British credit crisis of 1772-1773

Last updated

A view of the deluge of Scotch paper currency for English gold. A Scotsman in the air astride a broom is carrying off six large money-bags, three being inscribed "PS2,000", "PS10,000", and "PS50,000". He scatters banknotes or bills; men on the ground, some sinking into a bog. exclaim in horror at his action. In the centre Britannia is seated, she says: "This Scotch paper diet has brought me to a consumption". In the foreground (r.) Lord North seated A view of the deluge of Scotch paper currency for English gold (BM 1855,0609.1955).jpg
A view of the deluge of Scotch paper currency for English gold. A Scotsman in the air astride a broom is carrying off six large money-bags, three being inscribed "£2,000", "£10,000", and "£50,000". He scatters banknotes or bills; men on the ground, some sinking into a bog. exclaim in horror at his action. In the centre Britannia is seated, she says: "This Scotch paper diet has brought me to a consumption". In the foreground (r.) Lord North seated

The British credit crisis of 1772-1773 also known as the crisis of 1772, or the panic of 1772, was a peacetime financial crisis which originated in London and then spread to Scotland and the Dutch Republic. [1] It has been described as the first modern banking crisis faced by the Bank of England. [2] New colonies, as Adam Smith observed, had an insatiable demand for capital. Accompanying the more tangible evidence of wealth creation was a rapid expansion of credit and banking leading to a rash of speculation and dubious financial innovation (venture capitalism). In today’s language, they bought shares on margin. [3]


In June 1772 Alexander Fordyce lost £300,000 shorting East India Company stock, leaving his partners Henry Neale, William James and Richard Down liable for an estimated £243,000 in debts. [4] As this information became public within two weeks eight banks in London, and later around 20 banks across Europe collapsed. [5] [6] According to Paul Kosmetatos "lurid tales abounded in the press for a time of merchants cutting their throats, shooting or hanging themselves". [7] In 1960 it was believed the boom and subsequent crisis were most pronounced in Scotland. [1] It certainly triggered a liquidity crunch in Amsterdam in December, but the effects were of short duration. In the end, none of them actually lost money. [3] The credit boom came to an abrupt end, and the ensuing crisis harmed the East India Trading Company, the West Indies in general, and the North American colonial planters specifically. [8]

Before the crisis

Dividend Day at the Bank of England, 1770 ONL (1887) 1.463 - Dividend Day at the Bank, 1770.jpg
Dividend Day at the Bank of England, 1770

From the mid-1760s to the early 1770s, the credit boom, supported by merchants and bankers, facilitated the expansion of manufacturing, mining and internal improvements in both Britain and the thirteen colonies. Until the outbreak of the credit crisis, the period from 1770 to 1772 was considered prosperous and politically calm in both Britain and the American colonies. As the result of the Townshend Act and the breakdown of the Boston Non-importation agreement, the period was marked with a tremendous growth in exports from Britain to the American colonies. Exports to North America increased rapidly compared to imports to North America between 1750 and 1772. These massive exports were supported by credit that British merchants granted to American planters. [9] The Physiocrats believed in land development and agriculture.

Problems, however, lay behind the credit boom and the prosperity of both British and colonial economies: speculation and the establishment of dubious financial institutions. For example, in Scotland, bankers adopted "the notorious practice of drawing and redrawing fictitious bills of exchange…in an effort to expand credit". [1] For the purpose of increasing the supply of money, the bank of Douglas, Heron & Company, known as the "Ayr Bank", was established in Ayr, Scotland in 1769; however, after the original capital was exhausted, the firm raised money by a chain of bills on London. [1] Hamilton has explained how a chain of bills works, "A, say in Edinburgh, drew a bill on his agent B in London, payable in two months. Before payment was due B redrew on A for the same sum plus interest and commission. Meantime A discounted his bill in Edinburgh and before the two months were up he drew another bill on B and so on". [10] This method could only temporarily support economic development, yet it promoted false optimism in the market. The warning signals of the impending crisis, such as the overstocked shelves and warehouses in the colonies, were completely overlooked by British merchants and American planters. [1]

Effects in London

Alexander Fordyce, a macaroni gambler with four dices. A (four dice depicted) Macaroni. Gambler (BM 1915,0313.151).jpg
Alexander Fordyce, a macaroni gambler with four dices.

