牛顿与1696—1699年的货币重铸

Isaac Newton and the 1696-1699 Great Recoinage Debate

17世纪90年代,英国面临重大钱荒(通货不足),政府用各种手段禁止走私、熔币、窖藏,但都无效。主因是法国缺钱,将钱币面额提高10%,从而吸引各国白银流入法国铸币图利;另外英国银钱业的套利行为也导致白银被大量运往国外。解决方案主要是重铸货币。以财政部长朗兹为代表的一派主张货币贬值四分之一,即贬值派;以洛克为代表的主张恢复旧币值的升值派却认为,国家不能随意改变货币的含银量,否则将失信于民,也会造成汇率波动,不利工商业发展与投资。后来升值派在国会胜出。英国国会于1695年12月10日决定,不改变银币的纯度,维持都铎王朝时期的币值。这场朝野大争辩中,牛顿似乎和洛克站在同一阵线,主张恢复旧币值,但牛顿1695年关于此事的手稿却显示他与财政部的观点较为接近。

As England faced a serious problem of money shortage in the 1690 s,the authority used all measures to prevent smuggling out,melting and hoarding of silver coins,but all proved in vain.The main cause was that France had serious financial deficits,and thus devalued French money by 10%,which attracted hot money from foreign countries into France for arbitrage profits.Large quantities of silver were shipped abroad,bringing on heavy losses to England.Despite all kinds of suggestions and heated debates,the government was unable to resolve the issue effectively.In December 1695,after the Parliament voting,the Treasury made a decision that the silver content of coins would not be changed.This means that while France devalued 10%,England still maintained the value of silver coins as set by Tudor Queen Elizabeth in 1601.The silver value of English coins was therefore officially set higher than their face values.Consequently,coins were melted and exported,with losses of 12%of total silver in 1685,15%in 1688,30%in 1692 and 49%in 1695 respectively.The Treasury(led by William Lowndes)tried to devalue,but an opposing group(led by the philosopher John Locke)argued for returning to the Tudor standard(to appreciate).This paper analyzes why the Treasury lost the battle in the Parliament.The role of Isaac Newton was ambiguous:in public debates he supported Locke’s claim to return to the Tudor standard(appreciate money),while in a written manuscript(1695),he supported Lowndes’s claim for a heavy devaluation(25%).This controversy,when judged by today’s economic mentality and policy orientation,is quite probable that Lowndes’s claim for a heavy devaluation(25%)might win in the Parliament.Most delegates would have agreed to three important measures:(1)completely prohibiting the export of silver bullion and coins;(2)or prohibiting export of silver bullion and coins within a certain period;(3)and/or increasing coinage supply(in today’s terms:quantitative easing).These three policies could reduce England’s silver outflow and avoid domestic money shortage,because money shortage had important consequences,such as deflation,higher interest rates,consumption slump,discouraging investments,increasing unemployment and social instability,etc.Moreover,the devaluation of Pound would help the export of English products and discourage foreign imports.Why did John Locke and his followers tend to appreciate,returning to the silver content of Tudor coins?In terms of mentality,they might think that the State should maintain the intrinsic value of money rather than alter the silver contents at discretion,otherwise people would lose confidence,which would impair business transactions at home and abroad.For these reasons,Locke won the Parliament’s final decision.However,Newton’s attitude was ambiguous.On the one hand,he was in favor of devaluation(the same as the Treasury),as manifested in his 1695 manuscript.On the other hand,he supported Locke’s line of appreciation(returning to the Tudor money standard).This ambiguity was a kind of mental paradox between sense and sensibility often observed in Newton’s personality as has been noted by many biographers.