106 
been of late to the difadvantage of 
this country; and their account of 
it is fully confirmed by a ftatement 
of the courfe of exchange taken 
from Caftaing’s papers, inferted in 
this report. 
With refpeé to the exchange be- 
tween Great Britain and Hamburgh, 
the Committee have not been able 
to decide, to their fatisfaction, what 
is the actual par of exchange be- 
tween London and Hamburgh. 
The witneffes they have examined 
have widely differed with refpeé to 
the par of exchange between thofe 
laces. The Committee, however, 
a inferted in the minutes of the 
evidence, the anfwers of Mr. Boyd 
to two queftions put to him, and a 
paper prefented to this Committee 
by one of the members of it, which 
throw confiderable light on this in- 
tricate fubject, and will account, in 
fome degree, for the difficulty the 
Committee had experienced in de- 
termining, with fufficient accuracy, 
the par of this exchange. 
The mercantile accounts in Ham- 
burgh and London have a reference 
to different metals. Silver appears 
to be the common coin of Ham- 
burgh, and gold is, in that place 
rather to be confidered as a commo- 
dity. Gold is the mercantile coin 
of Great Britain, and filver has 
been for many years only a commo- 
dity, which has no fixed price, and 
is very rarely carried to the Mint to 
be coined, “but varies according to 
the demand for it at the market. 
The market price of thefe precious 
metals appears alfo to have an in- 
fluence on the Banco money of 
Hamburgh, in which the exchange 
are reckoned—It is probable. that 
thefe circumftances is to be im- 
p uted the difficulty of determining 
; he par of exchange between Lon+ 
ALPS EMME XD TIO 
don and Hamburgh. On the pre- 
fent fubjeét, therefore, all that the 
Committee can fay with certainty 
is, that according to the evidence of 
the Governor of the Bank of Eng- 
land (which is confirmed by a paper 
annexed) the exchange with Ham-> 
burgh ceafed to be unfavourable to 
this country in March 1796, became 
more favourable in the month of 
October laft, and that it continued 
favourable till the 26th of February, 
when the Order of Council was if- 
fued, and that it continues fo ftill. » 
The Committee have hitherto 
ftated the feveral points relating to 
the more remote caufes by which 
the circulation of the kingdom and 
the general ftate of the Bank may 
have been affected. They proceed 
now to thofe which immediately 
preceded the 26th of February laft, 
and more direétly contributed to the 
neceflity of the Order of Council 
which was iffued on that day. 
It appears from the evidence of 
Mr. Ellifon, that a few weeks pre- 
vious to the 26th of February, two 
great mercantile banks at Newcaftle 
{topped payment in cafh, owing to 
the effeét of a local alarm, fimuilar, 
as ftated by this gentleman, to that 
in 1793, which occafioned moft of 
the country bankers to draw large 
fums of money from the metropolis, 
and induced them to keep in ftore 
larger quantities of fpecie than be- 
fore the year 1793, in order to 
make their payments, if fuch fhould 
be required of them. Mr. Thorn- 
ton confirms in general this account 
given by Mr. Ellifon. He agrees 
aifo with Mr. Ellifon with refpect 
to the demand for cafh made on the 
metropolis by the country bankers, 
for the purpofe of being fent to 
different parts of the kingdom; 
where it is partly kept by the 
country 
