tive .estimates of value, In this case, he who
 
 promises to pay so many pounds sterling, 
 orlivres, promises a certain quantity of pre- 
 cious metal in the words which once signi- 
 fied that precise weight of silver, but which 
 custom or law has since transferred to mean 
 indiscriminately a much smaller weight of 
 silver, or a certain weight of gold/' And 
 again, " Since Mr. Locke wrote, certain 
 events have almost banished silver from the 
 circulation of this country, and substituted 
 gold in its place ; only we bind ourselves to 
 pay optionally either so much silver, or its 
 value in gold, at a rate fixed and known at the 
 time of making the bargain. So long as there 
 is a double circulation in any country, when 
 we talk of one metal, we in truth mean 
 either of the two at a known relative valuation, 
 which may be fixed by law, or left to be 
 settled in the market, ( with us it is fixed by 
 law) ; and when we call one of them the 
 common measure of property, we can only 
 mean to" assert that the other having nearly 
 disappeared from the circulation, the price of 
 the one which remains is alone attended to in 
 all contracts. It is absurd to call one a mea- 
 sure or standard more than the other, if both 
 continue in circulation. They are both
 
 measures and standards." (Edinb. Review, 
 vol 7, p. 389, 90.) 
 
 In addition to these general observations 
 against the exclusive right of gold (even gold 
 coin, much less, as Mr. Huskisson pretends, 
 gold bullion ) to be a measure of value, we 
 must remark, that Mr. Huskisson seems to 
 have very much under-rated the importance 
 of the exception mentioned in his own state- 
 ment, viz. that gold is not the only legal tender 
 for payments under Q$l. that is, in at least 
 99 payments in every 100 in the daily barter 
 throughout the kingdom; for I think no 
 man will be disposed to deny, that the number 
 of the payments under 2/. must bear an 
 incalculably high proportion to that of those 
 above it ; in all these, silver is, even accord- 
 ing to Mr. Huskisson's mode of stating it, a 
 legal tender. 
 
 But I have a still more important objecr 
 tion to Mr, Huskisson's assumption, founded 
 on the Act 39 Geo. III. and one which will 
 find its place in the argument hereafter : I 
 mean, that he has not correctly stated the 
 purport of that Act. He says, that, according 
 to that Act, gold is the only legal tender ex- 
 pepting for payments under 25^. But the fact
 
 is otherwise : silver coin, by tale, is indeed 
 by the act precluded from being a legal 
 tender in payments above 25/. ; but it 
 is provided that it shall continue a legal 
 tender by weight, to any amount, at the 
 rate of 55. zd. per ounce. Now it is cu- 
 rious enough, that Mr. Huskisson, who 
 has himself declared money and a given 
 quantity of gold and silver, to be synonymous, 
 should declare that gold was the only scale 
 of prices, because in payments above 2$l. 
 gold only is allowed to be tendered at its 
 Mint valuation, and silver according to 
 quantity. Why, surely, in Mr. Huskisson's 
 opinion, a given quantity of silver s-houldbe 
 money ! 
 
 But it appears throughout to have been 
 an object of great consequence to the Com- 
 mittee, and Mr. Huskisson, to establish that 
 gold is the only scale of prices in this 
 country ; and a matter of still greater con- 
 sequence, for the purpose of the argument 
 now before us (drawn from the price of gold 
 bullion), to sink entirely all considera- 
 tion of the fixed legal relation between gold 
 and silver money. Mr. Huskisson, accord- 
 ingly, in the premises which follow the 
 assumption I have just noticed, and which he
 
 30] 
 
 likewise -.*' assumes as unquestionable both 
 in law and in fact'' (page 6), tells us, 
 
 ist, That a pound of gold, of our standard, 
 is coined into 44,^- guineas at the Mint, 
 without any charge for the conversion of it 
 into coin. 
 
 adly, That by law, these guineas, which, 
 when fresh from the Mint, weigh five dwts. 
 nine 39-89^8 grs. cease to be a legal tender 
 when they are reduced below 5 dwts. 8 grs. 
 Thus far is very well ; but is there nothing 
 more said about these guineas ? Is no mention 
 made of some very material points both of 
 " law and of fact," connected with their 
 conversion into coin ? Is it not stated that the 
 Mint has not merely divided the pound of 
 gold into 44,-i- pieces, but that each of these 
 pieces are, by that operation, become worth 
 si shillings in silver, neither more nor less , 
 whatever may be the relative prices in the 
 market of the metals they contain ; and that 
 it is forbidden by the law to melt or export 
 them? 
 
 Not one word of all this ! it is as com- 
 pletely omitted as it is unquestionably true. 
 And the effects and importance of the omis- 
 sion are immediately perceived in the conse- 
 quence which is made to follow from the
 
 I 31 3 
 
 whole of the foregoing assumptions, taken 
 together. 
 
 " Consequently the law of England, be- 
 fore the year 1 797, distinctly secured to 
 every man, that he should not be compelled 
 to take in satisfaction of a legal debt, for 
 every guinea of that debt, less than 5 dwts. 
 8 grs. of gold, of standard fineness : and 
 as distinctly, that he should not be obliged 
 to receive, as the representative of a gui- 
 nea, or a guinea's worth, any article or 
 thing which would not purchase or procure 
 that quantity of gold." (Page 7.) 
 
 This does appear to me to be such an ex- 
 traordinary consequence, that I am led to 
 doubt whether I rightly understand the au- 
 thor ; although his language is so plain, that 
 it seems almost impossible to mistake him. 
 The premises are : 
 
 ist. That gold is the scale to which all 
 prices are referred, and the only legal tender 
 for payments above 25!. since the 39th of 
 the King. 
 
 sdly, That a pound of gold is coined into 
 44,i pieces, &c. 
 
 3dly, That a guinea weighs five dwts. nine 
 g.Sgths grs. and is not a legal tender if it is 
 reduced in weight to less than 5 dwts. 8 grs.
 
 C 32 
 
 And therefore, that no man was obliged, 
 before the year 1797, that is, before the 37th 
 of the King, to take in satisfaction of a legal 
 debt of a guinea, less than 5 dwts. 8 grs. of 
 gold, or any thing that would not procure 
 that quantity of gold* 
 
 Does Mr. Huskisson mean, that in con-' 
 sequence of the act of 170.9, no man was 
 compelled, in 1797, to receive any thing but 
 gold for the debt of a guinea ? The act, even 
 if it could be antedated, would not jus- 
 tify that ; for he would actually, even under 
 that act, be compelled to receive 21 shillings 
 for every guinea of his debt under 25/. 
 or silver at 55. zd. an ounce for every guinea, 
 if above 25/. whatever might be the relative 
 prices of the two metals in the market. 
 
 Does he mean that the act of 1799 
 superseded some act existing in 1797, which 
 made gold the only legal tender for every 
 sum whatever ? I know of no such act ; I cart 
 find none in the Statute book which existed 
 in 1797, making gold the only legal tender^ 
 even as it is now, for payments above 25!. 
 If there did exist any such law, Mr. Hus- 
 kisson has done great injustice to his "cow- 
 sequence," by not producing it. 
 
