fore, he had the experience that it is impossible to neglect the consideration of events which are passing around them."

Passing to an enquiry in regard to the events which have occurred since the death of Sir Robert Peel, or since he quitted public affairs, Mr. Grenfell says:

"The beginning of them was apparently an accident; the first event was the calling together of a Conference at Paris in 1868, for the purpose of attempting to get a coinage of all nations; and scarcely had they met when they found it absolutely necessary to discuss the question of the standards. But that Conference came to the conclusion that the best of all possible standards was a mono-metallic gold standard, and, I believe, by a narrow majority passed a resolution to that effect. Shortly afterwards there came the Franco-German war, and when a large quantity of the French gold had passed into Germany, it was not very unnatural that, with the result of the Conference of 1868 before them, the German Government resolved to use the gold in order to inaugurate that which had been declared solemnly to be the best of all possible standards. Almost immediately the evils began to be shown arising from this great monetary revolution, and in 1878 another Conference was called to again discuss the question, and in the absence of any German delegate at that Conference, they passed a resolution unauimously that it would be a misfortune to the world if the functions of silver in the coinage of the world should pass away. The next matter was the Conference which is still, technically speaking, alive in Paris. The difference which existed between that and the previous one was that a German delegate appeared at that Conference, took part in it, and made certain offers with respect to it, which, although they might not be all that was expected, were at the same time most important offers. There is one other great change since the days of Lord Liverpool. There are now numberless agreements between States upon all possible questions. We have postal and telegraph agreements, police agreements and agreements for lighting and signals, and other subjects in which the commercial world is deeply interested. Therefore, what would appear to the mind of Lord Liverpool to be impossible, might appear to us to be one of the easiest things in the world."

Mr. STEPHEN WILLIAMSON, M.P., who moved the second resolution, placed before his audience categorically the leading propositions or arguments in support of the contention that silver should, along with gold, constitute the standard of value, or, in other words, the legal tender money of the great monetary powers.

"It will not," he said, "be disputed that a very large portion of our exports are sent to silver-using countries. Our purchasers in these countries pay us in silver money, and the difficulties that now beset our commercial and banking relations with them arise from the fact that since the suspension of free coinage of silver in France the par of exchange, which prior to 1874 practically formed the basis of calculation between silver money and gold money, has, through adverse legislation on the Continent of Europe, been lost to us. From this loss of any par of exchange between silver money and gold money in Europe there have arisen excessive friction and harassment affecting the operations of merchants and bankers with silver

using countries. Secondly, the uncertainty regarding the course of exchanges in the future largely prevents the employment of English capital in commercial credits, in railways, public works, and other industrial enterprises in silver-using countries, and tends to curtail the operations of British merchants in the export of our manufactured goods. Thirdly, silver having been thus discredited by adverse monetary legislation has been to a large extent cut off from its previous sphere of usefulness in the liquidation of international indebtedness. Previous to the cessation of free mintage on the Continent, silver came to London substantially as money; now it comes as mere merchandise, exposed to very onerous fluctuations in price-fluctuations which there is every reason to apprehend will be greatly intensified unless the remedy of which our association urges the adoption is internationally agreed upon by the leading monetary powers. Fourthly, it requires no laboured argument to prove that the serious diminution of the world's money caused by the discrediting of silver must lead frequently to stringency in the money market, and to panics and grievous loss through the inadequate supply of gold for the world's wants. This does not seem to be seriously disputed at the present time, and therefore the opportunity seems to be a most fitting one for pressing this vital monetary question on the attention of our leading citizens. We know perfectly well that unless the public mind is acted upon, any change in our monetary legislation cannot be expected. Fifthly, out of this acknowledged inadequacy of the supply of gold arises another serious difficulty-namely, the insuperable obstacle it presents to the resumption of specie payments by many countries now under an enforced paper currency, and the temptation to these countries to make no effort to get rid of paper money. So long as the gold supply is inadequate and silver is discredited by the leading monetary powers, its value being so uncertain in relation to gold, it would be useless for nations with a paper currency to make any great sacrifice or effort to put their money on a metallic basis. Now it can never be to the interest of British merchants to adventure deeply in operations with nations under an enforced paper currency; and we have in this fact additional motives for desiring the rehabilitation of silver as money in conjunction with gold. There is, besides this, the contingency that silver-using countries which have the interest on their State bonds payable in gold, are obliged to increase their import duties in order to raise the additional revenue required. This not only tends to a diminished demand for English goods, but we know that in countries such as Austria it directly tends to foster the extension of native manufacturing industries. Our gold monometallism is a direct encouragement to the perpetuation of hostile tariffs by other nations."

