mation of silver. This proposition, however, appears to us to be so extremely clear, that we hope it will carry the evidence of its truth along with it, even to Mr Wheatley; and if we succeed in convincing him of his error on this particular point, we may hope to reclaim him from his eager pursuit of those delusive novelties which are constantly leading him astray from the path of sober investigation.

The market price of the precious metals, is the only sure measure of their value, and the mint estimation is only so far accurate as it is conformed to this unerring standard. When we say that the precious metals are inaccurately estimated at the mint with respect to each other, we mean merely, that their market price is either higher or lower than their mint price; and when a pound of coined silver exchanges for a smaller quantity of gold coin than a pound of silver bullion, is not this satisfactory evidence that the price of silver at the mint is lower than the price of silver in the market? We are convinced, that on all subjects connected with the complex economy of society, errors frequently arise from the nature of the terms which it is necessary to employ, and which, though they may be sufficiently intelligible on reflection, do not always suggest, without an effort of the understanding, any distinct idea to the mind. When several of these terms are connected together into a train of reasoning, the chances of deception from this source are necessarily multiplied, and an argument may appear perfectly correct and conclusive, of which the fallacy would be immediately apparent, if the combinations of which it consists could be brought before the mind in their natu ral simplicity. It is chiefly by not possessing a full and distinct perception of the bearings and relations of the different propo sitions of which an argument is composed, and by perplexing themselves with a confusion of notions and phrases which they do not distinctly understand, that superficial writers commit so many mistakes. Even more close and accurate reasoners occasionally fall into the same snare. An habitual abstraction of the mind from language to its dependent ideas, seems to be the best security against this species of deception.

It appears to us, that it is entirely owing to the want of a due consideration of the various propositions of which his theory respecting the market and the mint price of bullion consists, that Mr Wheatley himself does not see its absurdity. He supposes, that when currency is dearer at Hamburgh than at London, bullion, which he observes is the same as foreign coin, must also be dearer; and therefore, that a pound of bullion, whether copper, silver, or gold, must be worth more than a pound of coin. It is very extraordinary, that Mr Wheatley does not perceive, that,

according

according to his own principles, the expense of transporting gold or currency, from the place where it is abundant to the place where it is scarce, must be the limit of the variations in its price. The intrinsic value of the coined metal, cannot be greater in Hamburgh than in London; its superior value arises entirely from the accidental circumstance of a great demand in London for money at Hamburgh. It seems singularly absurd, therefore, to suppose, that when it is transported from the place where it is in request to the place where it is not wanted, it should still retain its superior value. What does Mr Wheatley mean, by saying also, that the value of copper bullion must be increased in London, from the same cause which increases the value of gold bullion, namely, an unfavourable exchange? Are bills of exchange ever paid in copper? But we are really wearied with hunting down these futile conceits.

Mr Wheatley proceeds, in his fifth chapter, to point out the errors which, according to him, Lord Liverpool has committed in his valuable work on coinage. He also touches upon the causes from which disorders may occasionally arise in a system of metallic currency. This subject is no doubt involved in considerable intricacy; but it does not seem to be the characteristic of Mr Wheatley's genius, to clear away obscurity or confusion from the subjects on which he treats. After observing that when any metal is overrated in the currency of a country, or when the coins which are made out of a particular metal are debased or worn, the price of all commodities is regulated by the debased coins, or by the coins which are made of the metal underrated; he proceeds to argue, that, as the silver currency in Britain, has unquestionably lost a great part of its original value by rubbing and wearing, the prices of commodities in Britain, must be regulated by the state of the silver coins, and not by the state of the gold coins; and that the value of the gold coins is actually degraded to the level of the silver coins. There is certainly something very spirited in thus attempting to maintain a theory against the most notorious facts. The silver currency of Britain is, we believe, depreciated about 25 per cent. If the prices of commodities, therefore, were regulated by this standard, silver bullion ought to be at 6s. 9d., and gold ought to be above 51. an ounce. Has Mr Wheatley also forgotten, that by the reformation of the gold currency, in 1774, the market price both of silver and gold bullion, was lowered to the mint price, although the silver currency was at that time in a very imperfect state? And is it not evident, if both silver and gold bulion are raised or lowered in price, according to the perfect or debased state of the gold coin, that it is the state of the gold coin which

regulates

regulates their prices? We should have thought, that the strength of Mr Wheatley's faith in theory, would have been shaken by a consideration of these facts; and that he would have been led to suspect, that in the infinite variety of new combinations, which human affairs are constantly presenting, new principles might arise of which he was not aware, and which, if rightly understood, might have saved him from the dilemma of rejecting an obvious fact, or admitting an exception to a theory which must be universal if it be true.