 Does he mean that the Bank was obliged.
 
 before 1797, to P a y i ts notes in gold? It 
 certainly was not : it might have paid them 
 in silver to any amount, and that silver very 
 much above its market value. 
 
 But whatever Mr. Huskisson may mean, 
 his consequence, as he has stated it, cer- 
 tainly does not follow from his premises; 
 and it is as certainly not true, independently 
 of those premises. It is not true, that before 
 the year 1797, it was secured to every man 
 that he should receive five dvvts. nine 39- 
 89ths grs. of gold for every debt of the cur- 
 rent value of a guinea. Commodities never 
 were, either before or since the year i797> 
 bought and sold forgiven quantities of gold 
 or silver, but forgiven sums of money, that 
 is, of gold or silver, issued from the Mint, 
 at a fixed relative proportion between the 
 two coins, or something representing an 
 equivalent value in the currency of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 There remains now to examine the more 
 formal enunciation of the proposition which 
 Mr. Huskisson builds upon all these pre- 
 mises and consequences, and which brings 
 him, as he conceives, legitimately to the 
 quod erat demonstrandum of this part of 
 his subject. But this letter has already 
 *D
 
 [ 34 3 
 
 been extended to so great a length, that 
 I must defer my observations upon this 
 point, as \vell as some general and practical 
 remarks upon the high price of bullion, which 
 are connected with this part of the subject, 
 to another opportunity. 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
 CIVIS. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 WE are now arrived at the last stage of 
 Mr. Huskisson's demonstration at the full 
 and formal statement of his logical conclu- 
 sion that our currency is depreciated. 
 
 He says, (p. 12,) "Whether the state of 
 things be such as I have described, is the 
 question upon which the public attention is 
 now fixed; and to which I conceive there 
 can be but one answer. If the reader shall 
 go along with me in the following statement, 
 that answer will appear to him as obvious as 
 it does to me." 
 
 " A pound or twelve ounces of gold is, by 
 the law of this country, divided into 44^- gui- 
 neas, or 46/. 145. 6V. 
 
 s, "By this division, which is made at the
 
 C 35] 
 
 public expense, and without charge for coin- 
 age, nothing is added to the value of the gold, 
 and nothing taken away from it." 
 
 3. " A pound of gold, therefore, and %6l. 
 145. 6d. being equivalent beinsr, in fact, the 
 same thing under different names any circu- 
 lating credit, which purports to represent ^61. 
 145. 6d. ought by the law of this country, to 
 be exchangeable at will for a pound of gold/' 
 
 4. " No alteration has been made in this 
 state of the law, except by the act of 1797." 
 
 5. " The professed and intended operation 
 of the act of 1797 was not to diminish the 
 quantity of gold, for which any specific 
 amount of circulating credit ought to be ex- 
 changeable, but merely to suspend fora time 
 the option of the exchange/' 
 
 6. " But the sum of ^61. 14$. 6d. in our 
 present paper, will procure in exchange for 
 gold only i o ounces of that metal : a pound 
 of gold is now exchangeable for $61. in paper 
 currency. Any commodity, therefore, which 
 is equivalent to a pound of gold, is also 
 equivalent to $61. in paper/' 
 
 " It follows, that the difference between 
 $61. and ^61. 145. 6d. or between 12 and 10^ 
 ounces of gold, arises from the depreciation of 
 the paper, and is the measure of the deprecia- 
 
 *D2
 
 C363 
 
 ticn as well with respect to gold, the univer- 
 sal equivalent, as to every other commodity." 
 
 " Those who differ from me in opinion 
 must be prepared to deny some one of these 
 facts, from which, if not disproved, the con- 
 clusion necessarily follows. They must either 
 shew, that I have misstated the permanent 
 laws of the realm, which regulate our coinage 
 and determine our legal tender, or they must 
 shew that gold is not the basis of our money, 
 that its value is not measured by its quan- 
 tity, that the value of that quantity is varied 
 by its conversion into coin. But these are pro- 
 positions which no man, who has ever looked 
 at the subject, will attempt to maintain." 
 
 The sum and substance, then, of these 
 logical deductions are : 
 
 That the practice of our coinage, and the 
 laws which regulate it, are such that the 
 price of gold bullion in the market cannot be 
 higher than the price of gold coin from the 
 Mint, except by the depreciation of our paper 
 currency; that the mere existence of such an 
 excess of price is a strict proof of the ex- 
 istence of such a depreciation. 
 
 Now, Sir, it any pers m less known for his 
 talents, and less respected for his character 
 in this country, than Mr. Huskisson, had
 
 CS7 H 
 
 given to the public such a proposition, s: 
 supported as this ; I should certainly never 
 have troubled you or your readers with any 
 observation upon it, nor have devoted to it 
 any thing more than that slight attention 
 which seems to me to be sufficient to dis- 
 cover the fallacy which runs through it. 
 
 The first thing that strikes one on read- 
 ing such a proposition, is the extraordinary 
 circumstance, that a truth so simple, so cer- 
 tain, and above all, so important, should have 
 remained so long undiscovered bytne learn- 
 ed, or unexplained to the ignorant : that a 
 truth, of which the demonstration lies in so 
 small a compass, and upon the very surface, 
 as it were, of the subject; which requires no 
 investigation of obscure facts, and no enquiry 
 into doubtful causes to explain and support 
 it; but which consists in a few points of 
 law and of fact, all of which are perfectly 
 notorious to almost every man of any read- 
 ing or knowledge whatever ; that such a 
 truth, so decisive in a controversy which has 
 so long been agitated by very able persons, 
 should now, for the first time, be discv)veit J, 
 is, to say the least of it, very surprising : and 
 it is worthy of remark, that this abstract rea 
 soning, which is the basis of Mr. Huskissoo s
 
 present conclusions, has no reference what- 
 ever to the evidence of the Bank Directors, 
 which, as he states in his preface, first in- 
 duced him to abandon his former opinions 
 concerning the price of bullion, and the state 
 of the exchanges. All tne elements of his 
 present demonstration were as well known 
 to him before that evidence as they are now : 
 but he then was blind even to this simple 
 arid mathematical truth. Surely we might 
 be permitted to suspect some fallacy in a dis- 
 covery under such circumstances, even be- 
 fore the traces of such a fallacy could be 
 distinctly perceived. 
 
 That the chief writers on political eco- 
 nomy have not noticed the principle upon 
 which this truth is founded that, their 
 works contain abundant indications of their 
 having believed, that the price of bullion 
 and of money might be different, without 
 that difference arising from a depreciation 
 of the money ; my acquaintance, however 
 slight, with those writers, enables me most 
 confidently to maintain. Of the many il- 
 lustrious names, which the list of these 
 writers comprehends, Locke and Lord Li- 
 verpool are those to whom Mr. Huskisson 
 most frequently refers ; I shall therefore
 
 extract a passage from each of these writers, 
 to show that they at least did not believe, 
 that an excess of the market price above the 
 Mint price of the precious metals was at once 
 a proof and a measure of the depreciation of 
 the currency. 
 
