duction of the two metals is already barely sufficient. It is then obvious that Gold alone would be still less sufficient, especially when we remember that there is already a sensible reduction in its annual production.

'On the other hand, the need of Money, especially if it were invested universally with the legal tender faculty, increases and will increase still more rapidly.

'There are countries which would wish to revert to a metallic currency, or which are already preparing for it-Italy, Austria, and Russia. There are others like Germany, Spain, and even the United States, which have not got the quantity generally recognised as necessary. There is the increase of population and of transactions, especially in those countries which produce Gold; in short, there is material and intellectual progress in all countries. Is it not reasonable to conclude from all this, that we should be wise to prepare ourselves for the

future in store for us, and to discover, if possible an International Standard more extended and more durable for the development of the commerce of the world? At all events, it

is an effort which ought to be made in the general interest. We have heard of a national selfishness, which, from a certain point of view, may be regarded as a patriotic virtue; but, in the question in which we are occupied at this moment, it is incontestable that an enlightened national selfishness is identical with true international interest.

'In the name of my Government, then, I thank the two Governments (France and the United States) who have initiated proposals with such objects in view.'

PART II.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

IF I should have had the good fortune to interest the reader in the first part of this little book, I hope he may be induced to give consideration to the remaining few pages. In them I have endeavoured to set forth very briefly the leading popular objections to the adoption of the Bi-metallic system under the sanction of international agreement. My desire has been to state the case of our opponents with perfect fairness, and to meet their objections in a like spirit. There are some few difficulties raised of a more intricate and technical nature than can be satisfactorily dealt with in a popular treatise, but I am satisfied that not one of them would be considered by Mono-metallists as of import

ance, supposing the objections which are here enumerated to be overruled.

Bi-metallists have no desire to snatch a verdict at the hands of the public. The more freely their case is discussed and criticised, the greater will be their satisfaction, because of their conviction that, as a study of their principles widens, so will the triumph of those principles be assured.

I. The historical statements are questioned. England, so it is urged, though using Silver and Gold Money prior to 1816, had really been on the Gold standard for a hundred years previously.

Answer. The free coinage of Silver and its use as legal tender was established by the Act of 1666. When Lord Liverpool wrote his celebrated letter to the king in 1805 he admits that there was no denying that 'every one has

a right to bring Gold and Silver to the Mint to be converted into coin.' And when he used the word 'standard' in reference to Gold, he used it in the sense of the principal and most important coin, not as the sole measure of values.

The Act making Gold and Silver a legal tender dates from 1666, and was confirmed by successive Sovereigns. It was made 'perpetual' in 1768, and was never repealed until 1816!

2. The success of Bi-metallism in France up to 1873 was an accident, and is to be ascribed to the large demands for Silver caused by payments to India for cotton. It was a bad system for France, and actually impoverished her.

Answer. The demand for these exceptional payments to India lasted for only three years out of the long period that the Bi-metallic compact existed. As to the effect upon France, it was stated by the French representatives at the