In July 1770 Alexander Fordyce collaborated with two planters on Grenada and borrowed 240,000 guilders in bearer bonds from Hope & Co. in Amsterdam; he was backed by Harman and Co. and Sir William Pulteney. [12] [13] [14] He was a partner in the banking house Neale, James, Fordyce and Downe in Threadneedle Street (London), and correspondent of the (large) Ayr Bank. [15] He bet heavily against EIC share price, which went awfully awry. [16] Fordyce had speculated away the bank's assets. On Monday 8 June 1772, it became clear Fordyce failed. [17] [18] The next day he fled to France to avoid debt repayment. He used the profits from other investments to cover the losses. [19] The initial distress in London peaked on 22 June (Black Monday). [20] The whole City of London was in uproar when Fordyce was declared bankrupt. [21] His goods and estate were seized and Neale, James, Fordyce and Down, the largest buyer of Scottish bills, were forced to insolvency.

So great are the losses and inconveniences sustained by many individuals from a late bankruptcy, that a great number of eminent merchants and gentlemen of fortune at a meeting held for that purpose, have come to resolution not to keep their cash at any Bank, who jointly or separately by themselves or agents, are known to sport in the alley in what are called bulls or bears, since by one unlucky stroke in this illegal traffic, usually called speculation, hundreds of their creditors may be ruined; a species of gaming that can no more be justified in persons so largely intrusted with the property of others, than that of gambling at the hazard tables." [22]

There was great uncertainty about the size of the shock. [23] Economic growth at that period was highly dependent on the use of credit, which was largely based upon people’s confidence in the banks. As confidence started ebbing, paralysis of the credit system followed: crowds of people (creditors) gathered at the banks and requested debt repayment in cash or attempted to withdraw their deposits. As a result, twenty important banking houses went bankrupt by the end of June, and many other firms endured hardships during the crisis. [24] At that time, the Gentleman's Magazine commented, "No event for 50 years past has been remembered to have given so fatal a blow both to trade and public credit". [25] In the first week of January 1773, trade and finance between London and Amsterdam came to a halt. [26] The Bank of England came to the rescue on Sunday 10 January, allowing anyone who wished to withdraw specie from the bank to do so. Many British merchants quickly sent money to their ailing Dutch correspondents. [27] The strain upon the reserves of the Bank of England was not eased until towards the end of 1773.

After the crisis, a dramatic rise in the number of bankruptcies was observed: the average number of bankruptcies in London was 310 from 1764 to 1771, but the number rose to 484 in 1772 and 556 in 1773. [1] Banks that were deeply involved in speculation endured hard times during the crisis. For example, the partners of the Ayr Bank paid no less than £663,397 in order to fully repay their creditors. Owing to this process, only 112 out of 226 partners remained solvent by August 1775. In contrast, banks that had never engaged in speculation did not bear any losses and gained prestige for their outstanding performance despite the turbulence. [10]

In December 1774 Fordyce was forced to sell his estate in Roehampton to Sir Joshua Vanneck, 1st Baronet; the plaintiffs were Hope & Co and Harman and Co. [28] [29] [30]

Effects in Scotland

In November 1769 the moneyed interests in Scotland founded the Ayr Bank to assume many of the responsibilities associated with a central bank, principally standing ready to advance notes to Scottish banks as a 'lender of last resort.' [31] Like other banks established in the form of limited liability companies, the Ayr Bank had the right to put banknotes into circulation, which power it used excessively. [32] By 1772 the Ayr bank had branches in Edinburgh and Dumfries, as well as representative offices in Glasgow, Inverness, Kelso, Montrose, Campbeltown, and several other places. Among the company's 139 shareholders were well-known people such as the Duke of Buccleuch, the Earl of Dumfries, the Earl of March, Sir Adam Fergusson, Patrick Heron and Archibald Douglas, but no bankers.

