The Early Round Of The Bullionist Debate 1800-1802: Boyd, Baring And Thornton’S Innovative Ideas
The Restriction period, which began in England in 1797, marked a crucial turning point for both monetary theory and policy. The debates during the Restriction concerning the complicated relationship between inflation, the exchanges and monetary aggregates came to be known as the Bullionist Debate. The Bullionists were critical of the Bank of England and supported a return to convertibility, whereas the anti-Bullionists defended the Bank and were satisfied with the inconvertible system. Throughout the period, discussions fluctuated in intensity, as Jacob Viner (1937) and Frank W. Fetter (1965) pointed out, with the market price of gold. When the price of gold in terms of inconvertible notes was high, as in 1800-01 and in 1809-10, and the exchanges were bad, the controversy intensified. The first round in the debate started with a Bullionist argument published by Walter Boyd (1801) to which Francis Baring (1801), the anti-Bullionist, reacted; their intense exchange provides an historic context for examining and re-evaluating Henry Thornton's seminal contribution to monetary theory. The paper will argue that Thornton’s path breaking Paper Credit (1802) presents an innovative and consistent anti-Bullionist position, one that differs from that of Baring who accepted the Smithian Real Bills Doctrine for both convertible and inconvertible situations. Thornton, on the other hand, rejected the Real Bills Doctrine and more generally Smith’s monetary thinking as it applied to both convertible and inconvertible monetary arrangements. The fundamental idea behind Thornton's defense of the Bank of England and inconvertibility was the crucial role of the Bank in managing the monetary system under both currency regimes. After 1802, particularly as a member of the famous Bullion Committee, Thornton played an 3 important role on the side of the Bullionists that resulted in his being described by later scholars as a "moderate Bullionist." However, as I intend to show, his reserved support for convertibility during this period reflects his disappointment with the Bank directors, whose poor management skills and fundamental misunderstanding of the monetary system threatened the stability of the British economy. For this reason, the shift in Thornton's position may be better understood as a political and pragmatic response to an untenable situation rather than as a reversal of his theory or a principled rejection of an inconvertible, properly managed, regime.
|Date of creation:||2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: P.O.B 653, Beer-Sheva 8410501|
Web page: http://www.bgu.ac.il/econ
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David Laidler, 1981. "Adam Smith as a Monetary Economist," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 185-200, May.
- Arnon, Arie, 1987. "Banking between the Invisible and Visible Hands: A Reinterpretation of Ricardo's Place within the Classical School," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 268-281, June.
- Charles F. Peake, 1982. "Henry Thornton: an Accurate Perspective," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 115-120, Spring.
- Smith, Adam, 1776. "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number smith1776.
- Hicks, J. R., 1979. "Critical Essays in Monetary Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198284239, April.
- Thomas M. Humphrey, 1989. "Lender of last resort: the concept in history," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Mar, pages 8-16.
- Neil T. Skaggs, 1995. "Henry Thornton and the Development of Classical Monetary Economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(4b), pages 1212-1227, November.
- Skaggs, Neil T., 2003. "Thomas Tooke, Henry Thornton, and the Development of British Monetary Orthodoxy," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(02), pages 177-197, June.
- Reisman, David A, 1971. "Henry Thornton and Classical Monetary Economics," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 70-89, March.
- Perlman, Morris, 1986. "The Bullionist Controversy Revisited," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 745-762, August.
- Robert L. Hetzel, 1987. "Henry Thornton: seminal monetary theorist and father of the modern central bank," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Jul, pages 3-16.
- Charles F. Peake, 1978. "Henry Thornton and the Development of Ricardo's Economic Thought," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 193-212, Summer.
- David LAIDLER, 2003.
"Two Views Of The Lender Of Last Resort: Thornton And Bagehot,"
Cahiers d’économie politique / Papers in Political Economy,
L'Harmattan, issue 45, pages 61-78.
- David Laidler, 2002. "Two Views of the Lender of Last Resort: Thornton and Bagehot," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 20029, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Antoin Murphy, 2005. "Rejoinder to Skaggs's Treating schizophrenia: a comment on Antoin Murphy's diagnosis of Henry Thornton's theoretical condition," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 329-332.
- David Laidler, 2000. "Highlights of the Bullionist Controversy," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 20002, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Antoin Murphy, 2003. "Paper credit and the multi-personae Mr. Henry Thornton," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 429-453.
- Peake, Charles F, 1995. "Henry Thornton in the History of Economics: Confusions and Contributions," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 63(3), pages 283-296, September. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bgu:wpaper:0714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Aamer Abu-Qarn)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.