610

lace was certainly erected either by Alfred, Edward, or Athelstan, (probably by the lastmentioned monarch,) whose name of Adelstan, (as he was called by an imperfect Norman utterance,) is still preserved in the corrupted pronunciation of Adel Hill, near the spot where the palace stood. An undoubted allusion to this palace as the abode of royalty, occurs in the reign of Canute; in whose presence the perfidious Edric, after a very summary process, expiated his treason with his life, and his body was thrown out of the windows into the river Thames."

This Saxon palace was forsaken by Edward the Confessor, who transferred

his residence to the new foundation at Westminster. It was certainly destroyed by fire, with the cathedral, in 1087, and was not rebuilt.-iii. 368.

There was another palace, subsequent to the Conquest, of which as little is known as of the former.

In

"The Tower Royal, formerly situated at the north end of the street now so called, was a spacious, strong, and magnificent mansion, pertaining to the Kings of this realm, but its origin cannot now be traced, though it is supposed to have been founded by Henry I. However this may be, it was cer tainly inhabited by King Stephen. Richard II.'s reign it was called the Queen's Wardrobe; for Stowe, from Froissart, says, "King Richard having in Smithfield overcome and dispersed the rebels, he, his lords, and all his company, entered the city of London with great joy, and went to the Lady Princess his mother, who was then lodged in the Tower Royal, called the Queen's Wardrobe. Richard III. granted it to the first Duke of Norfolk. It was also styled the Royal Inne.”—ii. 756.

It is consoling to reflect that there are many subjects of archæology which are either imperishable or only to be destroyed by violence, as earthworks and coins. But unfortunately, e contra, cities in general are only old cloathsshops, which exhibit a motley display of rags, rags which were not always ignoble, but once as grand in the association of ideas as the tattered banner of the warrior impending over his tomb. We know, however, of no place where the pestilence of the Diruit-ædificat' has raged with more virulence than in the metropolis. There is, notwithstanding, a happy change likely to ensue throughout the whole realm. People have found out that the Gothic style better suits scenery and landscape than the Grecian; and that, by alteration of the interior alone, old houses may be more

[XCIX.

cheaply rendered commodious. Now the saine may be done in cities and towns with the most picturesque effect, as will appear from the following passage in Paul's Letters, pp. 11, 12.

"It is in the streets of Antwerp and Brussels that the eye still rests upon the forms of architecture which appear in the pictures of the Flemish school: those fronts, richly decorated with various ornaments, and terminating in roofs, the slope of which is concealed from the eye by windows and gables still more highly ornamented; the from its grandeur and intricacy amuses at whole comprising a general effect, which once and delights the spectator. In fact, this rich intermixture of towers and battlements, and projecting windows highly sculptured, joined to the height of the houses, and the variety of ornaments upon their fronts, produce an effect as superior to those of the tame uniformity of a modern street, as the casque of the warrior exhibits over the slouch broad beaver of the Quaker. I insist the more on this for the benefit of those of the fire-side at who are accustomed to take their ideas of a fine street from Portland Place or from the George Street of Edinburgh, where a long and uniform breadth of causeway extends between two rows of ordinary houses of three stories, whose appearance is rendered mean by the disproportioned space which divides them, and tame from their unadorned uniformity.'

**

Fain would we plead, like Abraham for the guilty cities, in behalf of old houses; and if we can, like him, save only a few, glad shall we be. What man possessed of the slightest pretensions to taste, would pull down Holland House at Kensington, for any modern box of stone with glazed apertures?

Here, however, we must cease. Mr. Allen's book is a very useful compendium, highly creditable to his industry.

The Scotch Banker; containing articles under that signature on Banking, Currency, &c. republished from the Globe Newspaper. With some additional Articles. 800. pp. 134.

PAPER-MONEY is not in our opinion a legitimate subject of legislative interference. So bold, and, as it may appear, paradoxical an assertion, requires explanation. Our reasons are these; capital can never equal the demands of business, and credit forms the substitute. A. has a capital of

PART 1.]