On 12 June the news of the failure of Neale, James, Fordyce and Downe reached Scotland. [33] After the weekend a run began on its Edinburgh branch. [34] The Ayr bank collapsed on 24 June, [35] [36] [37] bringing other smaller banks down with it having extended credit too liberally to colonial planters. [38] It was said that the Scotch have ten times more paper money in proportion to their specie, than ever the English had. [39] The collapse of the bank was a major blow to the great Scottish landowning families, but seems to have hit the Scottish economy mildly. The Ayr bank managed to reopen for a brief period between September 1772 and August 1773, but a general meeting of the partners held on 12 August decided to dissolve the Company permanently. The bank may have actually spurred the economic development of Scotland, but its failure weakened public confidence in land banking schemes, leaving gold and silver as the most acceptable security for bank notes.

According to Adam Smith, in 1773 busy writing The Wealth of Nations: "Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot be well expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private co-partnery frequently watch over their own." [40] In his History of Banking in Scotland (Chapter X) Andrew William Kerr wrote:

The crisis of 1772, which formed the subject of our last chapter, although sharp and disastrous in its immediate effects, passed off more quickly and easily than might have been expected... The harvest of 1773 was fairly good, the fisheries excellent, the cattle trade active, and money cheap. Hardly had affairs resumed a satisfactory aspect, when the dark cloud of war cast its shadow over the land. [41]

According to Kosmetatos existing literature dealing with aspects of the episode—no comprehensive coverage exists up to now. [42]

Effects on Europe

Keizersgracht 444-448 was owned by Hope & Co Hope-keizersgracht.jpg
Keizersgracht 444-448 was owned by Hope & Co
Herengracht 478 was owned by the Cliffords Rm1867.JPG
Herengracht 478 was owned by the Cliffords

Around 1770, mortgaging became very widespread; in the same year the Van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck family managed to sell its share to the city of Amsterdam in Suriname. [43] The negotiations set up by the Cliffords in Surinam, the Van Seppenwoldes, Ter Borch, Hope & Co on Grenada, Sint Eustatius, and Saint Croix issued bonds to finance the loans. Such packages could contain loans to 20 or more plantations and before 1772 at least 40 of these bundles were issued, their names as unspecific as L.a. A, B or C. Investors thus had little knowledge of what they invested in, and lent their money purely on good faith and the word of the fund director. The Dutch fund managers, were also hit personally once their subprime system met its inevitable demise. [44] In December 1772 Clifford & Co, a well established Amsterdam banking firm which obtained plantation loans as part of its portfolio declared insolvency. [45]

The fall of the house of Cliffort and Sons, and of many others, carried away in it, attributed by some more to the lordly and ill-regulated conduct of the directors of the English Bank, supported by the Ministry and Parliament, than to the actual action trade, though the prudent conduct of the same is not denied, caused confidence to cease, the payers of bills of exchange to close their purses. They again refused to give credence to paper money and demanded the outstanding funds: while there was now more paper money than ready money circulating in the trade, this course was not only halted, but the lack of ready money increased by the hand; while everyone claimed the debts he owed. [46]

The plantation mortgages had many features in common with the subprime mortgages on American houses. [47] [48] Historians, notably Charles P. Kindleberger, have pointed out that crises often follow soon after major financial or technical innovations that present investors with new types of financial opportunities, which he called "displacements" of investors' expectations. [49] [50] In January the Bank of Amsterdam funded a city-operated loan facility for distressed merchants. [51] [52] The merchant banking firm Clifford & Sons broke eventually followed by more of its counterparts like Herman & Johan van Seppenwolde, and Abraham Ter Borch. The credit crunch was a real disaster for the Dutch plantation colonies in the West Indies and particularly for Surinam, where colonial agriculture was almost exclusively carried out with credit from Amsterdam. [53]

The cause of this failure, like Fordyce in London, was the over speculation of East India stock. This precipitated a string of further failures and a general state of crisis throughout Amsterdam- according to Wilson, ‘Conditions…were even worse than in 1763 … there was paper enough but no cash; hardly a man on the Bourse or in the bill business could produce 50,000 guilders; credit was non-existent, the circulation of money had stopped and so had the discount business; loans on bonds and goods were scarce, and only a little business was being done on foreign securities. Some houses stood seven to eight hundred guilders in debt. [54]