 Mr. Locke says in answer, by way of 
 question to Mr. Lowndes, 
 
 " Whether silver in our coin, will not al- 
 ways, during the prohibition of its exporta- 
 tion, be a little less worth than silver in 
 bullion, whilst the consumption of foreign 
 commodities beyond what our's pay for, 
 makes the exportation of silver necessary ? 
 And so, during such a state, raise your 
 money as much and as you will, silver in the 
 coin will never fetch as much as silver in 
 the bullion." (p. 200, vol. 5. edit. 1810. ) 
 
 Lord Liverpool says ; 
 
 " Whenever the balanee of commerce is 
 against this country, and there is a want of 
 bullion to be exported, bullion will always 
 sell at a small advance above the price at 
 which it is valued at the Mint, in consequence 
 of the laws prohibiting t he exportation of 
 the coin. And whenever the demand for 
 bullion to k exported is very great, the price 
 of it will rise still higher, and it is probable,
 
 C4 J 
 
 that the value of the coin would, in such case, 
 rise in a like proportion, IF THAT VALUE WAS 
 
 NOT LIMITED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, (pp. 79 
 
 80, note.) 
 
 But, besides these favourite authorities of 
 Mr. Huskisson, there is another, which 
 ought to have a still greater weight with 
 him, and which likewise appears on this 
 most material point to be directly at variance 
 with him ; I mean the Bullion Committee. 
 
 They state and explain two circumstances, 
 viz. the average diminution of the weight 
 of the coin by wear, and the difficulty under 
 which the holders of coin are placed, by the 
 law, when they wish to convert it into bul- 
 lion : and they proeed : 
 
 " The two circumstances which have now 
 been mentioned have unquestionably consti- 
 tuted, in the judgment of your Committee, 
 the whole cause of that depression of the value 
 of the gold coin of this country in exchange 
 for commodities below the value of bullion, 
 in exchange for commodities, which has 
 occasionally arisen, or could arise, at those 
 times when the Bank paid in specie, and gold 
 was consequently obtainable in the quantity 
 that was desired, and the limit fixed by those 
 two circumstances conjoined, to this excess
 
 o/" /fo market price of gold above the Mint 
 price, was therefore a limit of about 5^- per 
 cent. 
 
 (This limit, by the bye, I cannot forbear 
 from remarking upon as extraordinary, when 
 the Committee had themselves recorded, 
 that the Bank had purchased gold previous 
 to 179735 high as ^l. 8s. which is more than 
 is per cent, above the Mint price.) But 
 Mr. Huskisson, either not having consented 
 to this part of the Report, or having thought 
 better of it, and being disposed to retract his 
 consent, maintains throughout his book the 
 theory we are now examining ; for he says, 
 
 (P- 90> 
 
 " It is, therefore, because the use of gold 
 
 has been superseded by the present state of our 
 currency, whilst the over issue of that cur- 
 rency has diminished its relative value ; and 
 because the Bank of England, not making a 
 sufficient allowance for that diminished 
 value, has ceased to offer the market price ; 
 that exportable gold is of more value than 
 that which cannot legally be sent out of the 
 country." 
 
 And, in order to shew that he admits no 
 cause but an excess of circulation, even 
 when the Bank paid in specie, for a difference
 
 C 42 3 
 
 between the market and Mint prices of gold, 
 he says (p. 94), 
 
 " This is precisely what happened before 
 the Restriction law. Whenever, from a tem- 
 porary over issue of paper, (to which the 
 Bank, from the nature of its institution, 
 must be ever prone), the market price of 
 gold was raised for a short time above the 
 Mint price/' 
 
 Having ventured to state these differences 
 between Mr. Huskisson, on the one hand, 
 and Mr. Locke, Lord Liverpool, and the 
 Bullion Committee, on the other, I shall now 
 proceed to examine the series of propositions 
 which I have stated above, and which exhibit 
 the substance of Mr. Huskisson 's main ar- 
 gument, 
 
 " ist, A pound, or 12 ounces of gold, by 
 the law of this country, is divided into 44 
 guineas and a half, or qjol. 145. 6d." 
 
 Or 4.61. 145. 6d. Here we have a new 
 term, not mentioned in the author's former 
 statements respecting the conversion of 
 Bullion into coin : in which we were told, 
 that the whole effect of the operation was 
 to divide the pound into 44 pieces and a half, 
 But now, it seems, that it is not merely so 
 divided, but that it is, by that very act, made
 
 [48 3 
 
 to be equivalent to a specific value in other 
 coin or commodities, which value is invariably 
 4#/. 14,9. 6d. 
 
 This is certainly true, and certainly im- 
 portant to the present argument. One 
 question occurs upon it ; is this extrinsic 
 value of ^6L 1 45. 6d. which is fixed by the 
 act of coinage in a pound of gold, derived 
 from the intrinsic value of the gold before 
 it was coined ? Does it of necessity precisely 
 correspond with that previous, or market va- 
 lue ? The answer is obvious ; it cannot be 
 so. The Mint value has been, since the time 
 of King William, and continues to be, fixed 
 and invariable ; the market value is what no 
 act of Parliament could lix ; it is variable 
 and fluctuating. 
 
 " 2ndly, By this division, which is made at 
 the public expense, and without charge for 
 coinage, nothing is added to the value of the 
 gold, and nothing taken away from it." 
 
 Here the fallacy appears. What ! Is not 
 the pound of gold made exactly equivalent 
 by this division to ^61. 14,$. 6d. ? Was it in 
 the market exactly equivalent to that sum 
 before ? And if it was in an degree, either 
 niorj ;r les: than equivalent to 4,67. i^s. 6d. 
 when in the state of bullion, has it not by
 
 C 44. 3 
 
 the conversion into coin, whereby it has 
 been made exactly equivalent to ^61. 14$. 6d. 
 received an addition to its value, or suffered 
 a diminution from it, precisely to that 
 amount? What! When the Bank, in 1795 
 - and 1796, paid ^L i6s., and 5O/. 8s. for a 
 pound of gold, (as it appears they did, by 
 Mr. Newland's evidence, in 1797,) and 
 converted it into coin equivalent to 467. 145. 
 6d., did the operation take nothing from its 
 value? Upon this point, obvious and simple 
 as it may seem, the question turns, If it be 
 true that a pound of gold bullion, and a 
 pound of gold money, (that is, 44 guineas 
 and a half,) are alike invariably equivalent 
 to 46/. 145. 6d., which must bs the case, if 
 the value of the bullion is not altered by the 
 act of coinage, then Mr. Huskisson is right ; 
 if not, he is wrong. The answer to the 
 above questions will determine the point : 
 but it is surely not necessary to state them. 
 
