pound of pure Gold, or of pure Silver, whether the production of Europe, Asia, Africa, or America. They are divisible with the greatest accuracy into exact proportions or parts. From their value they are not too bulky for the common purposes of exchange; and in all these respects they serve better than any other material, as an equivalent. And lastly they are less consumable or subject to decay, than most other commodities.

Certain portions of these metals, with an impression struck upon them, by order of the Sovereign, as a guarantee of their purity and weight, serve as Coin.'

Coins, it is here observed, whether considered as a measure or an equivalent, are subject to four imperfections; the first of which is the variation in its value with respect to itself in suc cessive periods, occasioned by the greater or less quantity that may happen to be at different times in circulation. Two other causes of this variation are thus stated:

If Coins are made of two of these metals, a second imperfection is then introduced; for any two of these metals, in successive periods, vary in value with respect to each other. The value of fine Gold, compared with that of fine Silver, was rated, in the 43d of Elizabeth, at less than 11 to 1, at the English Mint. But when Guineas were first coined in 1653, the value of fine Gold, compared with that of fiae Silver, was rated in the English Mint at 14 to 1. Guineas were then coined as zo Shilling Pieces, and declared by the Mint indenture to be current as such. They have since been made curreat by Proclamation as 21 Shilling Pieces. The relative value therefore of fine Gold to fiue Silver, in the Coins of this kingdom, is now as 15 to 1. And in the Mints of several foreign countries, the value of Gold, compared with that of Silver, is rated still higher. These metals will also occasionally vary in their value, even at the same time, in different countries; and Exchange Brokers, and many Bankers, are induced, on this account, to carry on a traffic in these metals, and in the Coins made of them, to their own profit and to the loss of others.

• If the Sovereign takes upon himself to determine the rate or value, at which Coins made of different metals shall at the same time pass in currency, a third imperfection is introduced into the system; for it is not possible that he should be able to pursue, with sufficient accuracy, the various fluctations and changes, that may in a short time happen, in the relative values of these different metals. Their prices at the market will therefore frequently differ from the rate, at which he has valued them in his Coins; and when Coins made of different metals are equally legal tender, there will of course be two measures of property, differing occasionally from each other. A profit will always in such case be made by those who traffic in Coins, by exchanging that Coin which has the least intrinsic value, for that which has the greatest. The debtor will find it his interest to make his payments in the Coin made of that metal, which is overvalued at the Mint; and such Coins, as are made of the metal undervalued at the Mint will always be melted down and exported.'

The

The fourth Cause arises from the wear to which coins in circulation are liable. It is the object of this work to propose such principles of coinage, as will tend to remedy the second and third of these imperfections.

The two points, to which the learning and reasoning displayed by the Earl of Liverpool are directed, are the expediency of fixing on one metal as the standard or measure of value, and the superior claims of gold for this preference. This doctrine will appear from the passages which ensue :

The Money or Coin, which is to be the principal measure of property, ought to be made of one metal only. Such is the opinion of Sir William Petty, Mr. Locke, Mr. Harris, and of all the eminent writers on Coin. Sir William Petty says, that one of the metals is the only fit matter for Money. Mr. Locke calls this sort of Money the Money of Account, or the Measure of Commerce or Contracts; and he adds, "that two metals, such as Gold and Silver, cannot be the measure of commerce both together in any country." Mr. Harris, in his Essay on Money and Coins, delivers it as his opinion, that only one metal can be the Money, or standard measure of property and commerce in any country; and he calls this sort of Money the Standard of Money. These three authors assign their reasons in support of a principle in which they all concur; their reasons, are, in substance, the same; and are so convincing, that the truth of this principle can no longer be controverted. I shall be obliged to have recourse to the reasons they have offered in support of their opinion, in a future part of this Letter; so that it is not necessary to detain Your Majesty by stating them at present. The truth of this principle in fact results from the nature and uses of Money, as before described. The before mentioned writers have assigned different names to this superior sort of Money, or Coins, by which the Coins made of other metals are to be regulated, and to which they are to be subservient. The Coins, which are to be the principal measure of property, must of course be legal tender without limitation. I shall call this superior sort of Money, or Coins, the principal Measure of Property, or Standard Coin: and having clearly defined my idea, I conceive I have a right to make use of these terms in the sense which I have given to them.

