about to take perhaps an unfair advantage. Half, and more than half,
of the supposed 'difficulty' of the Money Market has arisen out of
the controversies as to 'Peel's Act,' and the abstract discussions
on the theory on which that act is based, or supposed to be based.
But in the ensuing pages I mean to speak as little as I can of the
Act of 1844; and when I do speak of it, I shall deal nearly
exclusively with its experienced effects, and scarcely at all, if at
all, with its refined basis.

For this I have several reasons,--one, that if you say anything about
the Act of 1844, it is little matter what else you say, for few will
attend to it. Most critics will seize on the passage as to the Act,
either to attack it or defend it, as if it were the main point.
There has been so much fierce controversy as to this Act of
Parliament--and there is still so much animosity--that a single sentence
respecting it is far more interesting to very many than a whole book
on any other part of the subject. Two hosts of eager disputants on
this subject ask of every new writer the one question--Are you with us
or against us? and they care for little else. Of course if the Act
of 1844 really were, as is commonly thought, the primum mobile of
the English Money Market, the source of all good according to some,
and the source of all harm according to others, the extreme
irritation excited by an opinion on it would be no reason for not
giving a free opinion. A writer on any subject must not neglect its
cardinal fact, for fear that others may abuse him. But, in my
judgment, the Act of 1844 is only a subordinate matter in the Money
Market; what has to be said on it has been said at disproportionate
length; the phenomena connected with it have been magnified into
greater relative importance than they at all deserve. We must never
forget that a quarter of a century has passed since 1844, a period