 We now come to the third proposition, 
 prepared to analyse it, and to trace the con- 
 fusion which it involves. 
 
 " gdly, A pound of gold, therefore, and 
 4,6/. 145. 6d. being equivalent, being, in fact, 
 the same thing under different names, any 
 circulating credit which purports to represent
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
 . 14$. 6d. ought by the law of this coun- 
 try to be exchangeable at will for a pound 
 of gold." 
 
 And, certainly, if his second proposition 
 had been true, his third must have been so 
 likewise. If a pound of gold bullion were 
 invariably worth ^61. 14,$. 6d. it would be 
 invariably equivalent to 44^- guineas, which 
 are always worth that sum. (They would 
 n'jt, however, even then, be the same thing 
 under different names, but different things 
 having the same value); and the Bank 
 Directors would, moreover, be proved to be 
 the greatest fools that ever nature formed, 
 when it could be shewn that they had before 
 the ye:iri797 given 5o/. &., 51 /. 125. and, 
 as Mr. Newland said, as high as 2/. i6s. 
 for a pound of gold, which was in fact pre- 
 cisely the same thing as 467. 145. 6d., in the 
 same currency, under a different name ! 
 
 On the other hand, the Legislature is 
 made to appear no less absurd than the Bank, 
 by this universal identity, of a given quantity 
 of coined and uncoined metal, as it is assert- 
 ed by Mr. Huskisson. The act of the gSth 
 of the King (which revived the i^th of the 
 King, for limiting silver by tale, as a legal 
 tender, to 25/. which had expired in 1784), 
 contains the following provision :
 
 " And whereas, from the present low price 
 of silver bullion, owing to temporary circum- 
 stances, a small quantity of silver bullion 
 has been brought to the Mint to be coined, 
 and there is reason to suppose that a still 
 greater quantity may be brought, and it is 
 therefore necessary to suspend the coining 
 of silver for the present : be it therefore 
 enacted, that from and after the passing of 
 this act, no silver bullion shall be coined at 
 the Mint, nor shall any silver coin that may 
 have been coined there be delivered." 
 
 " And be it further enacted, that all per- 
 sons who delivered silver at the Mint, for 
 the purpose of the same being coined, pre- 
 vious to the pth of May 1 798, shall be enti- 
 tled to receive from the officers of his 
 Majesty's Mint, such a sum for each pound 
 weight thereby, as shall be equal to the full 
 value of the coin into which the bullion would 
 have been converted if the same had been 
 coined according to the regulations of the 
 Mint/' 
 
 Here, then, we perceive that the price of 
 bullion in the market may be low as well 
 as high, owing to temporary circumstances, 
 whilst its Mint price remains the same ; and 
 that individuals, in that case, bring bullion
 
 U7D 
 
 to the Mint, because the Mint adds some 
 value to it ; which Mr. Huskisson says it 
 cannot do. 
 
 The 2d and 3d propositions, then, are inad- 
 missible : because it is not true that the value 
 of a pound of gold is not changed in pass- 
 ing through the Mint ; it is not true that a 
 pound of gold is invariably worth ^61. 14,5. 6d, 
 or that it is the same thing under a different 
 name ; and it is of course not true, that 
 every thing which is equivalent to the one, 
 must be equivalent to the other. 
 
 Upon the 4th and th propositions, it is 
 unnecessary here to make any other remark, 
 except that the words " quantity of gold" 
 are, in the latter, employed as synonymous 
 with sums of money, upon which I have said 
 enough already. 
 
 The 6th proposition is the minor in this 
 multiform syllogism, and the conclusion im- 
 mediately follows. 
 
 " 6thly, But the sum of ^61. i^s. 6d. in 
 our present paper, will procure in exchange 
 for gold, only 10^ ounces of that metal." 
 
 The same must be affirmed of silver and 
 of guineas ; which, it is to be observed, are 
 throughout admitted by Mr. Huskisson to 
 be precisely equivalent to paper t " a pound
 
 r >Q "! 
 , 4 b J 
 
 of gold is now exchangeable for $61. in paper 
 currency," (and, of course in silver, or in 
 guineas); " any commodity, therefore, 
 which is equivalent to a pound of gold, is 
 also equivalent to $61. in paper/' (and to 
 $61. in silver or in guineas). 
 
 And so it truly is, or rather was, when 
 Mr. Huskisson was writing ; the price of 
 gold lias since fallen considerably; or, as 
 he would say, the value of the paper cur- 
 rency has risen. But nothing is less true 
 than the consequence, which is stated thus: 
 
 " It follows that the difference between 
 5^/. and 4,6^ . 14$. 6d. t or between 12 and 
 loi ounces of gold, arises from the deprecia- 
 tion of the paper, and is the measure of that 
 depreciation." (Thus positively disallow- 
 ing the 5-|- per cent, which is as positively 
 attributed by the Committee to two other 
 causes ) . 
 
 I shall not stop, Sir, to criticise this syl- 
 logism, or to object to the change of the 
 terms, by which 4/31. 145. 6d. which was 
 before declared to be the same thing as a 
 pound of gold, is now made the same thing 
 as a quantity of paper worth only io 
 ounces of gold. Those are trifles. The 
 important ar?d irresistible objection is not
 
 C 49 3 
 
 to the form, but to the substance of Mr. 
 Huskisson's demonstration, which is com- 
 pletely destroyed by the fallacy in his second 
 and third propositions. A pound of gold 
 bullion, and ^61. 14,5. 6d., are not the same 
 thing : they are not invariable equivalents. 
 4,67. 145. 6d. is money ; bullion is not: bul- 
 lion may rise in value as a merchantable 
 article, owing to causes not immediately 
 affecting the value of money, as it is res- 
 tricted by British law ; and money, as such, 
 may be depreciated in value by circum- 
 stances not directly influencing the price of 
 bullion. 
 
 Unless, then, my understanding has en- 
 tirely deceived me, I shall have no great 
 difficulty in answering the formidable alter- 
 natives with which Mr. Huskisson menaces 
 those who shall venture to differ from him. 
 
 " They must shew/' he says, " that I 
 have misstated the permanent laws of the 
 realm which regulate our coinage, and de- 
 termine our legal tender;" if the omission 
 of one part, and that a very essential part, of 
 a statement be a misstatement. I have shewn 
 that he has misstated the act of the 3<)th of 
 the King; as well as the practical effect of 
 converting bullion into coin: --"or, they 
 
 *E
 
 C 503 
 
 must shew that gold is nut the basis of our 
 money that its value is not measured by 
 its quantity that the value of that quantity 
 is varied by its conversion into coin." 
 
