To the conclufions of Dr Smith, Mr Wheatley, who does not appear to have read the celebrated digreffion concerning the va lue of filver, and who calls the adoption of corn, as a standard, an affumption, opposes the table of prices drawn up by Sir George Shuckburgh Evelyn, which he terms a masterly refutation, and an acquifition highly honourable to the literature of the age. Upon the refults of the table, with regard to the conftant depre ciation of currency fince the Norman conqueft, our author builds all his arguments. Without any hesitation, he draws the most ftartling inferences; and never ftops a moment to inquire what may be the folidity of the document on which he has founded fo lofty a mass of new doctrine,

As money, fays he, is now above 25 per cent. lefs valuable than it was at the end of the American war, a monied income or capital of 400l., has, fince that period, become worth lefs than three, A landlord may raife his rent at the expiration of his leafes; but, in the mean time, his fortune is daily decreasing, in proportion to the length of the tenant's bargain. All annuitants in the public funds are becoming poorer; the country nominally gives them the ftipulated intereft, but in reality only fifteen fhillings in the pound, if the money was invested twenty years ago, and not nine fhillings, if it was invested at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The falaries of officers are re duced at the fame lamentable rate. The value of the capital lent to Government diminishes in the fame proportiona proportion which is rapidly accelerating: But if only the prefent rate continue, in half a century the whole national debt will be paid off, except one fhilling in the pound. Against the injuftice of this method of liquidating our debts, Mr Wheatley inveighs with confiderable warmth; and expreffes his hopes, that instead of continuing devoutly to with for this great confummation, the public will have their eyes fo far opened, by the calculations of Sir G. Shuckburgh, that the fear of the debt being paid too foon will alone be felt.

Such, though fomewhat condensed, is the fubftance of the two chapters upon the depreciation of currency. They are altogether compofed of corollaries to Sir G. Shuckburgh's table; and we conceive that the easiest way of quieting the fears of thofe who may partake in our author's apprehenfions, and of expofing the radical fallacy of his ingenious fyftem, will be to examine this table. It has indeed excited much lefs notice than it deferves, if it is entitled to the fmallest proportion of the confi dence thus liberally bestowed by Mr Wheatley.

Sir G. Shuckburgh published his table, in the very valuable paper which he communicated to the Royal Society, upon the

methods

methods of ascertaining a standard of weights and meafures*. In. this inquiry, the table forms a kind of digreffion; it is cafually introduced; it does not feem to be marked by the fame accuracy which distinguishes the main body of the paper; the documents are only referred to in the most general way; and, far from ap pearing to have taken the general views which must influence all. fpeculations about the analysis of price, he does not seem to be aware of the scientific nature of his fubject; he prefaces the table by an apology for defcending below the dignity of philofophy; addresses it to the historian and antiquary; and though he alludes to the writings of Smith and Steuart, yet he appears only to have confulted them in order to pick up detached fums and dates.

The first column gives thofe years (that is, fingle years) from 1050 to 1795, for which he has lifts of prices: the next gives the average price of wheat; the next twelve give the prices of twelve other articles: then follows a column with the mean prices of these articles; a column with the prices of husbandry, Jabour, and another with those of beef and mutton. The remaining columns exhibit the comparative view of the value of money, according to thefe various prices in the feven years for which alone he has tolerably full lifts of prices, viz. 1050, 1350, 1550, 1675, 1740, 1760, and 1795. And, from the refults of this comparison for thefe few detached years, he forms, by interpolation, his table of depreciation.

Now, it must be obferved, in the first place, that the prices are only obtained from the averages of fingle years, and that of these there are only fix, beside the year 1550, which is affumed as a ftandard. This is a radical objection to the whole calculation. We know well how much prices vary from year to year; and how difficult it is to find any lifts of them in ancient authors, unless when the motive for recording them was the extraordinary cheapnefs or dearth. It is plain, too, that befides variations from fcarcity, different circumstances of a local or temporary nature operate at particular periods, to raise or deprefs the prices of commodities. Thus, it actually happens that the three laft of the seven years were feafons of extenfive warfare, and that two of these were years of uncommon fcarcity, as well as foreign war. The confequences of forming a calculation from fingle years, may be perceived in the erroneous conclufions to which the column of corn prices would lead us. The price of wheat for 1350, is the very fame with that for 1550, according to Sir George Shuckburgh's own account; yet Dr Smith has clearly proved, not from the ftate of the corn market for two fingle years, but from a variety of general tefts, corroborated alfo by a feries Q4

* Phil. Tranf. 1798. Part I.

of

of fucceffive facts, that during this very interval the money price of wheat was regularly falling from twenty to ten fhillings the quarter.

But farther, the lifts of prices in the different years are not equally complete the mean value of money is estimated from five articles only, together with wheat in 1050, the first year of the feries; and from eight articles, together with wheat and day labour in 1350. Two of the twelve mifcellaneous articles are, ale and small beer; commodities, of which the prices are extremely complex, and influenced indeed by the operation of direct taxes. According to the table, the price of the former doubled between 1650 and 1675, while that of wheat fell in the proportion of eleven to nine. The price of beef and mutton increased between 1740 and 1760, in the proportion of two to three. During the fame interval, the prices of oxen, cows, and sheep, fcarcely augmented fenfibly; the rife was only in the proportion of three hundred and forty-three to three hundred and forty-feven. Some inferences may be drawn from the table, which are in our apprehenfion equivalent to a reductio ad abfurdum. It would follow, for example, from a comparison of the price of labour in husbandry with the price of wheat at different times, that the lower orders were in a better condition a hundred years after the Conqueft, than they were during the latter part of the Amèrican war. A day's wages could, at the former period, purchafe nearly half a bufhel of wheat: at the latter period, the fame wages could purchafe little more than a quarter of a bufhel.

