XVI.: Silver only, and not gold, is the standard of our money; and not the less so, because gold coins have a fixed rate

36. It hath been before shewed, that there can be but one standard of money; that in these parts of the world, silver is, and time immemorial hath been, the money standard; and that it is the fittest material, hitherto known, for a standard.

We never heard till lately, a word mentioned of gold being the standard of money: Former projectors saw the absurdity of calling any thing the standard, besides that by which all the accounts of the country were kept, and all contracts measured. But their successors are grown desperate; and such is their fondness for gold, that any thing will serve them as a plea both for debasing silver, and for making gold the standard; at least, they would have it bear a share jointly with silver: And, for this, gold coins having a stated price by law, they think is a sufficient argument. However this fact, at first sight, might mislead some people; yet, it is very certain, that the argument built upon it, is overthrown by the very words of the law itself. Is not a declaration that a guinea shall pass for twenty-one shillings, a plain reference to shillings, as a standard measure of the value of a guinea? But, it cannot be said, on the other side, that a guinea is a measure of the value of shillings; it is impossible that any whole, should be made up of the parts of a material different from itself. The laws, the language of the country, the common consent, and common sense of all men, have unanimously concurred in making silver our only standard. Every body knows that pounds, shillings, and pence, denote certain specific quantities of pure silver; and whilst all contracts whatsoever are measured by these, it would be a strange perversion of language, to call any thing else the standard. My receiving a certain number of guineas, in consideration for a certain sum, or number of pounds sterling, doth not make gold money, or a standard; any more than if I had received to the same value in lead, wheat, cloth, &c., would these commodities have thereby become money. Gold being coined, alters not the case; the coining only ascertains the quantity of metal, contained in the several pieces, at their utterance out of the mint; and we have proper measures at hand, for determining the quantities of other commodities. There is a necessity of coining gold to ascertain its fineness; otherwise, it would be a commodity too precarious to be meddled with in common dealings; a difference of fineness imperceptible to the eye, making a very great one in the real value.

But you will say, that gold coins, excepting the difference of colour, and of some other properties of the metals, have as much the appearance of money as silver coins: Granted; and so have copper coins too; and so might pewter ones, &c., but this is nothing to the purpose; it is not the mint, but the laws, and the universal concurrence of mankind, that make money. You will say again, that the laws oblige me to take gold, as, or instead of money; whereas, I am at liberty to refuse any other commodity, that may be offered me instead of money. True; and I have before shewed the propriety and conveniency of ordaining that gold coins, should pass at certain rates, pro tempore, as or instead of money? But still, this doth not make gold money: These rates are not to be fixed arbitrarily, but are to be regulated by the price which gold then bears, in respect to silver as a standard; and these rates are, and always have been, considered as being subject to this rule, and so to be altered again and again, whenever the case may so require. Under this limitation, it is very convenient, that gold coins should pass as or instead of money, but not as being themselves money, or the standard measure of the values of all other things. It is a fundamental characteristic of money, that, as a measure, it continues invariable; that is, that a payment in the standard coins, of any specific sum or quantity of money agreed upon, is, whenever made, a full discharge of that contract; without regarding at all, how silver may have varied in its value with respect to commodities in general, by an increase or decrease of its quantity. But gold coins are to be considered in another view: Payments in them, may not be by quantity for quantity; it is by the rates only, which gold coins bear in respect to silver as a standard, at the time of payment, that contracts are discharged; and not according to the rates, which these coins might have, at the time when the contracts were made. In this view only, gold coins are to be considered; and, in this view, they are upon a footing with any other commodity; though less liable to a sudden and great change in their value, than most other things.

Much of the difficulty upon this subject hath arose, from the not attending to the difference between money and commodity; and again, by confounding with the standard the lightness of the coins passing by tale, and making every coin, as it were, to be itself a standard. But this is bringing into the argument, what the common sense and common practice of men, never thought of. The nature and condition of tale-money hath been already explained; and, I think, it is sufficiently manifest, that all contracts and the prices of commodities, are measured by the standard, and not by the intrinsic value of coins, in countries where they pass by tale: Nor, where they both pass promiscuously, is there any difference in regard to payments made either in gold or silver coins; in all cases, the silver standard is alike the measure referred to. I do not here enter into the merits of passing coins by tale; I have only aimed at shewing what it is that constitutes tale-money. But gold coins, although they passed only by weight, would so far partake of the nature of tale-money, as not to have the prices of things, &c. regulated by their rates or intrinsic value; but only, as above observed, by the established silver standard.