In Amsterdam a worse catastrophe was averted by rapid imports of precious metals. [55] In January 1773 Joshua Vanneck and his brother were involved (by Thomas Walpole) when British merchants sent ₤500,000, gold and piastre to Amsterdam. [56] [57] [58]

A few bankruptcies also shook the economies of Stockholm and St. Petersburg a little later, but overall Europe got off relatively lightly. [59] [60] The Danish Kurantbanken was nationalized in March 1773 with the assistance of Heinrich Carl von Schimmelmann; the shareholders received the fixed interest bonds instead of shares on plantations in the Danish West Indies. [61] [62] Clifford was insolvent and given postponement of payment.Hope & Co. the leading banking house suffered from a bad deal and the fall of the EIC-stocks. The turnover with the Amsterdam Exchange Bank plummeted from more than 50 million guilders in 1772 to 30 million in 1773. [63] In 1774 Fordyce was forced to sell his estate to Sir Joshua Vanneck, 1st Baronet; the plaintiffs were Hope & Co and Gurnell, Hoare, & Harman. [64] [65] [66] George Colebrooke went bankrupt.

East India Company

Engraving of East India House, Leadenhall Street (1766) E India House.jpg
Engraving of East India House, Leadenhall Street (1766)

The East India Company, formerly mainly a trading company with a limited territory, was now entrusted with the management of a much larger area, for which task its outdated organisation was not up to. At the London Stock Exchange, however, there was still the expectation that the Company would soon be paying higher dividends, an expectation shared by the Dutch capital owners who were used to investing part of their capital in English funds. This optimism gave rise to increasing speculation boom in the futures trade in securities in both London and Amsterdam. [67] [68]

In May 1772 the EIC stock price rose significantly. In summer the EIC's debt suddenly skyrocketed - in India alone, the company had bill debts of £1.2 million. Meanwhile, speculation in futures in East India stock had weakened the London money market. The Great Bengal famine of 1770, which was exacerbated by the actions of the East India Company, led to massive shortfalls in expected land values for the company. The East India Company bore heavy losses and its stock price fell significantly. Hope & Co. was stuck with a considerable positions in EIC and BoE stock. On 19 September the value of its shares dropped by 14%. [69]

The root of this crisis in relation to the East India Company came from the prediction by Isaac de Pinto that ‘peace conditions plus an abundance of money would push East Indian shares to ‘exorbitant heights.’ [58] As leading Dutch banking houses (Andries Pels and Clifford & Son) had invested extensively in the stock of the East India Company, they suffered the loss along with the other shareholders. In this manner, the credit crisis spread from London to Amsterdam. [24] [60]

The Regulating Act of 1773 significantly reformed the East India Company's practices. It was complemented by the Tea Act 1773, which had a principal objective that was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the financially struggling company survive. The East India Company had eighteen million pounds of tea sitting in British warehouses. A huge amount of tea as assets which were lying unsold. Selling it in a hurry would do wonders for its finances. [70] On 14 January 1773 the directors of the EIC asked for a government loan and unlimited access to the tea market in the American colonies, both of which were granted. [71] In August the Bank of England assisted the EIC with a loan. [72]

Effects on the Thirteen Colonies

Shepherd - The British colonies in North America, 1763-1775 in Historical Atlas, 1911 Shepherd - The British colonies in North America, 1763-1775 in Historical Atlas, 1911.xcf
Shepherd - The British colonies in North America, 1763-1775 in Historical Atlas, 1911

The credit crisis of 1772 greatly deteriorated debtor-creditor relations between the thirteen American colonies and Britain, especially in the South. The southern colonies, which produced tobacco, rice, and indigo and exported them to Britain, were granted higher credit than the northern colonies, where competitive commodities were produced. (It was estimated that in 1776 the total amount of debt that British merchants claimed from the colonies equaled £2,958,390; Southern colonies had claims of £2,482,763, nearly 85 per cent of the total amount. [73] Before the crisis, the commission system of trading prevailed in the southern plantation colonies. The merchants in London helped the planters sell their crops and shipped what planters wanted to purchase in London as returns. The commission equaled the price of the British goods minus the revenue of the crops. The planters were usually granted credit for twelve months without interest and at five per cent on the unpaid balance after the deadline. [1]

