of

tinues outstanding at a given amount, there will remain permanently out in circulation a corresponding amount of paper; and if the amount of discounts is progressively increasing, the amount paper which remains out in circulation over and above what is wanted for the occasions of the public, will progressively increase also; and the money prices of commodities will progressively rise. This progress may be as indefinite as the range of speculation and adventure in a great commercial country."

38. Such is the reasoning of the Bullion Report, to shew the fallacy of the rule of the directors. We are not aware of any other attempt to refute it, so elaborate as the one given. The conclusions are perfectly just, but the expressions are in some respects ambiguous, in some, inaccurate; and, altogether, the reasoning is inadequate to effect its purpose of demonstrating the fallacy of the doctrine. In the first place, the expression "good bills" is one which we shall shew is full of fallacy. The Report has further been clouded by the false distinction between "capital" and "circulating medium." Again, it says the necessary effect of every addition to the mass of the currency, is to diminish the value of the whole, which assertion is entirely erroneous, because the value ef the currency is always propor-tionate to the work which it has to do; and it is only a change in the proportion between the currency and the work that it has to do, that causes a change in its value. The Committee were further in great error in supposing that so small an amount as could be added to the circulating medium in so short a time as during the currency of the bills that were discounted, could have any general effect on prices.

39. We shall find that, by starting from our fundamental definition of currency, as transferable debt, and that the value of the currency depends upon the quantity of transferable debt which it represents, the fallacy of this theory can be demonstrated with great ease and simplicity, and the mischievous consequences which followed from it explained. When the merchant A comes to the Bank to discount the acceptance of B, it is a sale of the debt to the bank. The bank buys a debt payable at a fixed time after date, with its notes, which are so

many small debts payable to bearer on demand, while the notes are convertible. The transaction is simply an exchange of debts. At the appointed time it is B's duty to take a quantity of currency to the bank, and discharge his debt. He does this, either in coin, or in the bank's own notes. If he pays his own debt by the bank's notes, it is simply a re-exchange of debts between him and the bank; he extinguishes his own debt to the bank at the same time an equal quantity of the bank's debt is taken out of circulation and extinguished; consequently, the proportion existing previously between the currency and the quantity of debt it represents, remains unaltered. If the merchant discharges his debt partly in coin and partly in bank notes, or wholly in coin, the same result follows; the notes which remain out in circulation still represent the same amount of capital. But let us suppose that the acceptor fails to meet his engagement, and cannot pay his debt. Then the debt due to the bank is lost and extinguished; but the debt against the bank remains; and the bank, whilst the notes are payable to bearer on demand, must pay this debt out of its remaining capital. Still, however, though this is loss of capital to the bank, as the notes are taken out of circulation, the value of the notes remaining in circulation will not be affected. us suppose the notes to be inconvertible, then, as acceptor pays the debt, the notes will be taken out of circulation, and extinguished simultaneously with the debt which they purchased, and the value of those remaining in circulation will not be altered. But suppose that the acceptor fails, and cannot pay his debt, then that debt is extinguished, but the notes which purchased it remain in circulation, and are a mere addition to the circulating medium already existing, without any corresponding addition to the debt or capital which it represents. It would have exactly the same practical effects as if for every good bill of £1,000 the bank were to issue an excess of currency, say £1,500, for example, and when the bill was paid only £1,000 would be taken out of circulation, and the remainder, £500, would remain in circulation. This residuum, as we may call it, would go in diminution of the value of the remainder, exactly in the same way as a constant increase to the gold currency would gradually cause a diminution in its value. Every such operation, therefore, alters the proportion between the currency and the

But now let before, if the

capital, or the debt it represents; and though, no doubt, a few unsuccessful operations of this sort would not have any sensible effect in changing its value, yet a repeated succession of them must necessarily do so ultimately, just as adding a drop to water in a bucket may not perceptibly increase the height of the water, yet a continued series of drops will at length cause the water to overflow the bucket; so a continued series of such operations under an inconvertible paper currency must necessarily result in a serious diminution in the value of the whole.

