──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1856–1860 4·5 15·28 14·0 102·2 −86·0 −2·2 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1861–1865 5·9 15·42 18·55 103·1 −81·5 −3·1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1866–1870 6·9 15·52 21·7 103·8 −78·3 −3·8 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1871–1875 11·3 16·10 35·5 107·6 −64·5 −7·6 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1876–1880 13·2 17·79 41·5 119·0 −58·5 −19·0 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1881–1886 17·3 18·81 54·4 125·8 −45·6 −25·8 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1886–1890 19·9 20·98 62·6 140·3 −37·4 −40·3 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1891–1895 20·0 26·75 62·9 178·9 −37·1 −78·9 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The facts thus presented led to two conclusions. The first is that the supposed enormous increase in the relative production of silver was an assumption which had no foundation [pg 79] in reality. On the contrary, glance at the figures for relative production discloses the curious fact that since the beginning of the eighteenth century silver, instead of rising, has been falling in proportion. With the exception of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, silver had formed, throughout the two centuries covered by the table, a diminishing proportion as compared with gold.¹⁵⁴ Indeed, never was the proportion of silver so low as it was in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and even when after 1873 it began to grow it did not reach half the magnitude it had reached in the beginning of the eighteenth century. The second conclusion which these facts were claimed to sustain was that the value of silver in terms of gold did not move in sympathy with its supply relative to that of gold. According to theory, the value of silver should have been rising because the relative volume of its production had been diminishing. On the other hand, a closer examination of the figures of relative values and relative productions, as given in the foregoing table, instead of showing any close correlation (_see_ Chart III) between them, pointed to the contrary. Instead of supply and value being inverse in proportion, it showed that as its supply was falling there was also a fall in its value. Such being the facts of history, it was contended that they gave no support to those who rested their case