Chap. XXXIII: Why Credit fell, and how it might have been supported

I shall now make a few general observations upon the total and sudden fall of credit in France in May 1720: and I shall suggest the means by which, I think, it might have been sustained, even after all the preceding mismanagement.

Was it any wonder that the French should be astonished at this prodigious revolution, at this immense value of paper on the 21st of May, and at the total discredit of every bit of it the very day following?

If there had been a value, said they, what became of it? If there never was any value, how could a nation be so deceived? This phaenomenon has puzzled many a head; but the nature and principles of credit furnish an easy solution of it.

In deducing the principles of credit, we have shewn that a permanent and well secured fund of interest is always equal in value to a corresponding capital.

The difference between a permanent and well secured fund, and a precarious and ill secured fund, consists in this, that the first never can disappear, and the other may.

Now the fund, in this case, was at first real and did exist; but it was rendered precarious, by a blundering administration: then credit filed, and in that convulsion, the fund of interest was fraudulently diminished by an act of power.

Had the true principles of credit been understood in France, the bank notes and actions might have been supported, even after the arret of the 21st of May: and all the monstrous value of paper, rised so high by the low rate of interest, might have been preferred: consequently this value, in capital, really existed relatively to the rate of interest.

As the object of the present disquisition into the principles upon which the Missisippi scheme was conducted, is only intended as an illustration of the principles of credit in general; I shall first account for the wonderful phaenomenon above mentioned and then shew how, in the greatest of all the French distress, their credit might have been reestablished in a more solid manner than ever.

As to the wonderful phaenomenon of the prodigious wealth created by the system, and annihilated in one day, I answer, that there had been no creation of wealth at all, except in consequence of the fall of interest.

First, We have seen that at the death of the late King of France, the interest of his debts amounted to 80 millions. Was not this a fund which ought to have been made solid and permanent? Will any man say, that a regular plan of paying this interest was a means of creating new wealth? Certainly not.

Secondly, These debts were mostly secured by contracts of constitution of annual rents upon the town-house of Paris: a security taken in the name of a particular creditor, which requires a form of law to transfer.

By the scheme we have been explaining, all these securities were changed: and instead of constitutions of rent, bank notes, in which the King was equally debtor, were given.

Will any man say, that this was the means of either increasing or diminishing the wealth of France? Certainly not. A man who has a good bond in his pocket is as rich before it is paid with bank notes as after: but he has not so much money in his hands; because the bond is not money, and the notes are.

Thirdly, We have said that the interest of the King's debts amounted to 80 millions a year, at 4 per cent.

We have seen how the company of the Indies were provided with a fund equal to this sum, arising from the 48 millions which the King paid for the loan of the paper with which the debts were to be paid, and from many other lucrative branches of revenue; which instead of being burthensome to the King, were, on the contrary, the means of augmenting his income, by the advanced rent the company gave for the different farms which produced them.

Had the public creditors, therefore, vested their claims in actions, they would, in consequence of that operation, have become sharers in the fund of 80 millions a year, administered by themselves, (and they would then have been the company) open to be improved by trade abroad, and by a good administration at home.

Had this system been carried on in a plain easy way, consistently with common sense, the public creditors would have been paid; the King's revenue augmented; and it would have been put under a good and a cheap administration.

But, when, by the absurd operations of changing the denominations of coin and paper, and wantonly playing with every man's property, the creditors saw themselves standing on the brink of a precipice; and finding, instead of a good contract on the town-house of Paris, a bank note put into their hands, which might be diminished in its value by one half every month, while at the same time the coin might be raised to double, it was very natural to suppose, that the intention of the King's ministers was to withdraw from them totally these 80 millions, to which they were entitled: in which case, there was an annihilation indeed of all the notes; but there was no annihilation of wealth: for in that case, the wealth was still the same, only it was transferred from the creditors to the King the debtor: that is, the creditors were defrauded.

On the other hand, stood the proprietors of the actions sold. These had been used to make a traffic of buying and selling the 200,000 actions which had been in their hands ever since September 1717, when they were first created. For we have shewn, that the posterior creation of actions by the united company, was a mere delusion, as they were all found in the custody of the Regent. The actions, I say, were immediately put into a state of stagnation; because of the discredit cast upon the bank notes, with which it had been usual to buy them.

Fourthly, I must observe, that the stagnation of a paper which carries no interest, is equal to a temporary annihilation. The holder then is deprived of the use of his money; and he is not paid for the loss he sustains.

If, therefore, it had been possible to have given a new activity to this bank paper, without allowing it to die away, as it were, in this temporary fit of fainting, credit would have revived: all accompts would have been kept clear, for this is the use of paper money, and so short a shock would hardly have been felt.

But the great damage resulting to the public, upon every occasion of this kind, proceeds from the delay in applying the proper remedy. When any paper is discredited, it immediately falls in its value. The person then who is the original and real creditor for the whole value, and in whose hands the paper is when it suffers the discredit, sells at discount: this is an irretrievable loss to him; and when the paper recovers its credit again, either in part, or on the whole, the profit then belongs to the person who had bought it at discount, and does not go to indemnify the real sufferer.

This was the case with respect to the notes of the French bank: they were allowed to languish from the 21st of May that they were discredited, until the 10th of October, when their fate was decided, as has been said.

