EXCHANGE. See Encycl. under that word, and likewiſe under Bills of Exchange, where the antiquity of ſuch bills, eſpecially among the Chineſe, is mentioned. In Profeſſor Beckmann's hiſtory of inventions the reader will find an ordinance of the year 1394 concerning the acceptance of bills of exchange, and alſo copies of two bills of the year 1404, which ſufficiently prove that the method of tranſacting buſineſs by bills of exchange was fully eſtabliſhed in Europe ſo early as the fourteenth century; and that the preſent form and terms were even then uſed. The ordinance, which was iſſued by the city of Barcelona, decreed that bills of exchange ſhould be accepted within twenty-four hours after they were preſented, and that the acceptance ſhould be written on the back of the bill.
But there are queſtions relating to bills of exchange of much greater importance than their antiquity; and theſe queſtions are not yet decided. For inſtance, ought a bill of exchange to be conſidered by the law merely as a depoſit belonging to the drawer, and ſucceſ-
ſively conſidered to the remitters? or ſhould it be conſidered as tranſferable property, at all times abſolutely veſted in the holder, whoſe neglect therefore, when it vitiates the value, falls wholly on himſelf?
In a work publiſhed 1793 by Profeſſor Buſch of Hamburgh, entitled, Additions to the Theoretical and Practical Delineation of Commerce (A), the reader will find ſome arguments, which, to ſay the leaſt of them, are certainly plauſible, to prove that bills of exchange ought to be at all times conſidered as the abſolute property of the holder. This theory is then applied to the difficult and ſtill unſettled caſe of the holder of a bill having many indorſements, where the drawer, drawee, and early indorſers, have all failed. It is evident that, if the holder proves under each bankruptcy the whole amount of the bill, he will receive much more than his due. May he make his election where to prove the whole demand, and where to prove the reſidue? Or ought he not (which ſeems moſt equitable) to be compelled to prove his debt againſt his immediate predeceſſor only?—the aſſignees of that predeceſſor proving, in their turn, in like manner (each party once only), back to the drawer. This is a caſe of great importance to diſcounters, and the reader will find ſome judicious obſervations on it in the Profeſſor's work.