News of the crash in Scotland reached Thomas Jefferson in a letter dated 8 July 1772. After the outbreak of the crisis, British merchants urgently called for debt repayment, and American planters faced the serious problem of how to pay the debt for several reasons. First, because of the economic boom before the crisis, planters were not prepared for large-scale debt liquidation. As the credit system broke down, bills of exchange were rejected and almost all heavy gold was sent to Britain in December 1773. Second, without the support of credit, planters were unable to continue producing and selling their goods. Since the whole market became crippled, the fallen price of their goods also intensified the pressure on planters. Owing to the crisis, the colonies endured hard times to maintain the balance of payments. [1]

The crisis of 1772 also set off a chain of events related to the controversy over the colonial tea market. The East India Company was one of the firms that suffered the hardest hits in the crisis. Failing to pay or renew its loan from the Bank of England, the firm sought to sell its eighteen million pounds of tea from its British warehouses to the American colonies. Back then the firm had to market its tea to the colonies through middlemen, so the high price made its tea unfavorable compared to the tea that was smuggled to, or was produced locally in, the colonies. In May 1773, however, the Parliament imposed a three pence tax for each pound of tea sold, and allowed the firm to sell directly through its own agents. [74] The Tea Act reduced the tea price and enabled the East India Company’s monopoly over the local tea business in the colonial tea market. The Tea Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies, leading to the infamous Boston Tea Party, which was a major precursor to the American Revolution. [75] Furious about how British government and the East India Company controlled the colonial tea trade, citizens in Charleston, Philadelphia, New York and Boston rejected the imported tea, and these protests eventually led to the Boston Tea Party in December 1773. [76] Bills of exchange had become so scarce by December 1773 that all of the dollars and heavy gold had been sent to Great Britain for remittance. [1] The crisis also worsened the relationship of the North American colonies and Britain, due to the fact that it affected all 13 of the colonies, and due to the fact that the British were forced to introduce controversial legislation for the colonies in an attempt to remedy the crisis, which made the crisis one of the causes of the American Revolutionary War. [76]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">East India Company</span> 16th- to 19th-century British trading company

The East India Company (EIC) was an English, and later British, joint-stock company founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies, and later with East Asia. The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent, colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world. The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company's three Presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time. The operations of the company had a profound effect on the global balance of trade, almost single-handedly reversing the trend of eastward drain of Western bullion, seen since Roman times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tea Act</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Tea Act 1773 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. The principal objective was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the struggling company survive. A related objective was to undercut the price of illegal tea, smuggled into Britain's North American colonies. This was supposed to convince the colonists to purchase Company tea on which the Townshend duties were paid, thus implicitly agreeing to accept Parliament's right of taxation. Smuggled tea was a large issue for Britain and the East India Company, since approximately 86% of all the tea in America at the time was smuggled Dutch tea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Berbice</span> 1627–1815 Dutch colony in South America

Berbice is a region along the Berbice River in Guyana, which was between 1627 and 1792 a colony of the Dutch West India Company and between 1792 to 1815 a colony of the Dutch state. After having been ceded to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the latter year, it was merged with Demerara-Essequibo to form the colony of British Guiana in 1831. It became a county of British Guiana in 1838 till 1958. In 1966, British Guiana gained independence as Guyana and in 1970 it became a republic as the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boston Tea Party</span> 1773 American protest against British taxation

The Boston Tea Party was an American political and mercantile protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16, 1773. The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the British East India Company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. The Sons of Liberty strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. Protesters, some disguised as Indigenous Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hope & Co.</span> Dutch bank

