the Governor, who gave up to them the allowances which he might have retained to himself.[89] The charge was really as unfounded as it was ungracious, and, it is to be observed, was brought against him by men who had shown no such pecuniary delicacy. Of another charge, also brought some years after, against Lord Clive's administration, that of having fixed an improper rate of exchange between the gold and silver coinage of Bengal, it is not necessary to say much. In India, gold and silver coin are articles of trade even more directly than in most countries in the world, and the variation in their relative value is often extremely great. In the year 1766, a scarcity of silver existed in Bengal, from the quantity exported to China, from decreased importation, and other causes. It was known that there was much gold in the country, in various shapes; and to inexperienced political economists it seemed a very reasonable expedient to give a premium for its being brought out. A favourable rate was therefore fixed on the new gold mohur then coined. This certainly had the effect of bringing gold to the mint; but, as might have been foreseen, only increased the evil, by causing still more silver coin to be withdrawn from circulation. The bankers and shroffs of the country, who are proficients in the science of exchange, naturally paid their demands in gold, and exported or hoarded the silver. The gold coin they were unwilling to receive at its legal value, without a large batta, or exchange, in reality to compensate its inferior intrinsic value as compared with silver, the ordinary circulation of the country. This necessary measure of self-defence was regarded as a trick or fraud in trade. The proclamation of 30th June, 1766, directing the coin to be taken at certain rates, was one of those ineffectual attempts to force circumstances, formerly so usual with politicians of every class and of every country. It was, of course, ineffectual; and necessarily occasioned no small inconvenience to merchants and retail traders. Its effects were chiefly felt after Clive had left India. The Court of Directors, from their correspondence, seems to have been nearly as much puzzled as the Council of Calcutta; though the fact, that the difference of market value between the gold and the silver coin rose to 17-1/2 per cent., ought to have afforded an easy explanation of the difficulty.[90] Yet those who recollect the discussions, in our own times, in the British parliament, on the difference of value between the guinea and the bank note, and on the bullion question in general, will not be disposed to view with much surprise a similar difficulty that occurred in a distant country, half a century before. Though these charges were brought against Lord Clive long afterwards, yet, as they all relate to India, it has been judged best to state them at this period of his career, when he was still engaged in his active services in that country.