currency? And it seems that the former alternative is not only preferable in itself, but as it admits at all times a full circulation, it is on that account infinitely preferable.
It is said, if you limit the quantity, you raise the quality or value of a currency. What then becomes of the theory for diminishing prices by reducing its quantity? If you make nine Pound Notes, by scarcity equal in value to ten, how is price altered by that artificial scarcity?
But it may be said, by reducing our circulating medium 5 per cent, in amount, all one Pound Notes will be equal in value to Guineas.—I ask then what must be the consequence? At present there are 50 millons of Pound Notes to pay 50 millions of pounds sterling in taxes. We shall by this scheme have indeed 47,500,000 Guineas, but must be obliged to pay with them, not 47,500,000 Guineas as taxes, but 50 millions of Guineas.—Let us ask then how the nation is to be benefited by adding 2,500,000 to our taxes, in order to lower the price of Gold?
I hope that no person will suspect that from what is stated, the Author makes no distinction between a Metallic and a Paper Currency, a currency of universal and intrinsic value, and a currency limited to the home market and founded upon confidence: he is fully sensible of the folly of confounding things in their nature totally separate and distinct, whilst he is anxious that the existing circulation should not be impeached upon unfounded statements and false reasonings, and that destructive remedies should not be applied to evils which do not exist. He is equally sensible of the folly of those arguers, who conceive that the Mint price and market price of gold must always be the same; because gold in coin