 That " gold is not the basis of our money" 
 is a vagjue expression : the metal which is 
 predominant in circulation always is the 
 basis of our money; that gold is not the 
 only legal tender, nor the only measure of 
 value, I have shewn. " That its value is not 
 measured by its quantity/' are terms invol- 
 ving, I apprehend, some confusion. The 
 extrinsic Mint value of gold is, no doubt, 
 determined according to quantity, as well as 
 its intrinsic market value: they are re- 
 spectively measured by quantities, but the 
 measures and values cannot be indiscrimi- 
 nately applied. " That the value of that 
 quantity is varied by its conversion into 
 coin :" This last, and most important alter- 
 native, I hope I have satisfactorily disposed 
 of; although Mr. Huskisson says, " but 
 these are propositions which no man who 
 has ever looked at the subject will attempt 
 to maintain." 
 
 Far be it from me, Sir, to maintain, that 
 no man who has attentively studied this 
 subject will assert, that the high price of
 
 t5i D 
 
 bullion is owing to the depreciation of our 
 currency. I certainly think it is not : but 
 I should justly incur the charge of pre- 
 sumption, if I were to insist that all persons 
 who do not think as I do, on such a subject, 
 must be wrong. I hope, however, that I 
 shall not incur any such charge for assert- 
 ing, after having thus fully stated my objec- 
 tions to Mr. Huskisson's argument, that the 
 foundation upon which he builds his con- 
 clusion is not sound ; that his demonstration 
 is not invincible; 
 
 In my next I intend to offer some further 
 remarks on this part of his work. 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
 CIVIS. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 HAVING concluded what I may perhaps not 
 improperly term the logical analysis of Mr. 
 Huskisson's scientific demonstration ; it 
 may not be amiss, before I proceed further, 
 to state my reasons for dwelling with such 
 minute attention on this part of his work f 
 and to offer some observations which natu- 
 *E 2
 
 [SO 
 
 rally occur upon the manner in which he 
 has applied his supposed proof of a depre- 
 ciated currency, to the state of things now 
 existing in this country. 
 
 It seemed to me to be due to the public in 
 general, on account of the vast importance 
 of the question at issue ; and more particu- 
 larly to the Bullion Committee, and to Mr. 
 Huskisson, on account of the pains they have 
 devoted to it, that any person undertaking 
 to discuss the subject, should give the fullest 
 and fairest consideration to the particular 
 grounds upon which they declare them- 
 selves to have formed their very decided 
 opinion upon it. 
 
 The Committee have declared, in their 
 Report, that the very high price of bullion 
 was, in their opinion, the most unequivocal 
 symptom of an excess in the paper circula- 
 tion of this country ; and Mr. Huskisson in 
 his pamphlet, which can only be considered 
 as a supplement to that Report, has ex- 
 plained in a very elaborate detail, the 
 grounds of this opinion ; exhibiiing a chain 
 of reasoning which he assumes to be suffi- 
 cient to demonstrate it. We may therefore 
 fairly presume (or rather we are bound to 
 do so) that the course of reasoning stated by
 
 Mr. Huskisson is that upon which the con- 
 viction of the Committee is built : and the 
 public is infinitely indebted to him for hav- 
 ing 1 so clearly expounded it. His definition 
 of money, his statements of " law and of 
 fact" respecting our coinage, his proposition 
 that a pound of of gold, whether in bullion 
 or in guineas, is eternally the same thing a. 
 467. 14,9. 6d.\ his assertions that the con- 
 version of a merchantable metal into British 
 coin, cannot add any thing to its value, nor 
 take any thing away from it ; these are the 
 fundamental principles, the alpha and the 
 omega of the theory of the Committee, the 
 basis upon which their advice to the legisla- 
 ture entirely rests. 
 
 Upon the sufficiency of this foundation 
 therefore their opinion may fairly be said to 
 depend. If these abstract principles are as 
 universally true and applicable as they be- 
 lieve, then our Bank paper is depreciated ; 
 on the other hand, if they are either not 
 clearly true in themselves, or not so strictly 
 and universally applicable, as the Committee 
 and Mr. Huskisson suppose, then, although 
 the fact may still be such as they contend, 
 yet the grounds of their conclusion being 
 shewn not to be valid, the whole weight of
 
 [ 54. ] 
 
 their opinion, at least, is removed from the 
 free discussion of the question. 
 
 In this view, as I have already said, we are 
 much indebted to Mr. Huskisson ; there is 
 such a mixture of principles, and of facts, 
 (of the former perhaps too many, and of the 
 latter certainly too few), in the Report of 
 the Committee and its Appendix, that it 
 would have been impossible, without as- 
 suming more than any stranger could have a 
 right to assume, to ascertain the precise rea- 
 sons upon which their opinion was founded, 
 and therefore impossible to combat it, except 
 upon the broad and general grounds which 
 affect the whole question at issue. Mr. 
 Huskisson has however relieved us from this 
 difficulty, by putting the principles, and the 
 theory of the Committee into the tangible 
 shape of a mathematical demonstration. We 
 can now trace their opinion to its source, and 
 judge of it accordingly ; and if the objections 
 which I have stated against it, should appear 
 as conclusive to others as they do to me, I 
 shall have succeeded in shewing, that so far 
 from having, as lie supposes, completely 
 decided the question, Mr. Huskisscn has in 
 fact left it precisely where he found it; and 
 that, after fairly following him through all
 
 C t-5l 
 
 the windings of a subtle and metaphysical 
 argument, we find ourselves, in point of real 
 knowledge, just where we set out; viz. a the 
 admitted fact, that the market price of bullion 
 is considerably higher than its Mint price; 
 the cause of the difference remaining to be 
 explained 
 
 I shall hereafter state the grounds apon 
 which I believe this difference to arise, 
 partly from those " violent measures, po- 
 litical and commercial/' to which Mr. Hus- 
 kisson, till very lately, solely attributed it; and 
 partly from another most operative cause, to 
 which, even before his conversion, he ap- 
 pears to have given too little consideration ; 
 I mean the extent of our political expendi- 
 ture abroad. I shall offer these reasons, 
 however, not in the shape of a demonstra- 
 tion, but as strong probabilities which have 
 led me to a conclusion very different from 
 
 */ 
 
 his; assuming no right, upon such grounds, 
 to impute to any man who may not agree 
 with me, either a want of common sense, 
 or any special ignorance of the "first prin- 
 ciples of political economy." 
 
 But I feel that I have a right, a very 
 clear right, and one which belongs to every 
 individual who is connected by interest or
 
 feeling with the welfare of this country, to 
 object to the manner in which Mr. Huskisson 
 has treated the application of his theory to 
 the actual state of our currency. 
 
