་

VII.

XIII. Granting the affirmative of the foregoing queries CHA P. to be true, will it not follow, that money is, at this day, fepa rated from, and has become independent on, commodities?

XIV. Are not all Banks, whether public or private, to be confidered as ftorehoufes of money?

XV. But should not storehouses, filled with necessary and useful commodities, be confidered as the effential and intrinfic banks?

XVI. Are not those persons independent or free, in short rich, who poffefs ftorehouses of money, whether in cash, bank-notes or bills, and is not their independence in proportion to the quantity of money their storehouses contain?

XVII. Are not thofe dependent or poor, who, although in poffeffion of storehouses filled with neceffary and useful commodities, yet cannot command money when required, without lofs on the difpofal of their goods; and are not thofe perfons dependent and poor, in proportion as their flock of goods exceeds their flock of money?

XVIII. Did not the nature of money alter, after the establishment of the first public bank at Genoa, and after the introduction of bills of exchange and other paper-money?

XIX. Is there any other difference between money in bills of exchange, and in coined gold, filver, copper or paper, than that, to the former is granted a limited credit, paying intereft or discount, and to the latter, an unlimited credit which pays no intereft or discount?

XX. Is not coin, in form of guineas, louis d'ors, ducats, rix-dollars, fhillings, guilders, stuivers, pence, groschen, &c. whether ftamped on metals, paper, leather (or wood,) acknowledged and received as money, or credit; and is not this

VII.

CHA P. coin different from, and independent of, any fort of commodities, even of the materials it is ftamped upon, when confidered as useful subjects of manufacture?

XXI. Is not money independent of commodities, in confequence of it's coinage being under a monopoly, while the production of commodities is free?

XXII. Are not monopolists, and especially coiners or producers of money, compleatly independent of society; and are not producers of commodities ftrictly dependent on fociety?

XXIII. Does not the independence of the producers of money on the producers of commodities and on society, naturally lead to an oppofition of interefts; and does not fuch oppofition lead to jealoufy and contention, where there should be, and, but for this unnatural state of things, would be, harmony and mutual dependence?

XXIV. Is not a tradesman a greater merchant than a horsedealer-an importer or exporter a greater merchant than a tradesman-a negociator (of bills) a greater merchant than an importer or exporter-a banker a greater merchant than a negociator and, in short, is not the producer or coiner of money the first merchant in every state, in as much as, in all his tranfactions, commodities are totally out of the queftion; for nothing circulates with him but money which he COINS, AD LIBITUM?

XXV. Does not the facility of coming at money or credit, fupport and propagate corruption and luxury, and occafion ruinous bankruptcies?

XXVI. Is not the real want of any commodity, in a community, the only natural basis of the intrinfic value of that commodity?

XXVII. Ought money to represent commodities arbitrarily, or ought it to reprefent them naturally, by the intrinfic value of the material on which it is stamped, arising from the natural demand for that material, when wrought into ufeful articles and utenfils?

XXVIII. Ought not the natural bafis of money to be the ftaple production of every community, and not gold, filver, copper, &c. in the form of coin, which form creates an artificial demand for those metals, over and above the natural demand?

XXIX. Have not the producers of money and the producers of credit the fame interefts; or, in fact, are they not the fame people? And is not every one a fabricator of money, in proportion to the credit he is able to obtain ?

XXX. Has not the true nature of money been perverted or overturned by, and much confusion enfued from, an artificial credit?

XXXI. Is there any mean to check the above confufion, but by checking credit?

XXXII. Is there no other alternative, than that commerce must either be overcharged with imaginary paper, or subjected, every eight or ten years, to the calamity arising from a general deftruction of that paper, involving in ruin many honeft and respectable individuals? May not these evils be leffened, or avoided, by checking credit in general ?

XXXIII. Can credit be checked, as long as coinage is altogether, and the production of money in a great measure, under monopoly?

XXXIV. Did not the nature of money in it's primitive state approach more to bartering? And did not the people of remote antiquity weigh their money?

XXXV. Would not the monopoly of coinage, and of the production of representative money, be taken away by letting every metal circulate according to its weight and intrinfic ftandard?

XXXVI. Is not natural credit grounded on the active abilities, freedom and integrity of men.

XXXVII. Is not artificial credit grounded on imaginary property; does it not give rife to fraud and fwindling; and is it not fupported by arrests for debt?

XXXVIII. If arrefts for debt, were abolished, and all metals were allowed to circulate according to their weight and intrinfic ftandard, whether as money or as commodities, would not artificial credit be checked, and order in economical matters, be restored?-(See § 197 Note.)

XXXIX. Is it not probable that the present inverted sys tem in œconomical matters, in all the states of civil society, originates from this cause, namely, the independence of money on the production of commodities?

XL. Is not he confidered as a rich man, at this time, who fubfifts upon the intereft of his money, independent of any abilities and commodities?

XLI. Are not they in reality, or comparatively, poor and dependent, who poffefs talents and abilities, and even stocks of goods, but yet cannot command money, when it is demanded of them in form of taxes, rents, intereft, &c.

XLII. Is there not in general a greater trouble and risk in fubfifting upon the produce of land or commodities, than upon money fafely placed at intereft?

XLIII. Is not a man, who lives without labour, whether on his own income, or by begging, an ufelefs drone in focie

ty;

VII.

ty; and does not he become over folicitous about his own CHAP. intereft, and proportionally indifferent to the real interests of the community?—(See § 151.)

XLIV. Does not interest, after a certain time, create a new imaginary flock of money or credit-paper; and does not fecurity for money or credit lent (acceptances) also circulate as a new created flock of money, only with the difference of the intereft or discount? And does not all fuch accumulation of imaginary money cause a great difproportion to, and difconnection wi h, commodities?

XLV. Does not the eafy acquifition of money by interest, &c. and the arbitrary difpofal thereof uncontroled by the community, cause every individual to feek more after money than commodities?

XLVI. Does not the feeking merely for money, give rise to fpeculation, independent of wants?

XLVII. Does not fpeculation-commerce arise from artificial credit?

XLVIII. Does not fpeculation and commiffion trade differ, in as much as the former has money for it's end, and the latter commodities for the fupply of wants?

XLIX. Should not the raw productions of the three natural kingdoms be chiefly favoured, afterwards manufactures, and laftly commerce? Does not the reverse, however, now prevail in all civilized facieties?

L. May not fuch a reform of the nature of money as will make it the means, and commodities the end, be neceffary, previous to all other reforms in old eftablifhed focieties?

LI. May not the evils, above hinted at, be effectually excluded from a NEW COLONY, by excluding imprifonment for debt, which will check speculation-commerce—and by allowing gold,

filver,