ther commendable nor good; but merely to oppose its exaltation above its appropriate character, and its investirure with the high office of conciliation between man and his offended Creator.'

That the article" of Predestination and Election" is not strictly Calvinistic, from the circumstance of its silence on reprobation, has been often observed. Dr. L. does not merely wrest it from the grasp of Calvin, but gives it to the German reformer:

By explaining this Article in conformity with our baptismal service, we instantly perceive upon what principles divine election is supposed to proceed, and what is that general promise and will of God, of which it speaks, as expressly declared in the word of God; we perceive, that grace, according to the Lutheran doctrine, is directly taught to be both Universal and Defectible, circumstances which necessarily preclude every idea of an arbitrary selection of individuals. Our benevolent Creator, we are told, possesses no private partiality for certain preordained objects of his bounty, but is equally disposed to all, embraces all indiscriminately with the arms of his mercy, and receives all, when dedicated to him by baptism, into the number of his elect; and when, at any subsequent period of our existence, he withdraws from us the light of his heavenly countenance, the cause of that deplorable change is not imputable to him, but to us, who prove defective on our parts, forfeiting in maturer years our title to eternal happiness, and excluding ourselves from salvation."

Dr. Lawrence offers a very high panegyric on the style of the Liturgy, as full without verbosity, fervid without enthusiasm, refined without the appearance of refinement, and solemn without the affectation of solemnity? but, though we do not dispute its general excellence as a composition for public use, we must observe that, in the note illustrative of his remark, "tied and bound" as a translation of constringit is an unfortunate exemplification of fullness without verbosity; and if the psalter be considered as a part of the liturgy, we cannot apply to it the epithet of refined. How preferable in every respect is the Bible version of the psalms -Dr. L. has taken care not to adopt the liturgy as a model of his own style.

Mo-y.

ART. VIII. A Treatise on the Coins of the Realm; in a Letter to the King. By Charles, Earl of Liverpool. 4to. pp. 266. 11. 15. Boards. Cadell and Davies.

THE subject of Coin is one of those on which the labours of speculative men have of late years been employed with great success, and with equal benefit to society. Problems which puzzled our more simple ancestors have in our

OWN

1

own times received satisfactory solution; and mischiefs which they aggravated by their ignorance, in their very attempts to correct them, have effectually been prevented. These remarks were in a striking manner exemplified in the discussions occasioned by the late unfavourable state of the exchange in Ireland, and in the expedients which in consequence of them were adopted. In the volume before us, analogous principles of theoretical knowlege are applied to the consideration of a corresponding evil, which has been long a subject of complaint; we allude to the state of the silver coinage; the causes of which are here minutely investigated and learnedly stated, and an obvious course for their removal is clearly indicated. Of the science which directly refers to this nice subject, we perceive no deficiency in the noble author; though, in treating of a few matters collateral to it, we find his views to be less enlarged than we should have conceived them to be.-It will most probably surprize the greater number of our readers, to learn that from 1717 to 1760, the quantity of silver brought to the mint to be coined has been considerably under 600,000 1.

If theorists will bear in mind the object of the work, they will perceive that the author was not required to go more deeply into principles than he has done in the passages which we subjoin:

The Money or Coin of a country is the standard measure, by which the value of all things bought and sold, is regulated and ascertained;-and it is itself, at the same time, the value, or equiva lent, for which goods are exchanged, and in which contracts are ge nerally made payable.-In this last respect, Money, as a measure, differs from all others; and to the combination of the two qualities before defined, which constitute the essence of Money, the principal difficulties that attend it, in speculation and practice, both as a measure and an equivalent, are to be ascribed. These two qualities can never be brought perfectly to unite and agree; for if Money were a measure alone, and made like all other measures of a material of little or no value, it would not answer the purpose of an equivalent. And if it is made, in order to answer the purpose of an equivalent, of a material of value, subject to frequent variations, according to the price at which such material sells at the market, it fails on that account in the quality of a standard or measure, and will not continue to be perfectly uniform and at all times the same.

