In submitting the above contentions it must be fairly stated that there is some diversity of opinion as to the effects of gold on interest rates. A few writers demur to the theory; others hold that the effect is nil, and one or two openly adopt the negative side of the discussion, and state that more money means lower rates of interest. The majority of recent investigators, however, appear to be accepting the theory as given herein, and it may be added that prices of the class of securities considered have borne out the hypothesis faithfully, and that the minority have failed to offer convincing explanations of this readjustment. It will not do to point to the fact that money has been fully employed in constructive rather than investment fields of late; for while this is true enough, it does not explain why gilt-edged bonds such as British Consols have declined in value, while stocks and shares which did not bear the onus of circumscribed returns have advanced. There are, of course, contributory causes: the Labor-Socialistic Government in England no doubt affects the prices of consols, but this influence is specific, and loses most of its force when we consider that not only these particular securities, but practically all others of their class the world over have suffered a radical decline. In other words, interest rates have grown comprehensively higher. The theory appears sound, is borne out by events, and mere denial does not weaken it. It may well be accepted until its opponents succeed in giving us something more convincing in its place. In support of the theory, Mr. Holt reproduces the following table of British bonds from Moody’s Magazine for October, 1906. PRICES OF BRITISH INVESTMENT BONDS. % 1906 1905 1904 1896 British Consols 2½ 86½ 89⅛ 88½ 113⅞[1] Met. Consols 3½ 102 104 104½ 128¾ London County 3 88½ 94½ 93 128¾ Leeds 4 108 109 111½ 130½ Liverpool 3½ 107 109 109 144¼ Manchester 4 123 128¾ 124¾ 159 New South Wales 3½ 100½ 100 96 112¼ Queensland 3½ 99½ 99 96 111½ Canada 3 98½ 100½ 97 107¼ Cape 3½ 97 98 95 120 Lon. & N. Western 3 93 96 95 124¾ Midland 2½ 76 79 78 124¾[2] Great Western 4 123 127 123½ 164 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Average 3.3 100.2 101.8 100.9 128.4 [1] Then 2¾%. [2] Then 3%.