Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T08:16:19.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robert Torrens and the Evolution of the Real Bills Doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Geoffrey Poitras
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the current era of quantity theorists and inconvertible currencies, the real bills doctrine has received a surprising amount of recent attention (e.g., Sargent and Wallace, 1982; Smith, 1988; Selgin, 1989; Cunningham, 1992). While the real bills doctrine has a long history, the doctrine underwent considerable evolution during the period from the Bullionist debates of the Restriction Period, 1797–1819, to the Banking School versus Currency School debates surrounding the introduction of Peel's Act in 1844. The debates of the Restriction period are significant for being directly concerned with the workings of an inconvertible, real-bills-based paper currency while the later debates involved the real bills doctrine under convertibility. A primary objective of this paper is to explore the views that Robert Torrens held concerning the inconvertible and convertible versions of the real bills doctrine as a rule for central bank policy. Torrens's contributions as an anti-bullionist and, later, as a leading member of the Currency School reflect the importance that both convertibility and bank lending practices have for interpreting the real bills doctrine and the related law of reflux. The apparently paradoxical evolution of Torrens's monetary thought identified by Lionel Robbins (1958) is attributed primarily to the evolution of his views on bank lending practices.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 479 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cannan, E., ed. 1925. The Paper Pound of 1797–1821, 2nd ed., P. S. King, London.Google Scholar
Cunningham, T. 1992. “Some Evidence on the Real Bills Doctrine versus the Quantity Theory,” Economic Inquiry, 30, 371–83.Google Scholar
Duffy, I. 1982. “The Discount Policy of the Bank of England during the Suspension of Cash Payments, 1797–1821,” Economic History Review, 35, February, 67–82.Google Scholar
Gherity, J. 1994. “The Evolution of Adam Smith's Theory of Banking,” History of Political Economy, 26, 423–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, D. 1992. “The Real-Bills Doctrine in the Light of the Law of Reflux,” History of Political Economy, 867–94.Google Scholar
Hayck, F. 1939. “Introduction to Thornton's Paper Credit” Farrer and Reinhart, New York.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 1967. Critical Essays in Monetary Theory, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Laidler, D. 1972. “Thomas Tooke on Monetary Reform,” in Corry, B. and Peston, M., eds., Essays in Honour of Lionel Robbins, Weidenfield and Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
Laidler, D. 1984. “Misconceptions and the Real-Bills Doctrine: A Comment on Sargent and Wallace,” Journal of Political Economy, 92, 149–55.Google Scholar
Mints, L. 1945. A History of Banking Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D. 1965. “The Transition in Torrens's Monetary Thought,” Economica 32, 269–301, reprinted in Blaug, M., McCulloch, Senior and Torrens, Edward Elgar, London.Google Scholar
Perlman, M. 1989. “Adam Smith and the Paternity of the Real Bills Doctrine,” History of Political Economy, 21, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, D. A. 1971. “Henry Thornton and Classical Monetary Economics,” Oxford Economic Papers, 23, 70–81.Google Scholar
Rist, C. 1940. History of Monetary and Credit Theory, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1958. Robert Torrens and the Evolution of Classical Economics, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Santiago-Valiente, W. 1988. “Historical Background of the Classical Monetary Theory and the Real-Bills Banking Tradition,” History of Political Economy, 20, 43–63.Google Scholar
Sargent, T. 1979. Macroeconomic Theory, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sargent, T. and Wallace, N.. 1982. “The Real-Bills Doctrine versus the Quantity Theory: A Reconsideration,” Journal of Political Economy, 90, 1212–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selgin, G. 1989. “The Analytical Framework of the Real-Bills Doctrine,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 145, 489–507.Google Scholar
Skaggs, N. 1991. “John Fullarton's Law of Reflux and Central Bank Policy,” History of Political Economy, 23, 457–80.Google Scholar
Skaggs, N. 1995. “Henry Thornton and the Development of Classical Monetary Economics,” Canadian Journal of Economics, 28, 1212–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, edited with an Introduction by Cannan, E., Modern Library, New York.Google Scholar
Smith, B. 1988. “Legal Restrictions, ‘Sunspots’ and Peel's Bank Act: The Real Bills Doctrine versus the Quantity Theory Reconsidered,” Journal of Political Economy, 96, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, H. 1802. An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain, edited with an Introduction by Hayek, F. A., Farrar and Rinehart, New York, 1939.Google Scholar
Torrens, R. 1812. An Essay on Money and Paper Currency, J. Johnson, London.Google Scholar
Torrens, R. 1819. A Comparative Estimate of the Effects which a Continuance and a Removal of the Restriction upon Cash Payments are respectively calculated to Produce, R. Hunter, London.Google Scholar
Torrens, R. 1826. On the Means of Establishing a cheap, secure and uniform Currency; and of Placing in the Treasury, for the Public service, the sum of £25,000,000 (1826), reprinted in O'Brien, , 1965, 286–301.Google Scholar
Torrens, R. 1858. The Principles and Practical Operation of Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1844 Explained and Defended, 3rd edn., Longmans and Paternoster, London.Google Scholar
Viner, J. 1937. Studies in the Theory of International Trade, Harpers, New York.Google Scholar