Entering subsequently upon a consideration of the probable results of failure at the ensuing Conference in Paris, Mr. Williamson says:

"There are some objectors to our views who still speak of this question as a question of demand and supply. They forget that the more silver is discredited and demonetised by force of law, the less will be the demand for it. To speak of supply and demand as principal elements in this controversy is to ignore the whole course of late events, and to shut out of view the main facts and arguments bearing on the question. There are scientific objectors who urge their non possumus on the plea that we cannot have both gold and silver to be our measures of value. To this we answer that the unit created by bi-metallism is not the substance gold or the substance

silver, but "money"-that creation of law which can qualify both metals on a fixed ratio or valuation to discharge all monetary obligations. There is nothing unscientific in this definition. What is it we all strive after? It is certainly not hoards of gold. What we expect in return for our industry and enterprise is legal tender money, that creation of law which enables us to pay therewith all our indebtedness, and to acquire those commodities which we have set our hearts upon. Our legislative ability to make choice of both metals is as great and as potent as was our resolution in 1816 to select one of the metals only as the basis of our currency. There is nothing new in this idea. It is the old conservative idea of money. Gold mono-metallism is the modern heresy. It would be well for us to reconsider the weighty words of Hamilton, the secretary of the American Treasury, in 1792 :'Upon the whole,' he said, 'it seems to be most advisable not to attach the unit exclusively to either of the metals, because this cannot be done effectually without destroying the office and character of one of them as money, and reducing it to the situation of a mere merchandise. To annul the use of either of the metals as money is to abridge the quantity of circulating medium, and is liable to all the objections which arise from a comparison of the benefits of a full, with the evils of a scanty, circulation.' From the widely-extended intercourse between nations in these later times it is now apparent that whereas a century ago powerful nations could without grave risk or prejudice adopt their own standard of value without taking much heed as to what was done by others, it is now evident that international agreement is of the very highest importance in the determination of a metallic basis for the currency of all the great monetary and commercial nations of the world."

Mr. E. LANGLEY, who also spoke to this resolution, alluded to the three great changes in the currency laws which have taken place during the present century.

"The first was when France adopted the bi-metallic system, both gold and silver as legal tender, the ratio being 15 of the latter to one of the former. The second currency change that took place was when England adopted the single standard of gold which exists to this day. The third change was when Germany changed her currency from silver to gold, which took place in 1871, since which date some very important circumstances have taken place. A large addition has been made to the number of countries using gold. At the same time the production of gold has very seriously diminished, or rather did diminish; it is getting better now."

Referring to the view to which many European statesmen had come, that the prosperity that England enjoyed could be traced to the fact that, concurrently with the discoveries of gold in California and Australia, she was the only country possessed of a single gold standard, Mr. Langley says that it led France at one time to consider and weigh the advisability of assimilating her currency to our own. He continues

"I believe that preparations were made for that change, but the FrancoGerman war intervened, with the result that you all know. An enormous indemnity was imposed by Germany upon France, in the possession of which Germany, being aware of the intentions of France to assimilate her standard to our own, determined to anticipate her views, which she was able to do

owing to the fact that France was, for a time, financially paralysed, and then Germany obtained the start, and set about changing her single silver standard to that of the single gold standard, with the results you all know. That, notwithstanding Germany drew from Europe and coined £86,000,000 of gold, she has been unable to retain but a small proportion of this, is evidenced by the stocks of bullion in the Bank of Berlin amounting to £6,000,000 only, against £20,000,000 of silver; and, therefore, I think we are entitled to assume that the attempt of Germany to follow our own system has proved to be a failure. Germany has not carried out her programme, and in my judgment she never will carry it out, but is equally determined not to retrace her steps."