Hope & Co. was a Dutch bank that existed for two and a half centuries. The bank was located in Amsterdam until 1795; originally it concentrated on Great Britain. From 1750 it played a major part in the finances of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) through Thomas Hope and his brother Adrian. During the Seven Years' War (1756–1763) the Hope brothers profited from the Netherlands' neutral position and became very wealthy. The Hopes became heavily involved in the Dutch Caribbean, and Danish West Indies. They specialised in plantation loans, in which the entire produce of the plantation was remitted to the lender, who would supervise its sale in order to secure repayment. In this way, the Hopes helped the plantation economy to become integrated into a global network of financiers and consumers. The Hope family were among the richest in Europe at the time. The family business focused on financing commercial transactions and especially on issuing money loans to monarchs and governments in Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Portugal, Spain, France and America. The bank was famous for having Catherine the Great as their client and Adrian supplied her several times with diamonds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bank of Amsterdam</span> Early (Dutch) bank

The Bank of Amsterdam was an early bank, vouched for by the city of Amsterdam, and established in 1609. It was the first public bank to offer accounts not directly convertible to coin. As such, it has been described as the first true central bank, even though that view is not uniformly shared and a similar claim has been made for the Taula de canvi of Barcelona, established two centuries earlier.

Events from the year 1772 in Great Britain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet</span>

Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet merchant banker, was the third son of Henry Asgill, silkman, of St Clement Danes, Middlesex and was educated at Westminster School.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Colebrooke</span>

Sir George Colebrooke, 2nd Baronet, of Gatton in Surrey, was an English merchant banker, Member of Parliament for Arundel from 1754-1774 and chairman of the East India Company from 1767-1772. He was conspicuous by his wealth and ostentation, and the ambitious and speculative nature of his financial activities. Colebrooke was known as a stockjobber and a Nabob with close ties to Robert Clive and Alexander Fordyce. Colebrooke bankrupted himself through unwise speculations in the crisis of 1772.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economic history of the Netherlands (1500–1815)</span> Aspect of history

The economic history of the Netherlands (1500–1815) is the history of an economy that scholar Jan de Vries calls the first "modern" economy. It covers the Netherlands as the Habsburg Netherlands, through the era of the Dutch Republic, the Batavian Republic and the Kingdom of Holland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Financial history of the Dutch Republic</span> Aspect of history

The financial history of the Dutch Republic involves the interrelated development of financial institutions in the Dutch Republic. The rapid economic development of the country after the Dutch Revolt in the years 1585–1620 accompanied by an equally rapid accumulation of a large fund of savings, created the need to invest those savings profitably. The Dutch financial sector, both in its public and private components, came to provide a wide range of modern investment products beside the possibility of (re-)investment in trade and industry, and in infrastructure projects. Such products were the public bonds, floated by the Dutch governments on a national, provincial, and municipal level; acceptance credit and commission trade; marine and other insurance products; and shares of publicly traded companies like the Dutch East India Company (VOC), and their derivatives. Institutions like the Amsterdam stock exchange, the Bank of Amsterdam, and the merchant bankers helped to mediate this investment. In the course of time the invested capital stock generated its own income stream that caused the capital stock to assume enormous proportions. As by the end of the 17th century structural problems in the Dutch economy precluded profitable investment of this capital in domestic Dutch sectors, the stream of investments was redirected more and more to investment abroad, both in sovereign debt and foreign stocks, bonds and infrastructure. The Netherlands came to dominate the international capital market up to the crises of the end of the 18th century that caused the demise of the Dutch Republic.

Neale, James, Fordyce and Down was a London banking house, established in 1757 by Henry Neale, William James, Alexander Fordyce and Richard Down. Its collapse in June 1772 precipitated a major banking crisis which included the collapse of almost every private bank in Scotland, and a liquidity crisis in the two major banking centres of the world, London and Amsterdam. The bank had been speculating by shorting East India Company stock on a massive scale, and apparently using customer deposits to cover losses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clifford family (bankers)</span> Noble family

The Clifford family was a family of bankers, merchants and regenten of English descent who were active in Amsterdam during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. The family originated in northern England, although the surname originated in the village of Clifford, Herefordshire. Northern England was the home of the noble Clifford family, since Roger Clifford was born in Cumberland and died in Brough Castle in Westmorland. There is no evidence that the Clifford banking family is descended from a nobleman named Clifford, who fought for William I of England.

