dear than they would otherwise be; because the demand for wool to made articles which would otherwise be made of cotton would give wool a higher value than it would otherwise have. The restriction on the supply of raw material for the manufacture of articles of clothing would be felt in the families in every cottage, reducing the comforts of their homes and their personal clothing, even though they might be left in ignorance of the fact that an arbitrary law was alone depriving them of the greater amount of comfort which they might otherwise possess. In precisely the same manner the closing of the mints against silver restricts the supply of metal available for the payment of the interest on the National Debt, and leaves less value in the hands of each labouring man than he would retain if the coin in which the law arbitrarily enforces payment of the interest on the debt had not been enhanced in value by the restriction of the coinage, caused by the law which has arbitrarily deprived all debtors of the right they held, under the original terms of the National Debt, to have both silver and gold, at their pleasure, manufactured into coin with which to pay the interest on the debt. Lord Sherbrooke and Mr. Crump ignore all this, and, instead of fairly facing the question, direct their efforts towards the disparagement of the intelligence of bimetallists, in a manner which might be allowable on the part of openly avowed special pleaders for the enhancement of the value of the property of the bondholders, bent on enabling the latter to extort as large a revenue as possible by all possible means from the wealth-producing labour of the country; but, though that mode of dealing with the question might be allowable for avowed special pleaders, it is unworthy of those who pretend to speak as statesmen or political economists.

Just exactly as the reopening of the factories for cotton, under the circumstances above suggested, would at once restore the market value of that article, and at the same time bring down the price artificially given to wool and linen by the previous closing of the cotton factories, so also the reopening of the mints for the coinage of silver would restore the market value of that metal, and at the same time bring down the

enhanced value which has been arbitrarily given to gold by the closing of the mints against the coinage of silver.

Mr. Crump tells us that 'The best thing to do is for those 'who find it their interest to adopt bimetallism to get as many as they can to join them, and try what will be the result of ' opening their mints, first of all, to a limited coinage of silver. 'If the market price of the metal keeps up or improves, they 6 can increase the amount.' '

Bimetallists will, however, I hope, have nothing more to do with any such palliatives; for, as a matter of principle, limitations of coinage have a tendency to defeat their own object, by causing the coinage of the maximum allowed by law, even though that might greatly exceed what would be offered for coinage in the absence of any arbitrary limit. Suppose, for instance, the mints to be open as formerly for the unlimited coinage of both silver and gold, and laws then to be passed restricting them from adding more than 10 per cent. to the existing amount of silver coin. The first effect of this would be that many who might otherwise have employed silver for other purposes would determine to get it coined whilst possible; and the nearer the approach to the limitation, the greater would be the desire to have silver turned into coin. Thus the first effect of the artificial limitation would be to increase the amount of silver coin; and then, as soon as the limit was reached, the value of silver in relation to gold would of necessity fall; for as gold alone would then command the right of coinage, it would command a premium on the ratio which existed when silver also commanded that right.

For these reasons, Mr. Crump's idea of the coinage of limited amounts of silver might cause ten times as much of his 'superfluous supply' to flow to the mint as would be taken there under an established system of unlimited coinage; and notwithstanding all that excessive coinage of silver, the right of coinage commanded by gold would give the latter a premium

A Review of the Position and Prophecies of the Bimetallists, by Arthur Crump, p. 52. Effingham Wilson, London, 1882.

on whatever might be the established ratio for gold and silver at the mint.

Mr. Crump says: 'Unlike the large addition made to the 'gold in the world from 1848 onwards, the silver that now 'troubles us is an unprofitable superfluity. Nobody wants it. 'The gold was in demand, and was rapidly absorbed without 'any thought of such artificial aid as is proposed by which to 'get rid of the superfluous silver.' This contains a serious misstatement as regards facts. The gold alluded to was not absorbed without such aid as is proposed now for the absorption of silver. All that is proposed is that the mints should be open for the absorption of the present supplies of silver, exactly in the same manner as they were kept open for the absorption of the large supplies of gold. It is the arbitrary closing of the mints against silver that has made it 'an unprofit'able superfluity,' just in the same manner as the closing of the factories against cotton would make existing stocks of that article 'an unprofitable superfluity,' or just as the closing of the mints against gold in 1848 would have made the supply of that metal 'an unprofitable superfluity.'

