The reason indeed is very plain: the subaltern jurisdictions are different; and the debtors in the paper are different: but if the paper of both stood upon a security equally good, what is to hinder both to be received as a legal tender in all payments over the kingdom? Should not little private objects of profit among bankers (who are the servants of the state, and who are so well paid for their service) be over-ruled, when the consequences of their disputes are found to be so hurtful? But of this more, when we come to speak of banks.
The only occasion where coin is necessary in the liquidation of paper, is for payment of the balance of trade with foreign nations. Of this also we shall treat more at large, when we come to the doctrine of exchange. But surely nothing is so ill judged, as to create an imaginary balance within the same state; or rather, to permit money-jobbers to create it; at the expence of raising interest, and hurting trade, in the very places where it stands in the greatest need of encouragement.
From these principles, and others which naturally flow from them, may a statesman steer a very certain course, towards bringing the rate of interest as low as the prosperity of trade requires, or the principles of double competition between borrowers and lenders will permit.
CHAP. VIII.
Is the Rate of Interest the sure Barometer of the State of Commerce?
Some political writers are fond of every expedient to reduce within a narrow compass many questions, which being involved in intricate combinations, cannot be reduced to one principle. This throws them into what I call systems; of which we have an example in the question now before us.
There is nothing more difficult than to determine when commerce runs favourably, and when unfavourably for a nation. This would not be the case, were the rate of interest the just barometer of it. I have found it however advanced, that nothing more is necessary to be known, in order to estimate the relative profits upon the foreign trade of two nations, than to compare the common rate of interest in both, and to decide the preference in favour of that nation where it is found to be lowest.
We may say of this proposition, as of the course of exchange; the lowness of interest and exchange are both exceedingly favourable to trade; but they are no adequate measure of the profits arising from it.
The best argument in favour of this opinion with regard to interest is, that the nation which sells the cheapest at foreign markets is constantly preferred; and, consequently, where the use of money is the lowest, the merchant can sell the cheapest.
I answer, that this consequence would be just, were all trade carried on with borrowed money, and were the difference of the price of the materials or first matter, the ease in procuring them, the promptitude of payments, the industry of the manufacturer, and his dexterity, reckoned for nothing. But such advantages are frequently found in these articles, as to be more than sufficient to counterbalance the additional interest which is paid for the money employed in trade. This is so true, that we see the dexterity alone of the workman (living in an expensive capital, where the charge of living may be double of what it is in the country) enabling him to undersell his competitors every where: the same may be true with regard to the other articles. Farther, how far is it not from truth to say, that all trade is carried on with borrowed money? When the term trade here made use of, is properly understood, we shall see, that a very inconsiderable part of its object is carried on with borrowed money, in any country in Europe; and that part which is carried on with borrowed money is not so much clogged by the high rate of interest, as by want of punctuality in payments. A merchant who can turn his money in three months, borrows as cheaply at 6 per cent. as another who turns his in six months, when he borrows at 3 per cent.