Douglas, Heron & Company, also known as the Ayr Bank, was a Scottish bank with its head office at Ayr. It opened in November 1769 and folded in 1772 during the crisis of 1772.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leendert Pieter de Neufville</span> Dutch banker and art collector (1729–1811)

Leendert Pieter de Neufville was a Dutch merchant and banker trading in silk, linen, and grain. His business grew quickly during the Seven Years' War. De Neufville secretly supplied the Prussian army with gunpowder. It is likely that the army's outsourcing of handling bills of exchange in commercial payment boosted his business in a sophisticated form of letters of credit, acceptance loans. His business model had similarities with the modern shadow banking system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alexander Fordyce</span> Scottish banker

Alexander Fordyce was an eminent Scottish banker, centrally involved in the bank run on Neale, James, Fordyce and Down which led to the credit crisis of 1772. He used the profits from other investments to cover the losses.

Events from the year 1772 in Scotland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laurens Storm van 's Gravesande</span>

Laurens Storm van 's Gravesande was a Dutch governor of the colonies of Essequibo and Demerara from 1743 to 1772. He turned Demerara in a successful plantation colony, and the borders of Guyana are mainly based on his expeditions into the interior. He is also noted for his treatment of the Amerindians.


  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sheridan, R.B. (1960) "The British Credit Crisis of 1772 and the American Colonies" The Journal of Economic History
  2. Rockoff, Hugh T., Upon Daedalian Wings of Paper Money: Adam Smith and the Crisis of 1772 (December 2009). NBER Working Paper No. w15594, Available at SSRN:
  3. 1 2 "Peter Koudijs: Risk Analysis or Risk Paralysis?". Stanford Graduate School of Business.
  4. Tyler Goodspeed: Legislating Instability: Adam Smith, Free Banking, and the Financial Crisis of 1772
  5. "The East India Company: The original corporate raiders | William Dalrymple". The Guardian. 4 March 2015. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
  6. "The Credit Crisis of 1772 - Recession Tips". 26 November 2021.
  7. Paul Kosmetatos, ‘Financial Contagion and Market Intervention in the 1772–3 Credit Crisis’, Cambridge Working Papers in Economic and Social History, Working Paper No. 21 (2014), p. 18.
  8. "The Credit Crisis of 1772". 18 August 2021.
  9. "The American Credit Crisis (of 1772) Visualized | Doug McCune". 5 January 2010.
  10. 1 2 "The Failure of the Ayr Bank, 1772" The Economic History Review
  12. Amsterdam City Archives on 3 July 1770, NA 5075, nr. 426
  13. Clapham, J. (1944) The Bank of England, p. 249
  14. 'Henry Hope', Legacies of British Slavery database, [accessed 4 May 2022].
  15. Sheridan, R.B. (1960) p. 171
  16. Wilson, C. (1941/1966?), p. 120-121
  17. The papers of Henry Laurens, Band 8 by Henry Laurens
  18. "The American Revolution".
  19. "Alexander Fordyce - the Macaroni Gambler | James Boswell .info".
  20. Saville, Richard (1996). Bank of Scotland: A History, 1695-1995. ISBN   9780748607570 . Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  21. Clapham, J. (1944) The Bank of England, p. 246-247
  22. Maberly Phillips (1894) A History of Banks, Bankers, & Banking in Northumberland, Durham, and North Yorkshire, p. 30. In: Newcastle Chronicle, 25 July 1772
  23. Koudijs & Voth (2011) Optimal delay: distressed trading in 18th c. Amsterdam, p. 25
  24. 1 2 Sutherland, Lucy (1 January 1984). Politics & Finance in the Eighteenth Century . Bloomsbury Academic. p.  446. ISBN   9780907628460 . Retrieved 23 March 2013. Neal, James, Fordyce and Down.
  25. The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle (London: June 1772) MDCCLXXII, pages 293
  26. The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith, p. iv
