Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
The effects of the first ten years of the French war (1793 to 1802) were
to all appearance rather good than bad. Britain itself, unlike the other
belligerent countries, was always intact, and the labours of British
manufacturers could go on as if nothing unusual was happening on the
Continent. Our command of the sea, to say nothing of the conquest of new
countries, gave us trade which others lost, and made amends for the
annulment of the French treaty of commerce, and the loss of the Dutch
trade. In 1806 the situation became less pleasant. The Berlin and Milan
decrees excluding us from almost every country in Europe, the
retaliatory Orders in Council and consequent alienation of America did
real damage to English commerce. The very expectations they caused of a
probable scarcity of particular goods sent up prices; and, with the real
scarcity, contributed to an acute disturbance of trade, which lasted
about five years for the Continent and three years more for America
(1807–12, 1807–15). New markets were opened to us in South America; and
the pent-up commercial enterprise of our countrymen vented itself in
that direction, with wild disregard of the needs of consumers in that
quarter.[640] The same happened, with more reason, in 1814 and 1815.
When peace was restored, it was thought that the whole Continent must be
eager to have our goods, after being so long without them; and we sent
them lavishly everywhere without waiting for orders. Unhappily the rest
of Europe was exhausted by the war, which had lessened their production;
and such products as they could offer us in exchange for our
manufactures we seldom took without taxing. The very food that we most
wanted from them we were careful to keep out till the last moment.[641]
Anything more unlike the “simple system of natural liberty” could not be
conceived; and the result certainly seemed to be an over-production on
our part;—it was at any rate a reign of low prices and deep commercial
depression. This was not all. Since 1797 we had had a paper currency of
uncertain value. In that year the Bank of England, whose department of
issue was not then separated from its department of banking, gave
advances to Government, in return for which it was relieved of immediate
obligation to pay gold to the holders of its notes. As long as the
issues were moderate, the notes kept their value; but this was a time
when economical substitutes for the currency, cheques and bills and
County notes, were lessening the proportion of the Bank’s notes to the
total transactions of trade; and the Bank’s power of calculating the
public need without the natural safety-valve of convertibility became
more and more fallible; the circulation soon contained superfluous
paper, which dragged down the whole currency. In these circumstances,
discussions on currency gained an interest they could never have had in
the abstract; and they led to measures of the most practical and
permanent usefulness.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account