Ernest Seyd (1867, speaking of a reduction in volume): “Throughout the world a fall in prices will take place, injurious alike to the owners of solid property and to the laboring classes, and advantageous only, and unjustifiably so, to the holders of state debts and other contracts of that kind.” (“Bullion,” 1868:) “On this one point all authorities are agreed: that the large increase in the supply of gold has given a universal impetus to trade, commerce and industry, and to greater social development and progress.”
Baron Rothschild (French Monetary Convention, 1869): “The suppression of silver would amount to a veritable destruction of values without any compensation.”
Ricardo, M. P. (high priest of the bullionists), in his reply to Bauset, said: “The value of money in any country is determined by the amount existing.... The commodities would rise or fall in price in proportion to the increase or diminution of money. I assume that as a fact that is incontrovertible. However debased a coinage may become, it will preserve its mint value.... A well-regulated paper currency is so great an improvement in commerce that I should greatly regret if prejudice should induce us to return to a system of less utility.... By limiting the quantity of money it can be raised to any conceivable value.”
John R. McCulloch (commenting on Ricardo): “He explains the circumstances which determine the value of money ... and he shows ... its value will depend upon the extent to which it may be issued compared to the demand. This is a principle of great importance, for it shows that intrinsic worth is not necessary to a currency.”
Speaking in favor of a gradual reduction in the burden of debts, through the natural increase in the volume of precious metals, McCulloch said: “It promotes industry and diminishes the weight of obligations which press upon the producing classes, whether employer or employed.... Thus it appears that, whatever may be the material of the money of a country, whether it consists of gold, silver, copper, iron, salt, cowries, or paper, and however destitute it may be of any intrinsic value, it is yet possible, by sufficiently limiting its quantity, to raise its value in exchange to any conceivable extent.”
Samuel Bailey (Sheffield): “However some men doubt the advantage of an increase of the currency, no one can deny the ruinous effects of a decrease.”
Sir James Stewart: “Money is nothing more than a scale of equal parts for the measurement of things vendible.”
Sir James Graham (British statesman): “The value of money is in the inverse ratio to its quantity, supply of commodities remaining the same.”
William E. Gladstone (1876, speaking of the banks issuing money): “It will be exactly the same thing, so far as the money is concerned, to grant a legislative privilege to a person or to pay over to him a considerable sum from the consolidated fund.”
London Economist (1883): “England being the chief creditor nation of the world, it is to her interest to keep the volume of money as small as possible in countries from which debts are due, in order to get more of their product in payment of interest due to her citizens.”