10,000l. wholly invested in his business. He receives a further order, which requires an accommodation of 1000l. more. By dint of paper credit he executes the order; his returns come in; and he, from a non-entity, i. e. a 1000l. on credit, has acquired an actual reality of 1000l. in solid wealth. Now the legislature has no right to sue out virtually a statute of lunacy against me because I can carry on my business by means of credit. What concern is it of theirs? They have a right to say in what currency they will be paid, and there all legitimate interference terminates; and moreover, by any other interference they kill hens that lay golden eggs. A simple case may explain all this; and it will apply to numerous senators who have voted for measures directly opposite to those which have laid the foundations of their own ample fortunes. I have ground now letting at 100l. per annum, which on a building lease will pay me 20007. A. a mason or bricklayer, B. a plasterer, C. a carpenter, D. a glazier, &c. &c. club together, and agree to commence the work. When it is half-finished, they want assistance upon the security of mortgage. They obtain it from a banker. The house, street, or even square, (as often is the case) is finished. But the bankers fail, and probably some of the speculators also. What of that? A quantum of real property which would otherwise have never existed, is absolutely created out of nothing, by means only of credit and industry. London, from Bloomsbury to Paddington, was built by similar means. Would that event ever have ensued by the narrow, contemptible limits of previous pecuniary capital, by A. the mason, B. the plasterer, C. the carpenter, D. the glazier, &c. being, before they began, worth the value of the house, square, or street, when completed? Certainly not. The error is, that the Legislature Jimits the word 'capital' to a pecuniary acceptation, whereas there is a capital of labour, worth ten times more than a money capital, as is evident from Spain, which after the discovery of South America had only a money capital, and was ruined. Suppose a gentleman or nobleman says, upon Captain Pettman's plan, "I want such a set of buildings erected, but I have no money, and instead of it I will give you bills negotiable among my tenants

611

and neighbours, who will supply you with all necessaries that you may want during the interim;" but instead of issuing the bills himself, he makes use of those of a country banker, or the loans of a London one. What Government has more to do with this, than with our having a coat on credit or by a note of hand, we cannot see. Now to impede this dealing upon credit was precisely the same operation as requiring all business to be done for ready-money; the result of which is, of course, a vast diminution of business, and great loss from defalcation of labour and production; which loss diminishes the proceeds of the revenue: whereas, in cases of insolvency or loss of profit, the damage falls upon individuals, and is, generally speaking, only temporary. For let us suppose a country banker to stop payment, and his one pound notes to form two-thirds of the amount circulated by him. Probably, before he failed, every pound had returned two in goods; but if not, the suffering is only serious among those who have either made large deposits, or have large sums in the notes lying on their hands. Suppose further, a very possible result of Government interference: viz. That I am a manufacturer, and of course have many workmen dependent upon me. I say to them, "I cannot now command accommodation from any bank to enable me to pay you in money every Saturday night; but I will contract with a butcher, baker, grocer, &c. for the supply of all your wants." What has Government to do with the specific agreements made between me and them? But when I did the same thing by means of a banker, I only did it in a better way, because I did it by a generally negociable medium. In short, we cannot see what Government has to do with the matter, except it interfered with the revenue; and so far from doing that, it augments it.

As to the allegation of persons thus coining money, it is nonsense. If people chuse to take my promise for the payment of 100l., it is not a legal tender, and until it has that power, it is no concern of Government.

In short, if the real wealth of the country, its property in productions of all kinds, has been centupled by means of an artificial medium, Government, in stopping such a beneficial progress, resembles in our opinion the Soli

612

fidians in religion, who make " works" only "filthy rags."

good

Be it that only one part of this artificial medium be substance, the rest shadow, yet if the substantial parts be arms which can do the work required of a real man, then is the complaint against the substitute, of the same unwise character as a complaint against machinery, for under that character (politico economically consider ed) must paper-circulation be classed, because, like machinery, it facilitates production.

But it augments the number of insolvents. Yes; but it could never do so unless it also augmented the quantum of production, for people would owe for nothing unless they had something to owe for; and the only rational and practicable guardian as to either expending or trusting is private prudence.

As to Bankers, they only are in one view, as our Author justly says, (p. 3,) middle-men, who bring dormant capital into action, or supply defects of a sufficiency of it for business purposes. And in truth, Government has no more to do with them than with any other body of men carrying on a trade not unlawful.

It will, however, be soon seen whether Government will burn their fingers or not our own opinion is, that they have laid hold of an overheated plate, and will be obliged to let it fall.

If a pound note commands as many commodities as a sovereign, it is in reality equivalent to the latter, and cannot be called " depreciated currency." If it occasions higher prices, it proceeds only from the cheaper prime cost of its production, and of course, easier multiplication to almost any amount. We do not, therefore, admit the accuracy of the term "depreciated currency;" but setting this objection aside, we see nothing but business-truth in the following positions our Author concerning of country-bank paper.

"The country-bankers are not benefited by the depreciation of the currency; because the debtor to whom they lend money pays them back the very same depreciated money as they themselves pay to the creditor from whom they borrowed the undepreciated money. It is the public, and not the banker, that gets the advantage of using a depreciated currency; or rather, the debtorinterces ctive interest of the country, is

[XCIX.

benefited at the expense of the creditor interest. A man borrows money because he wants to employ it, and another lends money because he has not the means of employing it. The banker is the median

of communication between them; without his assistance a great proportion of the capital of the country would be stagnant, and a great proportion of the labour of the country would be unemployed. By means of his interference, the stagnant capital of the country is made active, at the particular times, and in the particular places, where its activity is from time to time required.

