His proposals were accepted by the Government of India and were communicated to the Secretary of State⁸⁵ for his sanction. But the Secretary of State, impatient and intolerant of any deviation from a monometallic system, whittled down the whole project with scant courtesy. His [pg 45] reply⁸⁶ is a grotesque piece of reasoning and terribly shallow. He was unwilling to allow the measure, because he felt satisfied that the rate of Rs. 10 to a sovereign underrated the sovereign too much to permit its circulation. Here he was on solid ground. The cost of producing a sovereign at a Mint in India was estimated⁸⁷ at the time to be Rs. 10–4–8; while the cost of importing it to Calcutta from England was estimated at Rs. 10–4–10, and from Australia at Rs. 10–2–9. Whichever was the proper rate, it was certain that sovereigns could not circulate at the rate of Rs. 10 to 1. It was a pity that Sir Charles Trevelyan did not propose a higher ratio⁸⁸ so as to make the circulation of the sovereign an assured event. But the Secretary of State would have been averse to the measure just the same even if the ratio had been favourable to the sovereign. To the Secretary of State, the measure, based as it was on an unfavourable ratio, was useless. But if based on a favourable ratio it was none the less pernicious, for it portended the possibility of what he considered as the most vicious system of double standard, however temporary it might have been. The mere contingency of giving rise to a bimetallic system was enough to frighten the Secretary of State into opposition to the whole measure, for he refused to admit that “it may be for the public advantage to pass through a period of double standard in order to change the basis of the currency from silver to gold.” ⁸⁵ Cf. Government of India’s Despatch, No. 89, dated Simla, July 14, 1864, ⁸⁶ Financial Despatch from the Secretary of State, No, 224, dated September 26, 1864. ⁸⁷ Cf. Letter from the Hon. Claud Brown to the Hon. Sir C. E. Trevelyan, dated Calcutta, May 28, 1864. _Vide_ Papers, etc., on Gold, p. 265. ⁸⁸ The reason why he preferred the ratio of 10 to 1 was that that was the prevalent market ratio in India. His argument was that “the sovereign must be rated for circulation in India, not with reference to its English, but to its Indian price estimated in silver.” Probably he was unwilling to overrate the sovereign because of his fear that “the existing Indian currency would be rapidly revolutionized and creditors would receive much less than their due.” Cf. his Minute dated November 23, 1864. _Vide_ Papers, etc., on Gold in India,