this currency is always kept out of circulation,
and tins proportion, owing to the prosperity
of the last two years, must have enormously
augmented. Thus it is that as the rupee has
increased in demand it has diminished in supply,
by the most natural consequence in the world.

A government has always one brilliant idea
to fall back upon— when there is not money
enough, to make more. But this is not always
the desirable remedy, and in the case of India
it is acted upon as much as may be. The Mint
does its part in the matter the rest is a question
of raw material, and this raw material is
unfortunately becoming scarce. A few years
ago the world produced annually about ten
millions sterling of silver, and only four or five
millions of gold. A silver standard and
currency was then of some advantage in India,
which has for many years been the " sink" of
silver, attracting it from all parts, to the
considerable inconvenience of Europe, where it is
rapidly becoming scarce. The five-franc piece
has been for some time past a rare object in
France, and "change for a sovereign" at the
present time is far more difficult to obtain in
England than the sovereign itself. The cause
is simple enough. While the production of
silver has remained stationary, that of gold has
increased, and the proportions are now reversed.
Instead of ten millions of silver and five
millions of gold produced in the year, we have
now ten millions of silver and twenty-five
millions of gold. It is therefore contended by a
large party in India that a change in the
currency is imperatively demanded. The necessity
for such change appears from the simple fact
here stated, but the question, like most others,
has two sides to it, and these it may not be
unprofitable just now to compare.

In favour of things as they are, the case
stands something like this. The question is
not between the relative advantages of a silver
and a gold currency, but resolves itself into
this — whether, having a silver currency, it is
desirable to change it to a gold one?
Macculloch and Mill have not considered that either
metal has an advantage over the other in the
abstract; and Wilson and Laing, while
proposing a change, have shrunk from carrying it
out. In countries where the currency has been
to some extent altered from silver to gold, the
alteration has been made for the sake of
convenience, and the standard has been in no way
interfered with. In such cases, paper has been
largely employed, and where there is a proper
degree of public confidence, this resource is
always found sufficient. With regard to the
argument that a gold currency in India would
check absorption, it is contended that the native
who has a turn for secreting silver would have
nothing to do but to save his small pieces of
that metal and turn them into gold. He could
then secrete his savings with greater impunity
than ever, they being in a smaller compass. In
the next place, it is doubtful whether silver is
really becoming exhausted; and, in justification
of the doubt, it is urged that bar silver, which,
five years ago, was quoted in London at five
shillings and twopence per ounce, was quoted,
a month or two ago, at live shillings and three-
halfpence. It is true that India takes a large
proportion of the silver annually produced, but
is that a reason why she should voluntarily
depress the value of her favourite metal? India
is called the "sink" of the precious metals—
mainly represented in her case by silver —
because, being at present a producing rather than
a consuming country, the balance of trade
between her and other nations has to be paid by
her in specie. Should silver become scarce in
other countries, India will take the balance of
trade, in gold or other commodities, and so silver
will be recruited; but this is no reason why she
should make any change for herself. Moreover,
it is contended that the system of hoarding
cannot go on for ever: a sponge will hold only
a certain quantity of water, and, after a time,
the absorption ot silver must cease in the
natural course of things.

And, it is further urged, that a change in the
currency would be unjust to large classes.
The withdrawal from the market of the largest
customer for silver would cause the price of
that metal to fall. Every holder of silver, the
public creditor, the private creditor, the large
capitalist, the small capitalist, all would suffer
by the change—either by direct depreciation, or
by the cost to the country in putting them in as
good a position with gold as they were in with
silver. The relations in value between property
and money, as well as the relations between
debtor and creditor, have all been formed upon
a silver basis, and these would be all rudely
shattered by a change.

The argument that a gold coinage would
ensure a more rapid supply of coin to accommodate
extraordinary times of pressure, is met by
the suggestion that extended facilities be given
for coining at the Mint. It is denied, too, that
a gold coinage would steady the price of metals;
and the very increase which has taken place in
the production of gold is urged as an argument
why it should not be made a standard, instead
of silver, which is unvarying, and subject to no
unsteadiness. With regard to the question of
convenience, no doubt gold would have the
advantage; but it would be principally appreciated
by the English: the natives of the country have
no grievance upon that head.

On the other side, it is urged that the enormous
increase of trade which has taken place in
India during the last few years cannot possibly
be accommodated to the existing currency, and
that, the present drain of the metal, if allowed to
proceed, must not only be highly injurious to
that country, but to every other. The amount
of metal annually produced has not increased
for years past. The chances are, that it will
become exhausted; and even should it partially
fail, the currency, not only of India, but of ail
nations possessing a silver standard, must be
greatly affected, and prices in consequence
become violently depressed to adjust the balance.
On the other 'hand, a resort to gold is invited by