The Teel Bank Act of 18^. 
395 
gradual and imperceptible may be this movement, that a con¬ 
siderable discrepancy may take place before attention is called 
to the fact, or a sufficient motive is offered to effect the ex¬ 
change of notes for money at the bank. 1 When, however, this 
Torrens, in his answer to Mr. Took©, explains thus: “Now the in¬ 
crease of a convertible currency would produce the same identical 
effects, through the same identical process, which would be produced by 
the increase of an inconvertible currency,” and later: “ The nature and 
character of the effect would bo the same, whether the increased quan¬ 
tity of currency should be convertible or inconvertible, though its ex¬ 
tent and degree in the two cases would be different. In the case 
of the inconvertible paper, the effect would be unlimited; in the 
case of the convertible paper, the effect would be confined within nar¬ 
row limits;” etc. “ Inquiry,” pp. 48-50. In another place he says: “ The 
increase in the quantity of convertible paper is limited by the power of 
the holder to exchange it for gold, as soon as from the increase of its 
quantity its value in relation to gold begins to decline. If the increase 
in the quantity of convertible paper had no effect in lowering its value 
in relation to gold, the holder could have no motive in exchanging it for 
gold.” In comment upon this Mr. Wilson says, “Now, really, this is a 
special case of wonderful refinement! Every case of an optional ex¬ 
change of equivalents must be considered an evidence of depreciation! 
It is certainly an evidence of some preference, or greater applicability 
for the purposes immediately required. But let us ask this ingenious 
reasoner — Two men go to the bank counter on two successive days; 
one has received a remittance of a fifty pound note from the country, 
which is of no use to him until he has converted it into coin, and he pre¬ 
sents it for payment; the other man has fifty sovereigns , but wishes to 
make a remittance to the country, and he receives a note in exchange for 
it. The one has a ‘ motive ’ for exchanging the note for gold, the other 
for exchanging gold for the note; the one had a preference for the gold 
sufficient to take him to the bank, the other had a preference for the 
note sufficient to take him there. Now, we ask, which had depre¬ 
ciated,—the coin or the note? for in one case there was more coin in cir¬ 
culation, and less paper, than the convenience of the public required for 
circulation, and there existed, therefore, a ‘ motive ’ to convert coin into 
paper; in the other case there was more paper and less coin in circula¬ 
tion than the public convenience required, and there existed a ‘ motive ’ 
to convert it into coin. But enough. We will grant Colonel Torrens 
that bank paper may be depreciated in relation to coin to the extent of 
supplying a ‘ motive’ to step to the bank and exchange it; but he, too, 
must grant that sovereigns also may be depreciated to the extent of 
supplying a similar motive to exchange them. But when all the ingenu¬ 
ity of this most ingenious writer on these subjects has been able to 
