There is yet another imperfection in coins, as standards of value. Notwith standing their natural durability, they are subject to continual wear, and must be gradually diminished in weight. They are also exposed to the fraudulent expe riments of men whose trade it is to rob them of a portion of their weight by arti ficial wear. The value of coins is there fore certain to be continually depreciated by loss of weight, apart from any othe, causes of variation.
From all these circumstances it is evi dent that gold and silver coins have qua lities inherent in them which render them necessarily imperfect standards of value, with whatever care and skill they may be regulated. But, in addition to these natural causes of imperfection, others have been artificially produced by errone ous or dishonest political expedients. There is no country perhaps in which the coinage has never been debased by the government Debasement of coins was formerly a common artifice for increasing the revenue of states, and it has been effected in three different ways :-1, by diminishing the quantity of metal, of the standard fineness, in coins of a given de nomination ; 2, by raising their nominal value and ordaining that they shall pass current at a higher rate ; and, 3, by de basing the metal itself—i. e by leaving the coin of the same weight as before, but reducing the quantity of pure metal and increasing the quantity of alloy. In all these ways have the coins of England been debased at different periods of our history ; and to so great an extent were they debased by successive kings, that from the Conquest to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the total debasements of the silver coins have been estimated at 65 per cent. (Lord Liverpool On Coins, By expedients of an opposite character the standard of coins may be artificially raised ; and the result of measures con nected with the coinage of this country was, that in a period of 115 years, from the i st James I to the 1st George I. the value of gold coins, as compared with silver coins, was raised 39 per cent (Ibid, p. 84.) No further examples are needed to prove the inconstancy of coins as a standard, when they form the sole cur rency of a country.
But notwithstanding these imperfec tions, the convenience of gold or silver coinage, as money, has led to the uni versal adoption of one or the other, or of both conjointly, as the standard of value. The objections to a double standard have already been noticed, but throughout a long period of the history of this country we find gold and silver prevailing equally as standards. There appears to have been no public coinage of gold, at the royal mints, prior to the 41st Henry III. The gold pennies coined at that time were expressly declared not to be a legal tender, and never obtained a very general circu lation. Silver was then the universal me dium of exchange, and the people were unaccustomed to the use of gold as money : but as their commerce and riches in creased gold naturally became more con venient for large payments. The results
of this progress became apparent in the reign of Edward III., who established a general circulation of gold coins, which, though partially introduced nearly a hun dred years before, by Henry III., had not been continued by his successors. From this time gold and silver coins cir culated together, and were both legal tenders. To what an extent their relative value varied at different periods, has already been noticed ; but they were equally recognised by law as authorised standards of value in all payments what ever, until the year 1774, when it was declared by statute (14 Geo. III. c. 42) that, in future, silver coins should not be a legal tender in payment of any sum ex ceeding 251., except according to their value by weight, at the rate of 5s. 2d. an ounce. This was a temporary law, but was continued by several statutes until the year 1816, when the legal tender of silver coins was further restricted to pay ments not exceeding forty shillings (56 Geo. III. c. 68). And thus, as all large payments were made and calculated in gold coins, they became the sole standard of value, so far as coinage alone was the real medium of exchange.
The expediency of adopting gold as the standard instead of silver, has been a question of much doubt and controversy amongst the highest authorities upon mo netary affairs. It was the opinion of Locke, of Harris, and Sir William Petty (all great authorities) that silver was the general money of account in England, and the measure of value in its com mercial dealings with other countries. Its general adoption for such purposes was urged as a proof of its superiority as money over gold; and of this opinion are many thinkers of high authority at the present day. On the other hand it has been ar gued, that the metal of which the chief medium of exchange is fabricated, should have reference to the wealth and com merce of the country for which it is in tended ; that copper or silver coins of the lowest denominations suffice for the con venience of a very poor country ; but that as a country advances in wealth its com mercial transactions are more costly and require coins of corresponding value. As a matter of convenience this is undoubt edly true. Gold is the standard in Eng land; silver is the standard in France ; and the comparative facility of effecting large payments in the current coins of the two countries can admit of little doubt. Habit will familiarise the use of silver, and render a people insensible to its in convenience; • but it is certain that in England fifty sovereigns can be carried about in a man's waistcoat pocket, while in France the value of that sum in silver would weigh about 48 lbs. troy : so heavy and bulky, indeed, would it be that a car riage would be required to convey it from one part of Paris to another.