yfss 
 
 l?7? 
 
 
ON BI-METALLISM. 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMSON HANKEY, M.P. 
 
 A BEPLY TO 
 
 MR. CAZALET AND MR. GIBBS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE. 
 
Selua»nnart 
 
 19-TIE 
 
ON BK-METALLISM. 
 
 One of the most important statements in Mr. 
 Cazalet’s pamphlet on Bi-metallism is on page 
 34, where he asserts that “ the long-continued 
 and seemingly unaccountable depression of trade 
 in England and Germany is in a great measure 
 traceable to the disordered state of the currency 
 of the world.” I do not find any proof in support 
 of this assertion either in Mr. Cazalet’s or in Mr. 
 Gibbs’ pamphlets, nor do I gather any information 
 from the same sources which induces me to be¬ 
 lieve that if all the currencies in the civilized 
 world had been in the most perfect condition, a 
 similar state of trade in England might not have 
 occurred. There have been abundant causes for 
 the late depression in trade without reference to 
 any disordered state of the currencies of other 
 countries; but surely Mr. Cazalet does not wish 
 to include England or her colonies in any such 
 category, nor do I see any justice in thus stigma- 
 
4 
 
 tizing the currency in British India. The natural 
 effect of a fall in the market value of silver in 
 India where a silver standard of currency exists 
 ought to be shown by a general rise in prices of 
 all commodities as measured by a silver standard. 
 If such a rise has not occurred, there can have 
 been no great derangement or disorder in this 
 respect; but if a moderate rise in prices has 
 occurred as a consequence of a fall in silver, and 
 that the Indian community are consequently now 
 paying a somewhat enhanced price for all the 
 goods they purchase, is this any serious evil ? 
 
 As to the remittances from India to England, 
 which must be made in gold or its equivalent, it 
 doubtless requires a larger amount of silver to 
 equal any specific amount of gold, but this can 
 hardly be said to have up to this time caused 
 any serious derangement of the currency of India. 
 Should not France, Germany, the United States, 
 Holland, Belgium, Norway, and Sweden be also 
 excluded from Mr. Cazalet’s category ? Iam not 
 aware of any existing disorder in the currencies 
 of any of these countries. Austria, Russia, Italy, 
 and Turkey, and perhaps Spain, must be the 
 countries, then, where the disordered state of the 
 currency can have been the cause or a main cause 
 
of the depression of trade in England and 
 Geimany. I leave Mr. Cazalet to consider again 
 whether the assertion he has made on this subject 
 can really be supported by facts. 
 
 As to the rise in prices in British India, I am 
 not sufficiently informed to be able to state 
 positively whether such has been the case or 
 not; but I have been told on what I believe 
 to be good authority that during the last 
 American civil war, when the demand for cotton 
 from India caused an import of silver into India 
 of above 60 million pounds sterling, no par¬ 
 ticular alteration of prices occurred in any other 
 Presidency than that of Bombay. If such was 
 the case then, might it not be quite possible now 
 that this fall in the value of silver when applied 
 equally to all India, may not produce any serious 
 derangement in prices, and it certainly cannot 
 fairly be said to have put our Indian currency 
 into a state of disorder. Should a slight derange¬ 
 ment, however, really have occurred from this 
 cause, it appears probable that it is a diminishing 
 evil, as the price of silver at the present time 
 seems more likely to rise than to fall. 
 
 I thought and hoped that nearly all the political 
 economists and statesmen in this country had 
 
6 
 
 agreed in the opinion that a single gold standard 
 should be, as it has been for nearly all this 
 century, the sole standard of value in this country, 
 and that it would require a much stronger case 
 than has hitherto been made out to induce our 
 Government to recommend even the consideration 
 of any alteration in our currency laws, more 
 especially when it is remembered that every 
 financial arrangement both of a national as well 
 as of a private character has been made on this 
 basis for such a long period of time. 
 
 I believe that neither the present or any living 
 man who has been Chancellor of the Exchequer is 
 inclined to give any serious consideration to a 
 change in our currency laws, neither is such 
 a change as that to Bi-metallism approved of 
 by Mr. Goschen, who was Mr. Gibbs’ colleague 
 at the Paris Conference, or by such authorities 
 as Mr. Michael Chevalier or Mr. Say. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs has, I regret to think, changed the 
 views he entertained after the Paris Conference. 
 Mr. Cernuschi is still in favour of a double 
 standard for all the world, and a late pamphlet 
 has appeared from Mr. Robert Gladstone 
 adopting the same views; but I believe that 
 Lord Liverpool was right in the very decided 
 
7 
 
 opinion lie expressed on this subject in 1805, and 
 I hope that the question will not further be 
 pressed for consideration in this country. 
 
 I would not have ventured to record an opinion 
 in opposition to the views of my two friends, Mr. 
 Gibbs and Mr. Cazalet —entertaining as I do so 
 high an opinion of their judgment—had it not 
 been for the fact that my name has been intro¬ 
 duced in each of the pamphlets of Mr. Cazalet 
 and Mr. Gibbs, and as 1 have no doubt myself 
 that they are mistaken, I desire to record my 
 entire dissent from their opinions on this subject. 
 
 THOMSON HANKEY. 
 
 Shipborne Grange, 
 
 Tunbridge, 3 rd November , 1879. 
 
 Effingham Wilson, Printer, Royal Exchange, London, E.C. 
 
1