612359
Observation's on Mr P's Reply.
1. On the Argument against Paper Credit taken
from the course of the Coynage.
To shew that the Coynage has decreased since the rise & growth
of paper credit Mr P. (sec. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7) justifies his assertions that there
wasere coyned in silver communibus annis about 400000linannum from
1640 to 1660, 200000li
80000linannum from 1680 to 1695. These assertions I disputed not
except that I affirmed the 400000li ꝑper anannum to be not in silver
alone but in gold & silver together. But I represented that from
this decrease of the silver coynage nothing could be argued against
paper credit, & that for these two reasons.
First because Mr. P. considers tnot the whole coynage of
both gold & silver together wchwhich make orour wealth but that of silver
alone. For yethe coynage of silver from 1640 to 1660 was greater then
that of gold & now it is much less & this alteration of the proporti
on arises not from paper credit but from the growing exportation
of silver to yethe Indies while orour gold stays at home, orour Merchants
finding that silver is a better commodity in the Indies then gold.
Se
to 1695 was not uniform, as it should seem by Mr P's represen
tation, but had several periods of increasing & decreasing according
to the vicissitudes of peace & warr abroad, all wchwhich ought to be
distinguished & considered severally before any thing can be
concluded from the course of the coynage. For if the coynage
in the reign of K.King Cha. & K.King IJames II increased wthwith paper credit
when according to his recconing it should
other times the decrease of the coynage arose from other causes
then paper credit, then we must ascribe the increase to paper
credit & the decrease not to paper credit tobut to those other
causes, & so the argument from yethe course of yethe coynage against
paper credit will vanish. Now the course of the coynage answe
to the vicissitudes of peace & war abroade after this manner.
The silver coynage in the latter half of Q.Queen Elizabeths''s
reign (after she had recoyned the base money of her Predecessors)
& in the first five years of K.King IJames I was one year wthwith another about about 70 or 80 thousand pounds ꝑper anannum. Then upon a cessation
of arms between yethe Spaniards & Dutch it fell suddenly to less then
40 thousand pounds ꝑper
making a peace between England & Spain 1629 it grew greater then
ever & continued so till the end of the warr 1648, the silver
Coynage being about 440000linannum & that of both gold & silver
600000linannum or above. Then upon the conclusion of peace between Spain
& Holland it fell again & became but the 8th or 10th part of
what it was before & continued so for the next 18 years this coynage of both gold & silver together being
scarce 70000li ꝑper anannum till the enacting of the coynage Duty 166 by wchwhich & the flourishing of trade in the peacefull reigns of Cha: II & IJames II & the quick dispatch of business by paper credit notwithstanding orour disadvantageous trade wthwith France it encreased till it became about 680000li ꝑper anannum. And then by the late war wthwith France & the consequent decay of paper credit & trade it decreased again exceedingly. This agreement between the encrease & decrease of the coynage & the state of the nation in respect of peace & war abroad shews that yethe Coynage has principally depended on that state. And if paper credit hath had any effect upon the coynage it hath promoted it because both increased together till 1690 & afterwards both decreased together by yethe late French warr.
By the ordinary course of trade the coynage of gold & silver in the last 17 years of K. IJames I scarce exceeded 40 or 50 thousand pounds ꝑper anannum. In the reign of K. Cha: I it increased to an exceeding height not by the ordinary course of trade but by orour being in peace while orour neighbours were in warr. After 16478 when that warr ceased & trade returned to its ordinary course the Coynage (without recconing the recoyning of the Harp & Cross money) became but about 6800li ꝑper an till yethe rise & growth of paper credit & the enacting of the coynage Duty, & then in yethe space of 23 years more by the encouragement of that Act & the encrease of trade occasioned by the quick dispatch of business by Paper credit the coynage grew ten times greater then it was before. And therefore Mr P. in his first paper set the argument in a wrong light when he represented that the coynage had decreased ever since the rise & growth of paper credit. For he there considers the Coynage alone of gold & silver together before 1660 & the coynage of silver alone afterwards & lessens the latter in yethe reign of K.King Cha. II & K.King Iam. II by taking a medium between that wchwhich preceeded the late French warr & that wchwhich was in the warr; whereas if he had considered the whole coynage of both gold & silver till the present time, & distinguished between times of peace & warr, he would have found the argument from the Coynage to613 because the life of their trade.
But Mr P. objects makes an Objection wchwhich lies against all the circulating credit in England, that Paper credit inclines to luxury & luxury occasions the exportation of orour money. unless it be laid up in a Bank. The For this Objection lies not only against credit upon Parliamentary funds but against credit upon land or any thing else but money in a Bank, be the deposit never so safe & the security never so good. But if this be a good objection, we must reject wine because it occasions drunkenness, & all the best things because by corruption they become the worst. Rather let us suppress drunkenness, & keep orour wine.
If all orour Paper credit considered as a sort of riches were turned into gold, the gold would incline to luxury as the credit did before, & the luxury would export orour silver. Must we therefore throw away the gold for fear we should want market money: Why should we not rather endeavour to grow richer by keeping orour gold & only suppressing luxury?
But tho paper credit be a sort of riches we must not use it immoderately. Like vertue it has its extremes. Too much may hurt us as well as too little. So much is best for us as suffices to lower interest, make dispatch in business, set the people on work & inspire life & vigour into all the busy part of the nation too strongly to luxury. For it enriches us only amongst orour selves & not in respect of forreign nations. But What proportion in respect of gold & silver is best for us is a ddetermination wchwhich may be varyd with circumstances of time & must be left to experience & the wisdome of the legislative power.