Let any man, acquainted in the least with the history of England, examine the fixed revenue there, under Henry VII. and VIII. Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, and their successors, down to the revolution; and they will evidently see the great disproportion of wealth, proceeding from taxes, in the one and the other kingdom.
From these facts I conclude, that debts and taxes in France were much more familiarly known in Richlieu’s time, than possibly they could be in England when Davenant wrote.
Public credit had long grown up in that kingdom, under the hard influence of regal power: whereas in this it had sprung up lately, under the protection of liberty, and a most limited authority.
To that cause I ascribe the difference we find between the principles of English and French credit; and to an effect similar to the cause I ascribe the gigantic steps by which Britain has outstripped her powerful rival in the establishment of her credit, since the beginning of this century.
It is folly to prophecy, I know; but I may be allowed to conjecture, that the same causes which have raised the credit of this nation to such an amazing height, will either force the French from their old principles, or they will, some time or other, bury her credit in the dust.
Had one half of the acts of power been exerted with us, which have been so familiar in France: had half the liberties been taken, in tampering with the claims of creditors; a total bankruptcy would long ere now have been the consequence: but in Britain credit is young; and has been tenderly reared. In France she is old, and has been accustomed for many ages to rougher usage. But example works wonderful effects, especially when nations live together in this great European society; and the advantages of a security to be depended on will every day more and more engage the money’d interest to prefer this to any violent and precarious profits.
How nicely does not Davenant employ political arithmetic, in order to make true estimates of the taxes to be imposed, and appropriated for a term of years, for extinguishing principal and interest? How exactly has not the account between the state and the bank been carried on from 1695, to this day? How faithfully have not all parliamentary engagements been observed? When, in 1749, a most natural operation was performed, to reduce the interest of the debt of Great Britain, by gentle steps, from 4 to 3 per cent. what an outcry did it not make, although an alternative was left to the creditors, either to receive an actual reimbursement, or to accept of the new terms? The credit of Great Britain must have appeared to France in the light of a pettish child, educated in the house of a too indulgent parent: her own is not treated with such gentleness; and when our money-jobbers try their hand at Paris, and meet with disappointments from unexpected acts of council; to prevent the laugh going against them, for trusting to the credit of France, they turn it off by a jest, and pretend that they were only playing as at the Groom-Porter’s, or in Change-Alley.
In a word, what would totally ruin the credit of England, does not equally affect that of France. An act of power there, no doubt, throws a damp upon it for a time; and if that act of power takes place at a critical juncture, it may cost her very dear; as it has lately cost her the continent of North America; which, I think, was sold for 32 millions, withheld from her creditors, for a short time, in the end of 1759. But this act of power, and many others since, have not ruined the credit of France: many trust her still; only those who purchase in her funds, at present, take about 2 per cent. off from their interest, as a premium for the insurance of her good faith, until she recovers her mercantile reputation[[23]].
[23]. Money invested in the French funds, anno 1766, will bring the purchaser 6 per cent. This I consider as 4 per cent. for the interest, and 2 per cent. premium for the risk; and were she now to borrow any considerable sums, I suppose the insurance would rise in proportion.