In all civilized nations, Money has been made either of Gold, or Silver, or Copper, frequently of all three, and sometimes of a metal composed of Silver and Copper, in certain proportions, commonly called Billon. It has been found by long experience, and by the concurrent opinion of civilized nations in all ages, that these metals, and particularly Gold and Silver, are the fittest materials of which Money can be made. Gold and Silver are perfectly homoge Beous in themselves, for no physical difference can be found in any

T 2

pound

pound of pure Gold, or of pure Silver, whether the production of Europe, Asia, Africa, or America They are divisible with the greatest accuracy into exact proportions or parts From their value they are not too bulky for the common purposes of exchange; and in all these respects they serve better than any other material, as an equivalent. And lastly they are less consumable or subject to decay, than most other commodities.

K

Certain portions of these metals, with an impression struck upon them, by order of the Sovereign, as a guarantee of their purity and weight, serve as Coin.'

Coins, it is here observed, whether considered as a measure or an equivalent, are subject to four imperfections; the first of which is the variation in its value with respect to itself in successive periods, occasioned by the greater or less quantity that may happen to be at different times in circulation. Two other causes of this variation are thus stated:

23

If Coins are made of two of these metals, a second imperfection is then introduced; for any two of these metals, in successive periods, vary in value with respect to each other. The value of fine Gold, compared with that of fine Silver, was rated, in the 43d of Elizabeth, at less than 11 to 1, at the English Mint. But when Guineas were first coined in 1663, the value of fine Gold, compared with that of fine Silver, was rated in the English Mint at 14 to 1. Guineas were then coined as 20 Shilling Pieces, and declared by the Mint indenture to be current as such. They have since been made current by Proclamation as 21 Shilling Pieces. The relative value there. fore of fine Gold to fine Silver, in the Coins of this kingdom, is now as 15 to 1. And in the Mints of several foreign countries, the value of Gold, compared with that of Silver, is rated still higher. These metals will also occasionally vary in their value, even at the same time, in different countries; and Exchange Brokers, and many Bankers, are induced, on this account, to carry on a traffic in these metals, and in the Coins made of them, to their own profit and to the loss of others.

259

If the Sovereign takes upon himself to determine the rate or value, at which Coins made of different metals shall at the same time pass in currency, a third imperfection is introduced into the system; for it is not possible that he should be able to pursue, with sufficient accuracy, the various fluctations and changes, that may in a short time happen, in the relative values of these different metals. Their prices at the market will therefore frequently differ from the rate, at which he has valued them in his Coins; and when Coins made of different metals are equally legal tender, there will of course be two measures of property, differing occasionally from each other. A profit will always in such case be made by those who traffic in Coins, by exchanging that Coin which has the least intrinsic value, for that which has the greatest. The debtor will find it his interest to make his payments in the Coin made of that metal, which is overvalued at the Mint; and such Coins, as are made of the metal undervalued at the Mint will always be melted down and exported."

The

The fourth Cause arises from the wear to which coins in circulation are liable. It is the object of this work to propose such principles of coinage, as will tend to remedy the second and third of these imperfections.

The two points, to which the learning and reasoning displayed by the Earl of Liverpool are directed, are the expediency of fixing on one metal as the standard or measure of value, and the superior claims of gold for this preference. This doctrine will appear from the passages which ensue:

The Money or Coin, which is to be the principal measure of property, ought to be made of one metal only: Such is the opinion of Sir William Petty, Mr. Locke, Mr. Harris, and of all the eminent writers on Coin. Sir William Petty says, that one of the metals is the only fit matter for Money. Mr. Locke calls this sort of Money the Money of Account, or the Measure of Commerce or Contracts; and he adds, "that two metals, such as Gold and Silver, cannot be the measure of commerce both together in any country." Mr. Harris, in his Essay on Money and Coins, delivers it as his opinion, that only one metal can be the Money, or standard measure of property and commerce is any country; and he calls this sort of Money the Standard of Money. These three authors assign their reasons in support of a principle in which they all concur; their reasons, are, in substance, the same; and are so convincing, that the truth of this principle can no longer be controverted. I shall be obliged to have recourse to the reasons they have offered in support of their opinion,