Certain, however, as the principle is, that the Money or Coins of any country, which are to be the principal measure of property, can be made of one metal only; the convenience of traffic necessarily requires, that in rich and commercial countries, there should be Coins made of several metals, adapted to the several sorts of pur chases or exchanges, for which they are intended. Coins made of Gold alone, or of Silver alone, in such countries, will not answer all the purposes of traffic. Coins of Gold are not well adapted for the retail trade, in which sort of traffic the greatest number of the subjects of every country are principally concerned; and Coins of Silver are too bulky for larger payments, and are, in that respect, inconvenient. It is necessary, therefore, that in commercial countries there should be Coins made of different metals. And if the Coins, which

are the principal measure of property and instrument of commerce can only be made of one of these metals the inferior Coins, made of other metals, must be legal tender only in a limited degree, as the Sovereign shall direct; ad so far only they are the measure of property and if they are accepted in payment for a larger sum, with the consent of the receiver, (as may sometimes be the case,) they may then be said to be the represenstatives of the Coins which are the principal measure of property, and their value must be made to correspond with it, as accurately as the nature of the subject will ad mit. It is by adopting this rule, or principle, that the second and third of the imperfections before stated will be avoided, or at least the ill effects resulting from them will be diminished as much as possible.'

The Earl shews, with great precision and neatness, that the convenience of society has already in a degree effected the change which he is solicitous to ave constitutionally established; we refer to the legal character which he would have stamped on gold. He maintains that, in fact, gold is become the standard coin; that to which all other coins and articles of commerce are referred and compared, and by which they have their value determined. Indeed, the law has but a very short step to take in order completely to coincide with the plan proposed, as will appear from the following statement of it:

From the time when Gold Coins were first made in the Mints of this kingdom, these Gold Coins have been equally with the Silver Coins legal tender, and consequently the measure of property, ac. cording to the rate or value which the Sovereign thought fit to set upon them. I do not think it necessary here to repeat what I have stated already, that Gold Coins, during a subsequent period, took a value superior to that at which they were rated in the Mint indenture. This was by general consent, and consequently at the option of the person who received them in payment, and not by the authority of Government; so that this superior value was not in truth the legal value. S.condly, that the Silver Coins of this realm, considered as Coins, are now legal tender only in sums not exceeding 251. Thirdly, that the Copper Halfpence and Farthings, made at the royal Mint, are legal tender only in sums that do not amount to Sixpence. That the Copper Twopences and Pence lately authorize to be made by Your Majesty by a private Artist, are legal tender only in sums not exceeding twelve pence. And that the Copper Halfpence and Farthings, in like manner authorized to be made by Your Majesty, are legal tender in sums not exceeding Sixpence.'

It is here clearly shewn that, down to a period later than the Revolution, silver was the standard coin of the country: but that a change in this respect began to take place from the year 1717, when, on the report of Sir Isaac Newton, the cur

rency

rency of gold underwent the regulation by which it has ever since been governed.

It is remarked that, at the time of the Revolution, in consequence of the silver coins being greatly deficient,

Every commodity rose in its value in proportion to this defici. ency; they all took their value in reference to the Silver Coins: but none of these evils have happened for many years past, in consequence of the existing defect of our Silver Coins. There is no reason to suppose that any commodity has on this account risen in its price or value. The cause that these evils do not now exist results from a change in the practice and opinion of the people, with reference to the principal measure of property. The Silver Coins are no longer the principal measure of property: all commodities now take their price or value in reference to the Gold Coins, that is, in reference to the quantity of Gold Coins, for which they could be exchanged, in like manner as they took their value in a former period, in reference to the Silver Coins. On this account the present deficiency of the Silver Coins, great as it is, is not taken into consideration, in paying the price of any commodity, to the extent in which they are legal tender. It is clear therefore, that the Gold Coins are now become, in the practice and opinion of the people, the principal measure of property.

