A letter in the Gazette of 25th April, 1829, on the subject of "Monnaie," written at the request of Sir J. Colborne, the Lieutenant-Governor, suggests that people in authority in Jersey interested in Banks oppose State Notes, lest these should be preferred to theirs. The leader of the same issue of the Gazette states that "the generality of the inhabitants have confidence in the States' Notes (it being always understood that the issue of Notes shall be kept within just limits) because they know that the whole property of the island forms the guarantee for their payment."
"Campagnard" in the Gazette of 28th February, 1829, suggests the need of some other currency than States' Notes for trade in France or with London and Paris, but feels alarm at anything that might stop the public works in the island.
The difficulty of getting cash for notes is alluded to only when the period of controversy referred to in the next chapter is reached. But for about the first ten years of their issue it would appear that no exception was taken to the notes nor difficulty experienced in their use. External exchange seems to have flourished side by side with this internal currency.
CHAPTER V
FIRST RUMBLINGS OF OPPOSITION
The feeling in favour of the system was not however entirely unanimous. In 1826 we find the first trace of opposition which gradually grew and grew until, as we shall see later, it was decided in 1837 that the States should not issue any more Notes.
Whether the opposition was entirely due to this financial system as such is open to question. Errors of judgment with reference to the Fountain Street improvement may have been made. Self-interest on the part of some may have been one of the factors. Into these questions the writer cannot enter here. All that he wishes to point out is that it seems to him from studying the records that there were various currents of opposition which centred round the issue of Paper Money by the States.
In September, 1826, three members of the States, Josias le Marchant, James Carey and Jean le Marchant, the two latter being members of the Finance Committee, thought that the King's consent should be obtained for works to be undertaken in Fountain Street. They considered that the anticipations of future revenues were "not only fatal to their credit but contrary to the order of His Majesty in Council, 19th June, 1819, viz., 'that the States of the said Island do not exceed in any case the amount of their annual income without the consent previously obtained of His Royal Highness in Council.'"