It no doubt appears from the whole history of our coinage, that when either gold or silver was greatly overrated in relation to each other, or when the coins made of either of those metals had lost much of their original value by debasement, or by being worn, the coins which were overrated or debased, either passed current at a discount, or the more perfect coins were entirely banished from circulation. But it is also very clear, that at present though the silver coin has lost the fourth part of its original value, it passes current at the estimation set on it when issued from the mint; and so far is the gold coin from being ba nished from circulation, that a guinea can always be had for twenty-one debased shillings, as readily as if the silver currency were in the most perfect state. This fact, indeed, is noticed by Dr Smith, who observes, that when the gold currency was reformed in 1774, twenty-one worn and debased shillings exchanged for a guinea which was perfect in its weight, with the same facility as before. Dr Smith, who had not the benefit of Mr Wheatley's theory, so far from conjecturing, that the value of the gold coin was degraded to the level of the debased silver coin, was of opinion, that the value of the silver coin was raised by means of the superior excellency of the gold coin. The reason, however, by which he endeavours to account for this fact, namely, that the most precious coin naturally regulates the value of the rest, is by no means satisfactory. In the reign of William III. the perfect state of the gold coin did not raise the value of the silver, which circulated at a discount of about 40 per cent., 30s. being then the price of a guinea; and we cannot see any reason for supposing, that it produces this effect upon the silver coin at present. The following observations may perhaps afford a solution of this difficulty.

Lord Liverpool has stated, in a very clear and satisfactory man◄ ner, the series of changes which, as a country advances in wealth, are gradually introduced into its system of currency. In a very early stage of society, when transactions are few and of small consequence, a very coarse metal, such as copper, generally answers all the purposes of a circulating medium. In the course

of

of advancing improvement, however, silver is found to be a more convenient instrument of exchange; and in the still further progress of commercial opulence, gold at last is the only metal in which the great payments can be conveniently effected.

When a currency has arrived at this last state of refinement, the coarser metals are never employed except in the smaller payments, which could not be conveniently effected by means of a metal so precious as gold. They become, therefore, subsidiary merely to the operations of the main currency.

It is very evident, that the coin in which the larger payments are effected, can only pass current at its intrinsic worth; and accordingly, all attempts to give it an arbitrary value, either by debasement, or by raising its denomination, have been uniformly followed by a corresponding rise of prices. Men are alarmed when the only known rule by which the value of the currency can be estimated, is abandoned; and they plainly perceive, that the disorder which this arbitrary innovation must produce, will finally render it necessary, in estimating the value of the coin, to revert to the sure and incorruptible standard of its intrinsic worth. A subsidiary currency, however, is susceptible of an arbitrary value: as its depreciation cannot be attended with effects so injurious to society, it may circulate very freely, although the intrinsic value is not equal to its current value. In all the metallic currencies of Europe, copper is a subsidiary currency; and in the currency of Britain, both silver and copper are subsidiary currencies. The current value of the copper coins, accordingly, before the late new coinage, was considerably higher than their intrinsic value; and they passed in circulation without producing the least inconvenience. It is not less evident, we conceive, though it has been less noticed, that the silver currency has assumed an arbitrary value, ever since the period when it was exclusively appropriated to the smaller payments. This great change in the currency of Britain, took place in the reign of King William. Our limits do not permit us to enlarge on the various steps of that process by which it was perfected. We cannot help observing, however, that the state of the British coin, at that period, appears to us to be peculiarly deserving of attention; not only as the facts which were then disclosed, throw a peculiar light on the nature and principles of a metallic currency, but because the appearances then exhibited may not again occur in the revolution of ages. It is impossible to fix the period at which, in the progress of improvement, a similar change may take place in the metallic currencies of Europe; and in looking back to the earlier stages of society, no traces are to

be

be found of those temporary disorders which must have taken place, when silver was substituted for copper in the main payments. It need not indeed excite surprise, when the historian of battles and political revolutions, can scarcely glean, in the earlier periods of history, the materials of a connected narrative, that no record should be preserved of those facts, which are not recommended to vulgar notice by novelty and glare, but are only valuable as they furnish the materials of philosophical speculation. When time has injured the outline of the picture, it is not natural to expect, that the more delicate shades should have been transmitted in full preservation.

The amount of our specie forms the subject of Mr Wheatley's sixth chapter. We have already had occasion to express our opinion on this point, in our review of Lord Liverpool's work; so that it is unnecessary to touch on it at present. For the same reason, we must also decline entering into a consideration of the next chapter, which relates to the balance of trade; having nothing further to add to what we have already had occasion to ob serve on that subject in our examination of Mr Wheatley's preliminary work.

In the eighth chapter our author explains in what way a nation must discharge its foreign expenditure; but we do not see that he has added much to the simple explanation of this subject afforded by Dr Smith. His opinions, besides being anticipated in general by preceding writers, are encumbered with such a variety of con fused and unintelligible notions, that we may venture to affirm, that no reader, who has not the patience and good temper of a reviewer, will venture to analyze the mass, and to disentangle the author's substantial doctrines from the extraneous notions in which they are always enveloped. When, by means of a favourable exchange, a country has debts owing to it abroad, this foreign expenditure may obviously be discharged by a bill on the debtor country. But when its foreign debt exceeds the amount of the debts due to it, some other resource must be fallen upon; either bullion or commodities must be exported; and, in general, the lat ter will be preferred. On this subject, however, we have fully explained our sentiments in our review of Foster on Commercial Exchanges.

Mr Wheatley dwells with considerable severity on the narrow notions by which Mr Pitt, during the last war, was induced to withhold from our Continental allies that relief which could have been easily spared from the ample resources of Britain; and he seems to be of opinion, that the apprehensions, so earnestly expressed on this subject by the Directors of the Bank of England, were, in some degree, chimerical. We are for once inclined to

agree