A like conclusion may be drawn from the present state of our Gold Coins, and from the value at which they now pass in currency. The Mint indentures of Charles II. James II. William III. and Queen Anne, and even of a part of the reign of George I. to the year 1717, had determined, that the Guinea should pass at the rate or value of 205., and the other Gold Coins in proportion; yet they did not pass at that, which was then their legal rate or value, but at a much higher rate or value: and in a part of the reign of King William the Guinea was current at even so high a value as 308. This increased rate or value was not owing singly to a mistaken estimation at the Mint of the relative value of Gold to Silver, but the Gold Coins rose or fell, as the Silver Coins were less or more perfect. No such increase or variation in the value of the Gold Coin has taken place since the year 1717, when the rate or value of the Guinea was determined by proclamation, and the Mint indenture, to be 215., and the other Gold Coins in proportion; though the Silver Coins now current have long been, and are still at least as deficient as they were in the beginning of the reign of King William. The Guinea and the other Gold Coins have notwithstanding constantly passed, since .717, at the rate or value given them by the int indentures.

The two foregoing arguments c early prove the opinion of the people of Great Britain on this subject, in their interior commerce and domestic concerns. I will in the next place shew, what has been the opinion of foreign nations concerning it. At the time of the general Recoinage of the silver Coins, in the reign of King William, the exchanges with all foreign countries rose or fell, according to the defect or perfection of our Silver Coins. It has already been stated, that at this period the exchanges to the Low Countries co se very low,

T4

that

that the public lost about 45. in the Pound on all monies remitted there; that the exchange to Hamburgh and to the East Countries was still lower, and to all places in the Mediterranean it was even more to our disadvantage. The most favourable, therefore, of our exchanges, was, during this period, 20 per cent. against this kingdom. All these facts are confirmed by the most eminent writers on exchanges. The reason that the exchanges were then so low is also evident. Foreigners at that time considered the Silver Coins of this realm, then very defective, as the principal measure of property, and consequently of foreign commerce, and they rated their exchanges accordingly. The same evil however has never existed since the year 1717, though our Silver Coins have, during all this interval, been very defective. But, on the other hand, our exchanges with foreign countries were very much influenced to our disadvantage, when our Gold Coins were defective; that is, previous to the reformation of our Gold Coins, in the year 1774 and this circumstance was one of the principal causes, which then induced the Government to reform the Gold Coins, by recoining them, at a great charge to the public. The conclusion, naturally resulting from these premises, is, that foreigners have, for a considerable period, no longer considered our Silver Coins as the principal measure of property, and consequently of foreign commerce; but they consider our Gold Coin as such, and thereby estimate their exchanges.'

Mr.Locke had said that gold was not the money of the world, nor fit to be so. The more correct canon is laid down by Lord Liverpool, that coins should be made of metals more or less valuable in proportion to the wealth and commerce of the country, in which they are to be the measure of property.' In illustration of this important idea, it is here added;

In very poor countries, Coins have been, and still are principally made of Copper; and sometimes even of less valuable materials.

In countries advanced to a certain degree of commerce and opu lence, Silver is the metal of which Coins are principally made.

In very rich countries, and especially in those where great and extensive commerce is carried on, Gold is the most proper metal, of which this principal measure of property, and this instrument of commerce, should be made: in such countries Gold will in practice become the principal measure of property, and the instrument of commerce, with the general consent of the people, not only without the support of law, but in spite of almost any law that may be enacted to the contrary; for the principal purchases and exchanges cannot there be made, with any convenience, in Coins of a less valuable metal. In this Your Majesty's kingdom, so great is its wealth, and so various and extensive is its commerce, that it is become in. convenient to carry on many of the principal branches of trade, or to make great payments, even in Coins of Gold, the most precious of metals on this account a very extensive Paper currency has been called to its aid: but this Paper can never be considered as Coin, for it has no value in itself; it only obtains its value with reference to

the