This was a catastrophe the like of which, I believe, never happened: it is so ridiculous that it is a subject fit only for a farce.
Here Dutot’s lamentations and regrets are inimitable.
In one place he says, “Credit was too far stretched to be solid. It was therefore proper to sacrifice one part, to give a solidity to the other. Even this was done; but the consequences did not correspond to the intention. Confidence, which is the soul of credit, eclipsed itself, and the loss of the bank note, drew on the loss of the action.”
In another place he says, “This arret of the 21st of May, which according to some blessoit l’equité” (a very mild expression!) “destroyed all confidence in the public; because the King had diminished one half of that paper money (the bank notes) which had been declared fixed.”
Is it not a thousand pities that confidence should have disappeared upon so slight a wound given to equity, only in the opinion of some? For Dutot thought the operation perfectly consistent with the principles of public credit.
He tells us, that a letter was writ to calm the minds of the people, and to shew them how absurd it was, to allow the paper to be fixed, while the coin varied: but, says he, “as there was a revenue attached to the action, the value of that paper did not depend so much upon the capital, as on the sum of the interest.” Very just. But were the dividends to stand at 200 livres, without suffering the same diminution as the action? And how was confidence to subsist in a country, where the denominations of both the paper and the coin were at the disposal of a minister?
The diminution upon the paper, by the arret of the 21st of May, raised a most terrible clamour; and Law became the execration of France, instead of being considered as its saviour. He was banished, and reduced to beggary the same day.
What profit could either the Regent, or Law, have reaped from the success of such an operation? Had the coin been raised to 130 livres the marc, no hurt would probably have ensued, and the same effect would have been produced.
Had matters been left without any change at all, no bad consequences would have followed: these existed only in the heads of the French theorists. There was, indeed, twice as much money in bank notes as in coin, in the whole kingdom of France: and what then?
When the Regent saw the fatal effects of his arret of the 21st of May, he revoked it on the 27th of the same month. On the 29th, he raised the coin to 82 livres 10 sols in the marc, and re-established all the paper at its former denomination: but, as Dutot has said, confidence was gone, and was no more to be recalled. Nothing surprises me, but that she lived so long under such rough management.