40. But it may happen, that even though the merchant pays his debt, and no loss of capital ensues to the bank, yet it may be a loss of capital to him. Thus, when he bought the goods on credit, and gave his aceeptance for them, which was purchased by the bank, he meant to employ those goods as capital, that is, he bought them merely for the purpose of selling them again, with a profit. If he succeeds in this object, and sells them to advantage, he pays his acceptance out of the proceeds realised by the goods, and his capital is increased more or less, according to the greater or less advantage he sells them at. But if he has made a miscalculation, and sells the goods at a loss, he must still make good his debt to the bank, out of his remaining capital: and such a transaction is a loss of capital to him. But every loss of capital to an individual is a loss of capital to the whole community. And the great general result to the community is absolutely the same, whether the loss of capital falls upon the individual or upon the bank. The capital of the nation is diminished, but the currency remains the same. Consequently, every unsuccessful operation in trade alters the proportion between the quantity of the currency and the quantity of the debt, or the capital it represents; and, therefore, every unsuccessful operation necessarily tends to diminish the value of the whole currency, unless some means can be devised by which a quantity of currency can be removed from circulation corresponding to the loss of capital. Now, the diminution in the value of the currency inevitably shews

1 J. B. Say has also remarked this:-" Un mauvais speculateur est aussi fatal à la prosperité général qu'un dissipateur."-Traité d'Economie Politique, p. 445. Edit. Guillaumin.

itself in process of time, by a general rise in prices. It may do so gradually and imperceptibly at first-in the hourly variations of prices, it may not, perhaps, be perceived at first; just as when the waves are breaking upon the shore, it is impossible to tell whether the great tide is advancing or receding; but if it continues for any length of time, all traders begin to feel it instinctively. It is impossible, perhaps, to point out the precise influence in any particular transaction; but yet it makes itself felt in commercial operations by a general rise in prices. The fact is, that when the operation was done, and the production exposed for sale, it was expected and calculated that a certain portion of currency would be appropriated to its purchase. But, if people do not want the article, they will not appropriate that portion of currency to its purchase; the producer loses his capital, and the currency remains in circulation. And the increased quantity of it gradually enters into the prices of other commodities, aggravating them, and swelling them up. Now, when this is the case, when the currency is made of a material which has a universally acknowledged value, nature herself provides the remedy. When commodities rise in price in this country beyond their prices in foreign countries, besides the cost of transporting them here, they will be imported and the extra quantity thrown upon the market diminishes their price, both by altering the ratio of supply and demand, as well as by removing the quantity of currency necessary to pay for them from circulation, until the general equilibrium is again restored between prices, currency, and capital. But, if the currency be made of a material which has no value whatever, like paper, this great restoring process of nature cannot take place. The quantity of currency remains the same, while the debt it represents is diminished. The consequence is, a general diminution in value of the whole currency-all the portion of the currency which has no value as a material is driven out of circulation; then follows a great rise in the market price of bullion, and, a necessary consequence, a fall in the foreign exchanges.

41. The foregoing considerations enable us to affix a definite and specific meaning to a phrase which is now in constant use, but which we have never yet seen any attempt to explain. All discussions upon currency are full of misty and vague expressions

§ 40—43.] SMITH ADOPTS CONTRADICTORY THEORIES. 369

66

about "excessive issues," "over-issues," but we have never seen any attempt to define what an "over-issue" is. Now, overissues in general, must consist of specific instances of " overissue" in particular cases. Where is the use or the sense of casting vague and indefinite accusations against the Bank of making "excessive issues," unless the person who makes the charge is prepared to point out specifically which issues are excessive, and which are not? Now, the meaning which we affix to an "excessive issue," or an "over-issue," is an advance upon an unsuccessful operation, or the "purchase of a bad debt." Every quantity of currency advanced to promote an unsuccessful operation, or which purchases a bad debt, alters the proportion between the currency and the debt, or the capital it represents. Each specific instance, then, of such an operation, is an "overissue," and the expression "over-issue," or "excessive issue," has no other meaning.

42. The foregoing considerations also shew the complete fallacy of the theory we have been discussing, of issuing notes upon "good bills." In a banker's sense, a "good bill" means simply a bill which is duly paid by the proper party at maturity. It is not the smallest consequence to him, whether the transaction out of which the bill originated is a profit or a loss to the person who incurred the obligation, as long as he is paid. But if the expression "good bill" be taken in a more extended and philosophical sense, to denote a bill upon which it is safe to issue currency, it is a very different matter indeed, for then a "good bill" can only mean one generated by a successful operation.

43. It is not a little remarkable that Adam Smith adopts both the theories of paper currency, which have imposed so extensively on the banking and mercantile world, and that within a very few pages of each other. The one theory, that which the Bank Directors and merchants adopted in 1810; the other, which is the great currency fallacy of the present day. The two theories are utterly irreconcilable and inconsistent with each other; the one necessarily leads to the most excessive over-issues and depreciation of the paper currency; the other, if carried out