Farther, we have seen, that this whole movement of credit had for its basis 80 millions a year, originally paid to the creditors for their interest. This sum answered to the capital of 2000 millions; because at the old King's death, interest was fixed at 4 per cent.

When, by the operations of the system, all this capital was turned into money, that is, bank notes, the regorging plenty of it made interest fall to 2 per cent consequently, the capital, which constantly draws its value from the interest paid for it, rose to 4000 millions. We have said that the total value of the paper rose to 6000 millions, but we must reflect, that above 2000 millions of these 6000 millions was in bank notes, and employed in buying of actions. So that both the notes and the actions must not be reckoned as existing together.

Had the Regent sold the actions, he would have burnt 2000 millions of bank notes, and thus the value in paper would have remained at 4000 millions, so long as interest remained at 2 per cent; and had interest fallen still lower, and dividends remained at 200 livres per action, the value of actions, and consequently of this capital of 4000 millions, would have risen in proportion, just as the value of the capital of the debts of Great Britain rises and falls according to the rate of money; although the same sum of interest be paid to the creditors at all times.

This augmentation, therefore, upon the value of all capitals, during the Missisippi, of lands as well as actions, was in consequence of the fall of interest, and from no other artifice whatever. Lands in France, at that time, sold at 80 and 100 years purchase. (Dutot, vol. II, p. 200.)

When credit failed, and when all the circulating paper was thrown into a state of stagnation, interest rose, in proportion to the deficiency of the supply for the demands of borrowers. The value of capitals then diminished. But this might have happened from another cause, had there been no bankruptcy, or intention to defraud the creditors: a war might have produced it; or any circumstance which might have raised the rate of interest.

The rise, therefore, upon capitals, from the fall of interest, I consider here as no acquisition of wealth: I reckon wealth to be that which is the annual produce of the capitals.

So much for the resolution of this wonderful phaenomenon.

I must now shew that in the height of the distress, the confidence of the public was still to be regained, and credit recovered, even after the fatal arret of the 21st of May 1720.

I lay it down as a principle, that whoever has a sufficient fund, and pays interest regularly for the money he owes, runs no risk of losing his credit.

So soon, therefore, as the Regent found that by his arret of the 21st of May, all credit had disappeared; had he, upon the 27th of the same month, or at the time he raised the coin to 82 livres 10 sols per marc, ordered all bank notes presented to the bank, either to be paid in coin, or marked in the books of the bank as bearing interest at 2 per cent. I say, credit would not have suffered in any comparison to what it did. Nobody then would have sold a note at discount; and, had it been necessary, he might have ordered the interest to be paid monthly.

The authority I have for this opinion is Dutot, who says, that upon opening the subscription of 25 millions in the month of June, the notes fell in their value 11 1/2 per cent only.

Now the rate of this subscription was at 2 1/2 per cent as we have seen; consequently, if 100 livres of notes lost but 11 1/2 per cent they were worth 88 1/2 livres in coin; but these 100 livres in notes were worth 2 1/2 per cent because the subscription was open at that rate: consequently 88 1/2 livres in coin was also worth 2 livres 10 sols per annum: consequently interest, at that time, was at 2.825 per cent that is, below 3 per cent even after the bankruptcy.

Where then was the great harm? Where was the occasion to fly immediately to the destruction of actions, which were in the Regent's own hand? A little patience, and good management, would have set all to rights.

I should, therefore, have left the notes in circulation under this regulation, viz. that such as should be presented to the bank should have had a transfer of 2 per cent paid quarterly; or a value, in actions, at 10,000 livres per action; which is the capital answering a dividend of 200 livres at 2 per cent at the option of the holder: and in case interest had come to fall still lower, the price of actions might have been augmented.

I should have set before the public a full and exact account of the company's funds. I should have banished all mystery from the affairs of credit. I should have registered a declaration in parliament, setting forth,

First, That all future changes either upon the denominations of paper or coin, were contrary to the maims of good government.

Secondly, That all stipulations between the King and his creditors, were to be inviolable. And,

Thirdly, That the parliament of Paris should for ever remain invested with an exclusive right to watch over these regulations in time to come; and I should have bound the parliament by a special oath for this purpose. I should even have had the King to take the same oath: and he might have ratified it at his coronation in 1725.

By these steps I should have vested a new power in the Kings of France which they never had before: a power of having money from their subjects, from their allies, and from their enemies: a power they have not, nor ever will have, until the principles of credit be better understood among them.

Had such a plan been followed, I have not the least doubt, but that, first, The actions would have been sold at a very great advanced value above the standard of 5000 livres, at which the Regent had bought them: secondly, That money would have come back to 2 per cent and then, thirdly, Had banks been established upon a proper plan, ease, with industry, would long ere now have appeared in every corner of that kingdom.

How finitely more easy would it have been to establish such a plan in 1720 than at present? At that time the most difficult part of the whole was executed. The creditors had taken notes for their claims: the credit then was given and accepted. There was nothing to be done but to support it. The creditors were then at the mercy of the state: at present the state is at the mercy of the creditors. Were such operations on coin to take place at present, as were then familiar; were the King at present to attempt to turn the constitutions of rent, perpetual and life-annuities, into any other form than what they have, the credit of France would be undone for a long time; and who knows what views of ambition a situation so deplorable might not stir up in certain courts of Europe.

What state would pay its debts, if it durst do otherwise? And what state can diminish its debts in any other way than by lowering the interest upon them? But of this more in its proper place.