 In his preface Mr. Huskisson describes 
 this as a question, which, ' while it is, on the 
 one hand, so abstract as not to allow to error 
 the apology of passion, yet, on the other 
 hand, affects in its practical consequences, 
 the interests and the comforts of every 
 class of society," (page xiii). This passage 
 struck me forcibly : I could not, I confess, 
 very easily comprehend how a subject so 
 extensively practical as to involve the " in- 
 terests and the comforts of every class of 
 society," could, at the same time, admit of 
 discussion (for a practical purpose) upon 
 principles so purely abstract : but although 
 J could not quite understand, and therefore 
 did not assent to, this description of the sub- 
 ject, yet I was induced by it decidedly to ex- 
 pect, that Mr. Kuskisson intended to examine 
 it in such a manner, as to avoid all such 
 practical application as might excite feeling, 
 or afford to " error the apology of passion." 
 In this I am sorry to say, I have been com- 
 pletely disappointed ; and although I most 
 sincerely and most earnestly disclaim all
 
 [571 
 
 suspicion of any other than pure and honour- 
 able motives in the mind of the author, yet 
 I cannot but say, that I have seldom seen a 
 work more pregnant with mischievous ap- 
 plications and dangerous illusions, or more 
 likely to inculcate error through the medium 
 of passion and of prejudice, than this of Mr, 
 Huskisson. 
 
 Proceeding on theassumption that a pound 
 of uncoined gold and a pound of guineas 
 must always be the same thing, he has taken 
 great pains to awaken the feelings of every 
 individual creditor, whether public or private, 
 to the cruelty and injustice of the present 
 state of things, by representing the debt due 
 to such creditor as a quantity of gold bullion t 
 not a sum of current money. This cruelty 
 and injustice he exhibits in a variety of 
 shapes, with evident anxiety to impress it 
 as deeply as possible in the minds of his 
 readers ; so as to excite that general alarm 
 and indignation, which naturally arise out of 
 any great and forcible invasion of " the 
 comforts and interests of every class of society." 
 Let me ask Mr. Huskisson, is such a treat- 
 ment of the question that abstract mode of 
 discussing it " which does not allow to error 
 the apology of passion ?"
 
 C583 
 
 In his nth page, he says " But if, in the 
 year 1797 it had been foreseen, that this tem- 
 porary expedient would be attempted to be 
 converted into a system for an indefinite 
 number of yeurs, and that under this sys- 
 tem, in the year 1810, every creditor ', public 
 or private, subject or alien, to whom the law, 
 as it then stood, and as it now stands, bad 
 secured a pound weight of standard gold for 
 every ^61. i6s. 6d. oj (us just demand, would 
 be obliged to accept in full satisfaction about 
 10^ oz. or not more than 175. in the pound, 
 \vitha prospect of a still further reduction in 
 every subsequent year ; it is impossible to 
 conceive," &c. Now, Sir, ought not Mr. 
 Huskisson, before he thus appealed to feel- 
 ing, to so lively a feeling, too, as that which 
 is connected with private property ; before he 
 thus roused the resentment of every indi- 
 vidual, and pointed it against the Govern- 
 ment and the Bank ; before he thus offered 
 to every man, dissatisfied with his means of 
 living, a ready handle for converting that 
 almost universal species of discontent into a 
 political grievance, and a ground of com- 
 plaint against the legislature : ought he not, 
 before he thus directly appealed to passion 
 in support of his argument, to have so
 
 weighed and examined his subject, as to be 
 very sure that the passion he excited might 
 not become an " apology for error ?" Is any 
 man who pushes an argument to such dan- 
 gerous lengths as this, excuseable if he is 
 palpably wrong in his facts ? Yet in his 
 facts Mr. Huskisson is palpably wrong. I 
 have already shewn that in the year 1797, 
 " the law, as it then stood/' did not secure to 
 any man the payment of a pound weight of 
 gold for every 467. 14$. 6d. of his debt. Silver 
 and gold, by tale, were at that period, and as 
 * the law then stood/' alike legal tenders to 
 any amount; and legal tenders only in 
 their fixed relative values to each other. No 
 man would then have had a right to insist 
 upon the acceptance of a pound of uncoined 
 standard gold in payment of every ^61. i6s. 
 6d. : nor would he now have a right to 
 do so. The creditor might receive it or 
 not, as the price of the market might make 
 it expedient or not to take it. Bargains, in 
 the ordinary dealings of society, are not, and 
 never have been, made for pounds weight of 
 gold at its intrinsic value, but for quantities 
 of coined gold or silver, or something equi- 
 valent to them, at their fixed extrinsic values. 
 But there seems to me to be a want of re-
 
 C &> 3 
 
 collection, a want of practical knowledge, in 
 this part of Mr. Huskisson's work, as well as 
 a want of caution in dealing with the passions 
 of men, which would lead one to think that 
 some other hand than his had assisted in the 
 composition ; that some member of the Com- 
 mittee, less acquainted by experience than 
 Mr. Huskisson with men and things as they 
 really are, had contributed this portion of it ; 
 in short, it has so little of the character of a 
 writing from the pen of a Secretary of the 
 Treasury, that if it had come forth without a 
 name, I should unhesitatingly have ascribed 
 it to one of the metaphysicians of the Edin- 
 burgh Review. And what passage in the 
 Edinburgh Review what extract from the 
 worst writer of that school of metaphysics 
 and revolution, could afford a poison more 
 subtile than that which may be extracted by 
 malice and disaffection from the following of 
 Mr. Huskisson ? " A saving, it is true, ac- 
 crues to the state from paying the wages of 
 valour, talent, industry, and labour, in a 
 depreciated currency, and from the reduction 
 which is thus made (really, though not 
 nominally) in the value of the dividend paid 
 to the public creditor." (Page 20) ; and as 
 if this was not enough, he takes an oppor-
 
 tunity further on, of making the oppressive 
 injustice of this state of things more sensible 
 to those whom he addresses (on this abstract 
 question, which, he says, does not afford to 
 error the apology of passion"), by actually 
 throwing into the scale the deduction from 
 the dividends on account of the properly tax; 
 which he carefully explains to be a forced 
 deduction. But this passage (in a note to 
 page 114) I shall not transcribe ; it will, no 
 doubt, be given in large letters by Gobbet. 
 
 There are two leading sentiments, if I 
 may so call them, which are predominant in 
 Mr.Huskisson's work, and which conspire to 
 give the bias which appears in every page of 
 it. The one is admiration of the new theory 
 of which he is enamoured, (and like a man 
 enamoured, he is blind to all its deficiences); 
 the other is hatred of the Bank. This last 
 is fierce, unrelenting, and inexorable : he 
 pursues the Bank with implacable hostility ; 
 sometimes by indirect allusion, sometimes 
 by direct impeachment, but incessantly by 
 the one or the other, he raises and points 
 out indignation against the conduct of this 
 establishment ; presses our most irritable 
 feelings, our feelings for the stability of our 
 property, into the service of his theoretical
 
 argument; stimulates every selfish senti- 
 ment, by an exaggerated picture of the losses 
 we have suffered, are suffering, and are here- 
 after to suffer, from the indiscretion of this 
 grasping corporation ; and then gravely as- 
 sures us, that this is a question which is " so 
 abstract as not to allow to error the apology 
 of passion !" 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
 CIVIS. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 WHEN I say that I consider Mr. Huskis- 
 son's Pamphlet as a supplement to the 
 Report of the Bullion Committee, I allude 
 more particularly to one part of it : I mean 
 that, in which the Committee express their 
 decided opinion, that the price of Bullion is 
 an unequivocal symptom of the excess of our 
 paper currency. Of this assertion the foun- 
 dation is not to be clearly traced in the Re- 
 port itself; while, on the contrary, some parts 
 of the Report very distinctly militate against 
 it. Mr. Huskisson supplies the proof for 
 this opinion ; and, inasmuch as the assump- 
 tion itself does not agree with many parts of
 