As Sir George Shuckburgh has not detailed the particulars of his data, or defcribed the methods by which he formed his mean eftimates of articles for each year, we cannot decide with respect to the limits within which he may have attained an accurate calculation. But we may be permitted to doubt the poffibility of getting tolerably juft averages of the prices of fuch commodities as vary extremely in quality or in quantity, or in both. Of the first kind is cheese, and perhaps malt liquors; of the second, oxen; of the third, horfes. In confequence of these confiderations, we are the lefs furprised to find that the table of depreciation, rafhly constructed, by interpolation, from fuch fcanty and deceitful materials, is inconfiftent with fome of the very data which are given in the larger table, but not ufed in the calculation. The value of money for 1550 being 100, its value for 1150, by the interpolation table, is 43. But if its value is calculated from the prices of cattle in the larger table, it is only 33; and from the prices of cattle and wheat together only 31. The one table gives 88 for the value in 1450; the other gives 100 or 95, according as we take the price of cattle fingly, or that of cattle and wheat together.

But

But there are various objections of a more general nature to the whole plan of this table, which must already have forced themselves upon our readers. If the depreciation of money is to be estimated. from the rife in the money price of commodities, an allowance. is neceffary for the effects produced upon price, by the variation in demand and fupply, which takes place according to the progrefs of fociety, and the different circumstances of its fituation. If articles of various kinds are differently affected by these changes, the average of the whole variations of money price will certainly not give any approximation to the variations of the value of money. If one article has grown cheaper, in confequence of improvements in the mode of raifing or manufacturing it, and another has grown dearer in confequence of a decreasing de mand, and diminished attention to its production or fabric, although we should admit that fpecie has all along been growing more plentiful, fo as to counteract the effects of the former circumftances, and to affift thofe of the latter, the medium of the change produced in both cafes will evidently furnish no document of any fuch increase of specie. It would be abfurd, therefore, to estimate the proportion of this increafe, by averaging the contrary effects of oppofite circumftances altogether independent of the state of currency; or, which is the fame thing, to take a medium between an increafing and decreafing series of prices, as a test of the variations in the standard of money. The fame remark may be made with refpect to averages of increafing feries of prices, and prices which are ftationary, or which alternately increase and decreafe. Yet, in the table of Sir George Shuckburgh, fome of the articles are nearly stationary, as wheat; others most rapidly increafe, as cattle; others, as poultry, firft increafe, and then decreafe. If wheat and malt liquors are af fumed as criteria, while their circumftances vary according to laws fo different from thofe which affect the other commodities, it feems difficult to discover why other articles, such as various manufactures, fhould not be admitted to influence the calculation, fince they are much more fimilar to grain and liquors, than they are to the produce of pasture land. With refpect to the value of money in a larger fenfe, the quantity of comforts and conveniences which it can purchase, has furely been, upon the whole, greatly increafed during the period which has elapfed fince the difcovery of the American mines produced their greatest effect. Many of the neceffaries of life have alfo become cheaper; and fome commodities have been difclofed to us, which may be fubftituted for thofe neceffaries.

Taking this complex view of the fubject, (and we can fcarcely yenture to think that any other is compatible with the nature

of

of the question, at all events, we are fure that nothing like proportions can be afcertained in fo great a mixture of caufes), it hould feem that the value of money has, upon the whole, not decreased in any ratio fimilar to that of Sir George Shuckburgh's table, even admitting his data to have been fufficiently extensive, and his mode of computation quite correct. This fuppofed fact, of the great depreciation of money, is one of those which may be fafely admitted, only in fo far as they can be accounted for.

The continued influx from the American mines, has been demonstrated by Dr Smith to be quite inadequate to produce any progreffive effects upon the general prices of commodities in the European commonwealth. No one now conceives it poffible to effect any partial rife of prices by the increase of fpecie currency, The augmentation of paper money is propofed by Mr Wheatley as the cause of that enormous depreciation which he maintains, or rather affumes, to have taken place. But this is both inconfiftent with the facts on which his fpeculations are founded, and repugnant to more general principles. It is inconfiftent with the facts; because, according to Sir George Shuckburgh's table, the rate of depreciation was much more rapid during the century after the Conqueft, than during the century after the Restoration; during the period when neither new mines were discovered, nor paper currency exifted, than during the period when, according to Mr Wheatley, the effects of the newly difcovered mines were fucceeded by the ftill more powerful influence of the paper fyftem. The explanation of the fuppofed rapid decreafe, by the effects of paper currency, is no lefs inconfiftent with the most obvious views of the manner in which the general depreciation of currency is effected by the difproportionate iffue of paper. For if that iffue becomes fo great, as to caufe a rapid depreciation, the market price of the precious metals must rife proportionably above their mint price, and the specie muft either be withdrawn from circulation altogether, or a permanent discount must be established between coin and paper currency; neither of which effects it is pretended has taken place.

It is impoffible, therefore, to account for the fuppofed depreciation upon any principle hitherto propofed; and we have endeavoured to fhew, that the evidence upon which the supposition refts, is of the most Alimly and fufpicious nature. There can

remain

*We must attend, in this estimate, to the period between 1675 and 1760, and not to the period ending. 1795 or 1800. All the numbers after 1760 are interpolated by the aid of the mean for 1795; a year of fuch extraordinary fcarcity, according to the table itself, that the average price of wheat was nearly double its medium price in 1780.