  27. Business Cycles and Depressions: An Encyclopedia by David Glasner, p. 123
  28. Information 1794, p. 64
  29. The Town and Country Magazine, p. 669
  30. Frank Brady, p. 37
  31. David Bholat (2009) THINKING ABOUT THE CRISIS How Would Adam Smith Fix the Financial Crisis?
  32. Dillen, J.G. van (1970) Van Rijkdom en Regenten, p. 610
  33. History of Banking in Scotland
  34. A History of Banking in All the Leading Nations, p. 190
  35. Clapham, J (1944), p. 163
  36. Tyler Goodspeed: Legislating Instability: Adam Smith, Free Banking, and the Financial Crisis of 1772, p. 4
  37. Douglas-Heron Bank
  38. Slavery and the Bank
  39. Maberly Phillips (1894) A History of Banks, Bankers, & Banking in Northumberland, Durham, and North Yorkshire, p. 30. In: Darlington Pamphlet, 3 July 1772
  40. A. Smith (1976), vol. 2, p. 264-65
  41. Kerr, Andrew William (1908). History of Banking in Scotland (2nd ed.). London: A. & C. Black. pp.  110–111.
  42. Paul Kosmetatos, 2018. "‘A Year of Confusion, Dismay, and Distress’: The 1772–73 Financial Crisis and Its Potential Significance," Palgrave Studies in the History of Finance, in: The 1772–73 British Credit Crisis, chapter 0, pages 1-40, Palgrave Macmillan.
  43. J. Wolbers (1861) Geschiedenis van Suriname, p. 82
  44. Hoonhout, Bram (2013) The crisis of the subprime plantation mortgages in the Dutch West Indies, 1750-1775, p. 99
  45. Nadere memorie aan den Hove van Holland, p. 26-27, 32-34, 70
  46. Jan Wagenaar (1788) Vaderlandsche Historie, deel XXIV, 32-
  47. Hoonhout, Bram (2013) The crisis of the subprime plantation mortgages in the Dutch West Indies, 1750-1775, p. 97
  48. Tyler Goodspeed: Legislating Instability: Adam Smith, Free Banking, and the Financial Crisis of 1772, p. 10
  49. Kindleberger and Aliber (2005), op. cit., pp. 54–58.
  50. 'Of manias, panics, and crashes', obituary of Charles Kindleberger in The Economist, 17 July 2003.
  51. Clapham, J. (1944), p. 248
  52. The Descent of Central Banks (1400–1815) by William Roberds and François R. Velde (2014)
  53. J.P. van der Voort (1973) DE WESTINDISCHE PLANTAGES van 1720 tot 1795, p. 154
  54. Wilson, C. Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the 18th Century (1966) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 176
  55. "Börsenwissen für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene".
  56. J.G. van Dillen, p. 613
  57. The 1772–73 British Credit Crisis by Paul Kosmetatos
  58. 1 2 The International Lender of Last Resort- An Historical Perspective by Joanna Rudd
  59. Sautijn Kluit, W.P. (1865) De Amsterdamsche Beurs in 1763 en 1773, p. 96-97
  60. 1 2 Clapham, J. (1944) The Bank of England, p. 248
  61. Hans Chr. Johansen (1966) J. G. Büsch's economic theory and his influence on the Danish economic and social debate, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 14:1, 18-38, DOI: 10.1080/03585522.1966.10407646
  62. The Origins and Nature of Scandinavian Central Banking by Steffen Elkiær Andersen, p. 57-58
  63. At Spes non Fracta: Hope & Co. 1770–1815 by M.G. Buist, p. 22
  64. Information 1794, p. 64
  65. The Town and Country Magazine, p. 669
  66. Frank Brady, p. 37
  67. "What a 241 year-old Dutch credit crisis tells us about market optimism".
  68. Dillen, J.G. van (1970) Van Rijkdom en Regenten, p. 609
  69. Sautijn Kluit, W.P. (1865) De Amsterdamsche Beurs in 1763 en 1773, p. 72
  70. "1772two Hundred and Twenty-five Years Ago".
  71. L. Sutherland 1952, pp. 249-251
  72. Clapham, J. (1944) The Bank of England, p. 250
  73. Samuel Flagg Bernis, "Jay’s Treaty, A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy" (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923). Print. page 103.
  74. Lucy S. Sutherland, "Sir George Colebrooke’s World Corner in Alum, 1771-73," Economic History, III (Feb. 1936). page 248-69.
  75. "A Different Way to Think About the Evergrande Collapse — Dinar Recaps".
  76. 1 2 "Tea and Antipathy" American Heritage