 C6 3 3 
 
 the Report, this attempted proof of his is in 
 like manner materially at variance with these 
 passages. The Report, certainly, is altogether 
 a very able, and in some respects a very in- 
 genious production : but as it appears to me, 
 it is far indeed from deserving the character 
 of a clear and conclusive piece of reasoning. 
 It is a labyrinth of facts and hypotheses of 
 undisputed truths and disputable applica- 
 tions of sound principles and exceptionable 
 theories, in which even the mind most con- 
 versant with such subjects is bewildered and 
 lost ; and which, being announced with an 
 air of high authority, and a tone of perfect 
 confidence, is more calculated to escape 
 confutation by its complexity, than to se- 
 cure assent by its perspicuity and truth. 
 But although I do not agree with the Com- 
 mittee in many parts of their Report, and 
 least of all in the general result of it, I am 
 far from thinking that this subject was one 
 which could have been handled with bre- 
 vity, or dispatched in a much shorter space 
 than they have allotted to it. Mr. Hu ikisson 
 must, however, now think (whatever he 
 may have thought when a member of the 
 Committee) very differently. His book stands 
 as a reproof to them for the length and per-
 
 perplexedness of their labour. A single page 
 only of his work produces a complete proof 
 of that which it was the object of the Com- 
 mittee to discover the cause of the high 
 price of gold : a cause, which, after wading 
 through thirty-two closely printed folio 
 pages, full of facts and reasonings, balancing 
 and destroying each other, is at length as- 
 sumed by them, without any proof whatever. 
 It seems strange, indeed, that the House of 
 Commons should have appointed a Commit- 
 tee to search for a truth which a few simple 
 propositions, known to every member of it, 
 were sufficient to demonstrate : and much 
 more strange that a Committee so appointed 
 should have failed of finding the right clue to 
 such a truth. But if the Committee had been 
 furnished with the light which has now been 
 thrown upon the subject and had taken that 
 light for their guide, their Report, indeed, 
 would have been considerably shortened ; 
 for they must, in that case, have left out all 
 (and that is no small part) of it which is in- 
 compatible with the assertion that the differ- 
 ence between the market price and Mint price 
 of gold arises invariably u from the depre- 
 ciation of the paper, and is the measure 
 of that depreciation, as well with respect to
 
 gold, the universal equivalent, as to every 
 other commodity." 
 
 This is Mr. Huskisson's proposition, abso- 
 lute, invariable, and, as he says, strictly de- 
 monstrable. But the Committee are of opin- 
 ion, that the same effect may be produced by 
 other causes, and that it is rather the duration 
 than the mere existence or extent of the high 
 price of gold, which evinces an excess and de- 
 preciation of our paper circulation. This they 
 express chiefly on the authority of the anony- 
 mous merchant, in various places. In page 
 9 they quote his evidence, which is distinctly 
 to that effect. In page 16 they adopt it as 
 their opinion, " that the first remarkable 
 depression in the beginning of 1809 is to be 
 ascribed, as has been stated in the evidence 
 already quoted, to commercial events arising 
 out of the occupation of the north of Germany 
 by the troops of the French Emperor ;" and in 
 page 21 they again state, " upon a review of 
 all the facts and reasonings which have al- 
 ready been stated, your Committee are fur- 
 ther of opinion, that although the commer- 
 cial state of this country, and the political 
 state of the continent, may have had some in- 
 fluence on the high price of gold bullion, and 
 
 the unfavourable course of the exchange with 
 # p
 
 [66] 
 
 foreign countries ; this price and this depres- 
 sion are also to be ascribed to the want of a 
 permanent check and a sufficient limitation 
 of the paper currency in this country/' 
 
 Now, Sir, is this possible ? Can the Com- 
 mittee be right ? Can the high price of bul- 
 lion be produced by any other cause than the 
 depreciation of our currency ? and if it can, 
 what becomes of Mr. Huskisson's proof that 
 such high price is the very measure of that 
 depreciation ? If political and commercial 
 causes can raise the price, in whatever de- 
 gree, how can the price, while those causes 
 are operative, be the measure of the deprecia- 
 tion ? The continental merchant thinks, and 
 the Committee likewise think, that the effect 
 was first produced by these politico-commer- 
 cial circumstances : I ask, then was the 
 high price of bullion while those circum- 
 stances were thus creating it, a proof and a 
 measure of the depreciation of our currency ? If 
 it was not, can Mr. Huskisson's theory be 
 true? Can his deductions from his few sim- 
 ple statements of * Law and of Fact" be 
 sound ? 
 
 No! Sir, every sentence of the Report 
 which admits the efficacy of any other cause, 
 to raise the price of bullion, (in other words,
 
 which allows that gold may be really as well 
 as nominally enhanced in value), is directly 
 at variance with Mr. Huskisson. The two 
 opinions are perfectly incompatible; and it 
 is of no small importance to disprove (if we 
 fairly can disprove) the opinion of such a 
 person as Mr. Huskisson on this material 
 point; especially when we reflect on the 
 manner in which he has applied his conclu- 
 sions. The whole sting of his argument, 
 the whole weight of his appeal to the feelings 
 of every discontented individual, lies in this, 
 that the high price of gold bullion is the 
 measure of his loss. The soldier, the sailor, 
 the annuitant, the creditor, private or public, 
 subject or alien, as he says, are furnished, 
 according to his theory, with a standard, 
 whereby exactly to ascertain to what extent 
 they are defrauded. Wetten hall's List can 
 tell them at once how much they are losers 
 by the gains of the Bank! On the other hand, 
 if the Committee be right, it is by no means 
 so certain, what these individuals lose, or, in- 
 deed, whether they lose any thing at all, 
 when tbe price of bullion is high ; for a part 
 of the difference between the market and 
 Mint prices may, according to them, be- ow- 
 ing to other causes than depreciation: how 
 *F 2
 
 [68 ] 
 
 much that part is, whether it be one twen- 
 tieth, or nineteen-twentieths, can only be 
 discovered by a strict enquiry into existing 
 facts and circumstances : and as it is my hum- 
 ble opinion that such an enquiry would fi- 
 nally convince all considerate persons that 
 they suffer no loss whateve from any ex- 
 cess of our currency, and have no reason, 
 on that score, to complain; it is certainly 
 important to set aside an argument which 
 appears to preclude even the necessity of a 
 search, and which has the dangerous effect 
 of transferring to our government, and to 
 one of the most valuable and admirable of 
 our national establishments, an odium, of 
 which, even according to the Committee, a 
 great share properly belongs to the French 
 Emperor. 
 