The remarkable character of Mr. Crump's arguments may be illustrated by the following paragraph :

'Bimetallism on that basis, viz. the gold standard with 'silver circulating below its market value, is really all that is wanted for countries which can afford to maintain a gold reserve against the issue of notes. Countries having a silver 'standard can likewise circulate silver coins below their market 'value for domestic use, and keep either a silver reserve or a 'mixed gold and silver reserve against their note issues-with ' only free mintage for gold."

Even supposing it were possible for Mr. Crump to explain how silver coins could be made to circulate 'below their market ' value,' or how a country could have a silver standard 'with

A Review of the Position and Prophecies of the Bimetallists, by Arthur Crump, p. 55. Effingham Wilson, London, 1882.

2 Ibid. p. 52.

' only free mintage for gold': even so, the fact would remain that the 'bimetallism' proposed by him would not be bimetallism at all; for it would not constitute a re-establishment of the double standard, which cannot exist without the mints being open for the unlimited coinage of both silver and gold; thus leaving it to the public (as was the case before 1873), and not to the capricious action of arbitrary laws (as has since been the case), to decide what amount of either metal to have coined, at a fixed ratio, and what to use for other purposes.

I cannot take leave of Mr. Crump's book without endorsing the following sentence: 'Whether we are right or wrong in our 'views, we claim for ourselves that with which we find no fault 'in others, viz. the right to speak out what we think.' And I hope that I have exercised that right with at least as much courtesy and moderation as Mr. Crump.

III.

I have carefully, and I might indeed say elaborately, pointed out that Lord Liverpool mistook alternations of gold and silver circulation for alternations of the standard of value: and that notwithstanding those alternations of currency gold and silver jointly formed the standard of value from time immemorial up to the year 1873. A leading journal, however, accuses me of not having 'been able to perceive that there 'never has been, and never in the nature of things can be, a permanent double standard, though there may be and have been alternative standards.' Not only is it unfair to offer this as a reply to my arguments, inasmuch as it conveys the erroneous impression of my having written in ignorance of the controversy on the subject, but it also misrepresents the main point at issue; for I merely contend that the English mint ought to be open for the coinage of silver as well as for the coinage of gold, as formerly; and the question as to whether

The Daily News, December 27, 1882.

the resulting standard of value would be such as should be termed an alternative standard or a double standard is quite a minor question. Besides this I have, as a question of theory, admitted that a legal restoration of the double standard might bring about a practical alternation from our present gold standard to a silver standard,' though it is a mere matter of fact that all the alternations of gold and silver currency in England before 1816 took place under a practical as well as a legal continuance of the double standard. And I have argued that, even if it were certain that the legal restoration of the double standard would result in a practical alternation from a gold to a silver standard, the legal restoration ought nevertheless to be effected, simply because the national debtor has a right to it. Such a prospect, which I have shown to have little possibility of practical realisation, would indeed make it all the more incumbent on the national debtor to assert his right to the legal restoration.

I contend that as the National Debt was borrowed under a certain standard of value established by law (which standard I call a double standard, though the Daily News and Lord Sherbrooke call it an alternative standard), that law ought not to have been tampered with in such a manner as to change the standard of value whilst the debt is current. Up to the year 1873 silver commanded the same right of coinage as gold, and the two metals jointly formed the standard of value; but now the National Debt is measured by the gold standard, and is thus made 20 per cent. heavier than it would be if measured by the standard under which the money was borrowed. I therefore contend that the English mint ought to be open for the coinage of silver on the same terms as for the coinage of gold as long as the National Debt remains unpaid. And I have endeavoured to show that Lord Liverpool was mistaken in supposing that the alternations of gold and silver currency in England constituted alternations of the standard of value whilst the English mint accepted whichever metal was offered

'See Index heading, Silver Standard.