-

in a future part of this Letter; so that it is not necessary to detain Your Majesty by stating them at present. The truth of this principle in fact results from the nature and uses of Money, as befote described. The before mentioned writers have assigned different names to this superior sort of Money, or Coins, by which the Coins made of other metals are to be regulated, and to which they are to be subservient. The Coins, which are to be the principal measure of property, must of course be legal tender without limitation. shall call this superior sort of Money, or Coins, the principal Measure of Property, or Standard Coin: and having clearly defined my idea, I conceive I have a right to make use of these terms in the sense whicla I have given to them.

Certain, however, as the principle is, that the Money or Coins of any country, which are to be the principal measure of property, ean be made of one, metal only; the convenience of traffic necessarily requires, that in rich and commercial countries, there should be Coins made of several metals, adapted to the several sorts of purchases or exchanges, for which they are intended. Coins made of Gold alone, or of Silver alone, in such countries, will not answer all the purposes of traffic. Coins of Gold are not well adapted for the retail trade, in which sort of traffic the greatest number of the subjects of every country, are principally concerned; and Coins of Silver are too bulky for larger payments, and are, in that respect, inconvenient. It is necessary, therefore, that in commercial countries there should be Coins made of different metals. And if the Coins, which

are the principal measure of property and instrument of commerce can only be made of one of these metals; the inferior Coins, made of other metals, must be legal tender only in a limited degree, as the Sovereign shall direct; and so far only they are the measure of property and if they are accepted in payment for a larger sum, with the consent of the receiver, (as may sometimes be the case,) they may then be said to be the represenstatives of the Coins which are the principal measure of property, and their value must be made to correspond with it, as accurately as the nature of the subject will admit. It is by adopting this rule, or principle, that the second and third of the imperfections before stated will be avoided, or at least the ill effects resulting from them will be diminished as much as possible.'

The Earl shews, with great precision and neatness, that the convenience of society has already in a degree effected the change which he is solicitous to have constitutionally established; we refer to the legal character which he would have stamped on gold. He maintains that, in fact, gold is become the standard coin; that to which all other coins and articles of commerce are referred and compared, and by which they have their value determined. Indeed, the law has but a very short step to take in order completely to coincide with the plan proposed, as will appear from the following statement. of it:

From the time when Gold Coins were first made in the Mints of this kingdom, these Gold Coins have been equally with the Silver Coins legal tender, and consequently the measure of property, according to the rate or value which the Sovereign thought fit to set upon them. I do not think it necessary here to repeat what I have stated already, that Gold Coins, during a subsequent period, took a value superior to that at which they were rated in the Mint indenture. This was by general consent, and consequently at the option of the person who received them in payment, and not by the authority of Government; so that this superior value was not in truth the legal value. Secondly, that the Silver Coins of this realm, considered as Coins, are now legal tender only in sums not exceeding 251 Thirdly, that the Copper Halfpence and Farthings, made at the royal Mint, are legal tender only in sums that do not amount to Sixpence. That the Copper Twopences and Pence lately authorized to be made by Your Majesty by a private Artist are legal tender only in sums not exceeding twelve pence. And that the Copper Halfpence and Farthings, in like manner authorized to be made by Your Majesty, are legal tender in sums not exceeding Sixpence.'

It is here clearly shewn that, down to a period later than the Revolution, silver was the standard coin of the country: but that a change in this respect began to take place from the year 1717, when, on the report of Sir Isaac Newton, the cur

rency