Mr. H. H. GIBBS, the president of the Association, in some general remarks, towards the conclusion of the meeting, after answering a question, which had been raised in the body of the meeting, in regard to the proposed ratio being 15 to 1, whereas it was now 18 to 1, by the reply that there was no virtue in 151⁄2, but that as this was the ratio previously to the disturbance arising from the German disturbance, so it would naturally be again the ratio on a reversal of her policy, said :

"I have gathered from what has passed to-day, and from what has been passing now for the last year or so, that we have all made up our minds by this time as to what we do not want and as to what we do want. Now, when a mono-metallist wants to say something disagreeable, wants to throw a stone at a bi-metallist and does not know where to look for it (I think it is a very difficult thing for him to find it), he says: I see what you are about. You want cheap money: you want abundance of money.' Well, I have no objection to abundance of money, especially if it is in my own pocket, and as regards abundance of money, generally, abundance of the circulating medium as compared with scarcity of the circulating medium, I prefer abundance. Abundance brings mischief with it; but it brings some good. Scarcity brings mischief with it, and does not bring anything else. Therefore, you may desire abundance so far; but abundance is not the point we are aiming at. What we do want is stability. What we do want is enough monetary circulation to serve for the wants of commerce, and progressively enough to serve for the progressive wants of commerce. If we mean by abundance something more than we want-a little more than we can spend—we do not desire anything of that kind. But stability we do want, and I do not need to convince you, nor to convince anybody else, I suppose, who has studied the subject, that stability is a conseqnence of having a double standard: that is to say, a greater measure of stability."

Passing from the thing we want," to the question "Why we want it?" Mr. Gibbs continues:

"I will not say that we want it because the present state of things is intolerable; but I will say, that it is far from satisfactory and threatens danger in the future, danger in the scrambles for gold, and danger in the depreciation of silver, and I appeal again to another mono-metallist champion. According to him-and he is a very able man and statistician, very trustworthy when he does not speak against bi-metallism-the existing state of affairs is an exceedingly dangerous one. I dare say it is, and therefore we want what will guard against that danger."

And, alluding to the change of feeling with which the question. is regarded, he said:

"I perceive a great alteration since I went to the Conference in Paris, in 1878, in the feeling of the people generally about this matter. I had not a word to say then in favour of bi-metallism, because I had not opened my eyes sufficiently, but at that time if anyone in England did venture to suggest such a thing he was thought to be a lunatic.

But

now the tone which speakers adopt in reference to bi-metallism is very different, and the way in which they look at the matter is very different also. They see that there is danger in the present state of things, and they think it right that plans which are proposed to meet the danger should be considered seriously, and not to be put on one side as if the proposers were asserting the flatness of the world or making endeavours to square the circle. We are now listened to with patience."

The last address was from Mr. SAMUEL MONTAGU, who, as a practical man, endeavoured to combat the belief that if we adopt bimetallism we shall be inundated with silver. He said

"That is a great mistake. I doubt whether anybody in this room is in the habit of using fifty sovereigns, in actual gold, in making one payment. The majority of the payments exceeding £10 are made by cheque or bank notes. What can it matter to the general public if these bank notes represent entirely gold, or partly silver and partly gold? If bi-metallism be adopted, as we hope it will be, all the great payments will be on the same basis as at present, so far as actual coinage is concerned. The same process of natural selection that has hitherto obtained will prevail. I will show it to you in this way. If I, as a bullion dealer, wished to export bullion to France, the first thing I should suggest would be French gold or silver coin. If that were not to be found, there would be either bullion gold or silver, or bar gold or bar silver. The last things that would be touched would be the English sovereign and English coins. No one need suppose that we should be flooded with silver if bi-metallism were adopted. Silver is found in districts in and about California, and far from the Atlantic coast. Under the proposed scheme, that silver would be taken to the nearest mint, and coined into legal tender; when the silver came into circulation it would be lodged at the banker's, and the banker's notes would be issued against it. America not having a State bank where the surplus coinage or bullion can be stored in the operations of trade, gold would be dispatched from the Atlantic ports, and silver only as a last resort. Take France in the same way. The first thing France would send to us would be English sovereigns, and if not English sovereigns any other English coin, and failing that, bar gold and bar silver; then French coin, and lastly French silver coin, as the French silver coin would not be found to pay so well as any other means of sending the money. Germany is differently situated. Germany has a large stock of silver bars, which she might export in preference to German gold coin, but she would probably have English coin to a certain amount, and certainly she would restrict the exportation of her silver coin to very moderate limits."