"When the currency is depreciated, the debtor interest of the country is benefited: trade is made prosperous, and debtors caa readily discharge their debts....... It is not that the country banker makes profit by the paper system, but that his debtors are made solvent by it, and their trades are made prosperous and he is himself enabled to pay his own creditors by the same cheap and abundant money which he received from them."-Pp. 3-5.

We think with our Author, that the country bankers were, during the panic of 1825, vicariously sacrificed for the real offenders, speculators and over-traders. In fact, our legislators seem to have taken that opportunity of showing an old grudge against them; because our senators, being composed of landholders, did not think their rents secure: but they forgot that if they indulged this grudge by altering the currency, they lowered the future proceeds of those rents, to an amount far greater than could be apprehended from loss: nay, they even diminished the value of their capital, in some cases a full half. For instance, at Cheltenham grounds were let upon ed by means of builders and country building leases, and houses were erectbankers. Some of the latter actually failed, and all were obliged to call in money. In both cases workmen were thrown out of employ, tradesmen ruined, and forced sales effected. As a man obliged to sell can never make a good bargain, the event has been that houses which cost 500l. have been bought for 250l., or, in other words, a pound in money, instead of having a fair, equitable relation to a pound in goods, is raised to two pounds, and the value of the other diminished one half;

thus inflicting the deepest injury upon the labour and goods of the country, and therefore discouraging production. Well does our Author say

PART 1.]

"There is a real cheapness, occasioned by improvements in productive power, and a false cheapness, occasioned by a dearness of money. The former benefits all classes, and injures none-the latter injures all, and benefits none, excepting only the few individuals who are creditors without being debtors, and whose credits happen to continue good amid the general wreck around them. When a nominal cheapness of property is produced by dearness of money, it is not a real cheapness; it does not bring possession of commodities more within the reach of the population. The difficulty of obtaining the small sum of money wherewith to pay the reduced price is greater than that of obtaining the larger sum of money, wherewith to pay the higher price: therefore, there is no benefit in this kind of cheapness; but there is a positive calamity of general magnitude, unmixed with any good. For the dearness of money, which produces such an apparent cheapness of commodities, deprives the productive classes of the reward of their industry, and drives labour out of use, and out of command."-P. 58.

We do not blame Ministers for their legislation in these matters. The vor populi is called the vox Dei,* a maxim so far from being true, that Providence often demonstrates its gross error; for the vox populi is only, of course, the voice of the aggregate of ignorant people, because it could not be a vox populi unless it included them. It is plain, that neither (i.) POLITICAL ECONOMY, (i.) CASH PAYMENTS, (iii) FREE TRADE, or (iv.) CornBILLS, work as they were expected to do. The reasons are obvious.

(i.) NO POLITICAL ECONOMY is of practical use, which has not for its basis the population, because it assumes that goods are vendible in a workhouse, and production is its sole object.

(ii) CASH PAYMENTS. These are not indispensable until paper bears a discount; for instance, not until a man goes to buy twenty shillings worth of commodities in a market, and finds that the vendors supply more for the coin than the note. In foreign parts, the note, of course, is not negociable at par, because it is not the current money of the country. An exchange for bullion, under exportation, is therefore wanted. The Legislature says, with the best intentions, "We will have a gold currency sufficient for all purposes where specie is required; and quotes the period before 1797 (the Bank-restriction æra) for a precedent.

*In many cases we would say "diaboli."

613

Multiplication of money therefore tends only to lower the interest of it, and diminution of it only to raise the rate of interest; in one case, the manufacturer is enabled to produce more goods, and by the other, to have his wings clipt. By the one he creates a glut; by the other his means of production are decreased. In short, it

seems needful that there should be a ready means of converting notes into specie, on account of the foreign trade, and the contingency of adverse exchanges, which must inevitably ensue when a foreign market is so glutted with English goods, that they are no longer vendible at rating profit, and this is an every day case. We might add much more, but we have not room.

a remune

(iii.) FREE TRADE.-The result, our Author tells us, without assigning the true cause, is, that the exchanges have turned against us, in consequence (p. 40); that is to say, foreigners have imported more than we have exported, to meet the demand. Of course every such surplus sent abroad, is a deduction, not from income but from capital. The Bank of England checks it, secundum artem, by narrowing its issues, which operates at home by diminishing production. Our Author says

"In attempting to compete with foreigners, by our present measures, we break up our home-trade much faster than we increase our foreign trade and we in fact injure our foreign trade itself, by depressing the prices at which British manufactures and the price of the foreign importations, are sold, and by diminishing the amount in which alone British manufactures can permanently be paid for.”—P. 61.

Political Economists say you cannot import, unless you send a quid pro quo in export, and therefore it is the same whether you have a free or a restricted importation. Our answer is, that, setting aside competition against