But the testimony of Lord Overstone, strong as it was, against an inconvertible currency, still admitted a possible occasion for departure from it; and here his testimony bears directly on the pending proposition. Alluding to the well-known suspension of specie payments by the Bank of England in 1797, he says:-- “I am bound to say that with regard to that period of 1797 there are circumstances which may make it doubtful whether the Suspension Act was not a justifiable measure. The pressure in 1797 was undoubtedly, to a considerable extent, _connected with political alarm, with the fear of foreign invasion_, causing an internal demand for the exchange of notes into coin. _Under such circumstances, there is no measure founded upon principle which can pretend to afford an adequate protection. If, for instance, at this moment, this country were suddenly exposed to the calamity of a very large foreign force occupying its soil, or if it were exposed to the calamity of a very formidable and serious civil insurrection_, no doubt a state of panic alarm with regard to the paper money might arise, against which no provisions of the Act of 1844, nor any provisions founded upon principle, could possibly afford an adequate protection. But from that view of the subject, again, there is an inference to be drawn of a very instructive and warning character, namely,--to make this Committee very cautious how they extend the issues upon securities. The only protection against such contingencies is the existence of a large amount of coin, or of bullion, in the country; and therefore, when we are looking to contingencies of that nature, we may very properly pause at the questionable recommendation of increasing our issues upon securities, which is, in other words, diminishing our issues upon bullion.”[193] If this authoritative testimony be accepted in favor of a constant specie currency, it is unquestionably important as recognizing grounds of exception,--as, according to the language of the witness, if the country were “suddenly exposed to the calamity of a very large foreign force occupying its soil, or to the calamity of a very formidable and serious civil insurrection.” In these exceptions there is matter for much reflection. Strong as we may be against any questionable currency, we must not be insensible to a possible limitation even of this just principle. In short, we must be content with the best we can command. And here history affords valuable illustrations in conformity with this testimony.