It may perhaps be necessary to say a few words on the subject of the two metals, gold and silver, which are employed in currency, particularly as this question appears to perplex, in many people's minds, the plain and simple principles of currency. "In England," says Dr. Smith, "gold was not considered as a legal tender for a long time after it was coined into money. The proportion between the values of gold and silver money was not fixed by any public law or proclamation; but was left to be settled by the market. If a debtor offered payment in gold, the creditor might either reject such payment altogether, or accept of it at such a valuation of the gold, as he and his debtor could agree upon." In this state of things it is evident that a guinea might sometimes pass for 22_s._ or more, and sometimes for 18_s._ or less, depending entirely on the alteration in the relative market value of gold and silver. All the variations too in the value of gold, as well as in the value of silver, would be rated in the gold coin,--it would appear as if silver was invariable, and that gold only was subject to rise or fall. Thus, although a guinea passed for 22_s._ instead of 18_s._ gold might not have varied in value, the variation might have been wholly confined to the silver, and therefore 22_s._ might have been of no more value than 18_s._ were before. And on the contrary, the whole variation might have been in the gold: a guinea, which was worth 18_s._ might have risen to the value of 22_s._ If now we suppose this silver currency to be debased by clipping, and also increased in quantity, a guinea might pass for 30_s._; for the silver in 30_s._ of such debased money might be of no more value than the gold in one guinea. By restoring the silver currency to its mint value, silver money would rise; but it would appear as if gold fell, for a guinea would probably be of no more value than 21 of such good shillings.