 But before I go on to this enquiry, I must 
 state yet another obvious objection to this 
 theory of Mr. Huskisson. The difference 
 between the market and the Mint price of 
 gold, is the measure, he says, ' of the de- 
 preciation of our currency, as well with re- 
 spect to gold, as to every other commodity/' 
 
 Let us apply this proposition to the facts 
 which are in evidence before.the Committee. 
 
 The Committee begin by stating, that
 
 r 6 
 
 the price of gold " was, during the years 
 1806, 7, and 8, as high as 4!. in the market: 
 towards the end of 1808, it began to advance 
 very rapidly, and continued very high dur- 
 ing the whole of the year 1809. The mar- 
 ket price of standard gold, in bars, fluctuat- 
 ing from 4!. Q.S. to 4!. las. per oz. 
 
 But Mr. Goldsmid, unquestionably the 
 best evidence on this subject, says 
 
 " The prices fluctuated considerably dur- 
 ing the last year, but have been unusually 
 high for about a year and a half. Q. How 
 much have they fluctuated ? A. I think about 
 six or seven shillings (page i and 2, Evi- 
 dence)/' To this must be added, that the 
 price of gold is now* considerably lower than 
 when the Committee was sitting. 
 
 It appears, then, that the price of gold rose 
 suddenly in 1808; that in 1809 it was as 
 much as 15 per cent, above its steady price 
 for the three preceding years : that it fell 
 again and fluctuated considerably during the 
 year 1809; and that it has fallen since the 
 Report was published. 
 
 Now, the latter end of 1808, and the years 
 1809 and 18 io,are perio \s within the remem- 
 brance of all of us ; and if Mr. Huskisson's 
 
 * It was at 4/. 6s. od. when this letter was written.
 
 theory is true, we must remember to have 
 
 / 
 
 observed a very extraordinary sudden rise in 
 the prices of all commodities in 1 808 ; a 
 fluctuation of rise and fall in those prices in 
 1809; and a considerable fall in them in 
 the present year. Is one word of all this 
 true? Are these facts consonant to expe- 
 rience ? Have the necessaries of life in 
 general experienced these variations within 
 this short time ? Have they become cheaper 
 since the beginning of this year ? If they 
 have not, then the price of gold cannot be 
 " the measure of the depreciation of our 
 currency, as well with respect to gold as to 
 every other commodity ;" though Mr. Hus- 
 kisson says it must be so. 
 
 I have already pointed out, that to the 
 extent of 5! per cent, the Committee con- 
 ceive that the price of gold bullion might 
 differ from gold coin, even if our currency 
 were composed entirely of gold. To this 
 extent, therefore, Mr. Huskisson is at vari- 
 ance with them ; or he would have deducted 
 thus much from the supposed loss of the 
 public creditors and public servants, by the 
 difference of the market and Mint prices of 
 gold, owing to excess of paper. But this 
 opinion of the Committee leads me to ask,
 
 C 7 3 
 
 how can it be consistent with this assumed 
 limitation, to suppose that the gold coin 
 could follow any depression of the other 
 parts of our currency beyond ,5^ per cent.? 
 Would it not naturally, at that limit, begin 
 to differ in value for commodities as com- 
 pared with paper? If the expense and risk 
 of converting coin into bullion be always 
 and exactly 5% per cent., and that be the 
 only possible cause of a difference of price 
 between them, how could coin ever differ in 
 value from bullion 10 or 15 per cent.? And 
 if it did not differ more than 5-5-, while the 
 paper differed 10 or 15, it seems to be evi- 
 dent that the paper must be at a discount 
 in exchange for gold. Upon this subject, 
 however, Mr. Huskisson has a very extra- 
 ordinary proposition, and one with which he 
 dispatches Mr. Handle Jackson, and all 
 others who may venture lo draw any infer- 
 ence from the circumstance of commodities 
 being at the same price for gold and paper, 
 as persons " entirely at variance with the 
 first principles of political economy. The 
 experience of our own," he says, "as well 
 as of ail other countries, has placed beyond 
 the reach of controversy the proposition, 
 that if one part of the currency of a country
 
 (provided such currency be made either 
 directly or virtually a legal tender, according 
 to its denomination) be depreciated, the whole 
 of that currency, whether paper or coin, 
 must be equally depreciated/' It is not for 
 me, Sir, in opposition to such high authority 
 to. maintain, that this is not one of the first 
 principles in the science of political economy ; 
 but I have no hesitation whatever in assert- 
 ing, that it is in direct opposition to some 
 very notorious facts in the history of political 
 economy, and that it is not consistent with 
 the experience of " our own as well as of all 
 other countries/' These facts are number- 
 less; but I shall select only those which 
 must be familiar to every reader. 
 
 In the reign of King William, previous to 
 the silver coinage, the silver money was 
 depreciated in a very extraordinary degree, 
 as Mr. Huskisson himself tells us. Gold 
 and silver were at that time both legal ten- 
 ders : well, what followed ? Was gold, ac- 
 cording to Mr. Huskisson's " first princi- 
 ple," equally depreciated ? Certainly not; it 
 maintained its value ; and a guinea passed 
 current for thirty shillings ! Another in- 
 stance occurs in the case of Portugal, where 
 there is a paper currency, which in all pay- 
 ments is a legal tender in the same propor-
 
 [7. 
 
 tion as gold. That paper is greatly depre- 
 ciated. Is the gold, then, in that country 
 equally depreciated in exchange for commo- 
 dities ? Certainly not : the paper is at this mo- 
 ment at 27 per cent, discount in exchange 
 for the gold! But the most striking example, 
 in confutation of this " first principle/' is that 
 of Ireland; where, according to the Report of 
 the Committee of 1804,, it appears that the 
 paper currency was then depreciated. Gold 
 and Bank paper were at that time in Ireland, 
 upon the same footing as they are at present 
 in England. Well, it should appear, then, 
 according to this " first principle," that the 
 gold and the paper were equally depreciated. 
 But no ! the whole evidence goes to prove 
 the contrary; and one of the strongest 
 arguments used to establish the. depreciation 
 of the paper, is the fact adduced that it pass- 
 ed in exchange at a discount as compared 
 with gold ! 
 
 Surely Mr. Handle Jackson may fairly 
 stand up and assert that upon this point, at 
 least, the triumph over him was rather pre- 
 maturely claimed ; and that, if all the "first 
 "principles" of those who treat mercantile 
 opinion with so much contempt, are not 
 better founded than this, their theory is not 
 * G
 
 likely to prevail over the great mass of ex- 
 perience and practical knowledge which 
 stands opposed to it. 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
 CIVIS. 
 
 London : Printed by W. Buhner and Co. 
 Cleveland-row, St. James's.