────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gold. Silver. Period. ─────────────────────────────── Ratio of of Million Million Value. Francs. Francs. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1803 to 1820 868 1,091 1 : 15·58 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1821 to 1847 301 2,778 1 : 15·80 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1848 to 1852 448 543 1 : 15·67 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1853 to 1856 1,795 102 1 : 15·35 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1857 to 1866 3,516 55 1 : 15·33 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1867 to 1873 876 587 1 : 15·62 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ²²⁴ Table submitted to the Paris International Monetary Conference of 1881 by M. Pierson, Delegate for the Netherlands. In mitigation of this the bimetallists had nothing to offer. There were, no doubt, such schemes as the one proposed by Prof. Marshall, consisting of paper based on a linked bar of gold and silver in certain fixed proportions,²²⁵ having the object of converting this “either-metallism” into double-metallism. But such schemes apart, the free-mintage-cum-fixed-ratio plan of bimetallism gave no guarantee against alternation in the circulation. Indeed, under that plan the alternation is the very soul of the mechanism which keeps the ratio from being disturbed. The only thing the [pg 138] bimetallists could say in mitigation of this was that²²⁶ the alternation in currency would confine itself to bank reserves and would not be extended to the pockets of the people. This was only an eyewash,²²⁷ for how could the banks arrange their reserves except in conformity with the prejudices of the people? Even international agreement to use gold and silver at a fixed ratio was no guarantee that this concurrent circulation would be maintained. Stability of ratio did depend to a large extent upon an international agreement, for, although it could be maintained by the action of one nation, the deviations of the ratio in that case would probably be greater. But mere international agreement has no virtue of itself to prevent one metal driving out the other. To suppose that Gresham’s Law is powerless under international agreement is a gross mistake. Gresham’s Law is governed by the relative production of the two metals to the total currency needs of the moment. Supposing the production of one metal relatively to the other was so enormous as to more than