The Press.
London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

SILVER IN INDIA.

tli has discussed the important

question raised in our pages a few weeks ago
(the Pans, p. 123), as to the propriety of
making gold a legal tender in India, and thus
relieving the trade of these countries from the
necessity of purchasing silver coin or bullion
at an enhanced price to remit to India in
liquidation of the balance of trade due to that
country.
The subject is a grave and a pressing one,
in every way entitled to dispassionate scrutiny
and debate ; and in no quarter could it be
discussed more becomingly than in the
columns of the Economist. We only regret
that in the article we allude to it should have
been made the vehicle for something like per-
sonality towards Mr. DISRAELI, and groundless
imputation against the Protectionists. The
latter is the more infelicitous, inasmuch as
the entire drift of the article is a defence of
the East India Company's monopoly of one of
the precious metals, in opposition to Mr. Dis
BAKU'S suggestion for a free trade in both.
So far from deprecating the strictures of our
contemporary, we invite them, in the fullest
confidence that the trade of the United King
dons will be the ultimate gainer by the legiti-
mate investigation of this subject. It is one
which is already arresting attention, as regards
not only India but our other colonies in the
East which are under the influence of its cur-
rency. We have received a letter, which space
obliges us to defer, as to the injurious effects
of the silver currency of India upon the coffee
cultivation, of Ceylon; and it begins to be felt

SATURDAY,

that the vast field for commerce which is daily
expanding in Australia will prove to be com•
paratively unprofitable, so far as any direct
trade with the neighbouring territories of the
East India Company are concerned, if, in ex-
change for their own productions, they persist
in refusing to receive the grand staple which
Australia has to offer them in return—her gold.
Returning, therefore, to the subject in a
sober spirit, unmoved by the tone of the article
in the Eowsentist, we are•desirous to call atten-
tion to the facts which it has fallen into error
in its endeavour to controvert. But first we
must notice the circumstance, that, whilst we
have advocated the change proposed as a
relief to the trade of the United Kingdom with
all its Asian possessions, our contemporary
resists it, on the narrow ground of some pro-
bable inconvenience in liquidating the local
debt of the East India Company. That debt
having been borrowed in silver, the writer
asserts that it would be a "flagrant dishonesty"
to declare gold a legal tender for any propor-
tion of its payment. But surely the mere
difference in value between the two metals,
when the time comes for paying off a debt of
some 46,000,0001., will not be regarded as an
obstacle sufficient to defeat the proposal
of a signal and immediate benefit to the
commerce of Great Britain with a country
which, next to the United States, is the largest
consumer of British produce in the world,
taking annually between 7,000,0001. find
8,000,0001. of our exports. Inconvenience to
individuals, or actual injury to a claits, was
not permitted to oppose an obstruction to
the adoption of a free-trade policy for this
country. Parliament thought it saw in " par-
tial evil universal good ;" and, in like manner,
it will hardly be recognised as a legitimate
barrier to the liberation of our commercial
intercourse with India, and the relief desired
for the trade of the empire, that it would lead
to the liquidation of some part of the local
Indian debt in gold instead, of silver.
But, supposing such a result to be anticipated,
it will be the business of Parliament to ensure
the observance of good faith with• tke public
creditor, and so to adjust the payment of the
East India Company's debt as to protect the
lenders from loss. At whatever cost to ..the
public such an arrangement may be made, the
amount of sacrifice would be a bagatelle when
contrasted with the magnitude of the goad to
be achieved by it.
Thus disposing of the main difficulty of the
Economist, we come to the proof of the entire
correctness of our own assertions, which have
been mistakingly disputed. We stated that
the recent discoveries in California and Austra-
lia had produced a plethora of gold and a
deficiency of silver, and we instanced proofs
in the unprecedented deposits of the one in
the Bank. of England, and the universal
complaints of the scarcity of the other through-
out the provinces, whilst silver has been
flowing out of the country to India at the rate
of 3,000,0001. per annum.
The Economist asks us, do we mean " gold
and silver coin, or gold and silver metal". and,
admitting that coins of both descriptions have
been deficient, the writer denies there exists
either a plethora of gold or a deficiency of
silver. Of course our statements have re-
ference, not to coined money alone, but to
bullion and the metals in every shape. By a
plethora we do not imply that the abundance
of gold amounts to an evil to be abated, but to
an influx of such an unusual magnitude as to de-
range all previous calculations as to the relative
proportion of the precious metals. But, whilst
our contemporary questions the fact of this
profusion of gold, his own argument respect-
ing the deficiency of coined silver is almost
sufficient to establish it. He admits that the
issue of silver from the Mint has been all but
suspended, owing to the urgent demand fur
sovereigns, which it was found impossible to
coin quick enough, even with an increase of
power sufficient to turn out " three times the
usual number of pieces." And the reason was
this, that bullion has been flowing in from Aus-
tralia in such quantities that the consumption
of our manufactures has been insufficient to
pay for it, and we have been forced to send
back sovereigns in exchange for bullion.
One is really at a loss to comprehend this
declaration of the Economist in denial of the
profusion of gold. It seems like denying.sun-

JUNE 25, 1853.

light, or the existence of heat ; to ignore a
fact so notorious in the sight of the fleets that
are periodically arriving laden with the pre-
cious cargo ; and in face of the fact of its accu-
mulation in the vaults of the Bank of England
to the height of twenty-tiro millions sterling—
a hoard unexampled in the commercial
annals of England.
In connection with gold, our contemporary
notices the typographical error by which our
printer has put down 3/.78. 94., instead of 31. 17s.
94., the figure at which we made our caleula
tion of the price of an ounce of gold. The writer
says it should have been 31. 17s. 100. ; but
this is a mistake ; for, if he will only turn to
another page of his own paper last week
(Economist, p. 686), he will find foreign gold in
bars quoted as we have stated it—at 31. 17s.
9d. But 31. 17s. 1041 is the price per ounce,
not of bullion, but of gold coin issued from the
Vint.
The same writer, not less unaccountably,
whilst admitting the existing scarcity of silver,
still denies that the value of the metal has in-
creased since its proportion has been inverted
by the arrivals of gold from Australia. He
says, " Apply the test of price, and there is no
" evidence of any deficiency of silver," the
price of silver for some years having ranged
from 4s. 11d. to ss. an ounce, and remained so
to this time. " During the whole of the present
"year the price of silver has ranged from four
" shillings and elevenpenee to five shillings." Again
we need resort no farther than the pages
of the Economist for the correction of this error.
The price of " silver in bars," as quoted by
the Economist in this identical publication of
last week (p. 886), is five shillings and a penny,
during the year it has been sold as high
as ss. 11d., and this very week sales have been
effected at ss. lid. But there is conclusive
proof of the growing scarcity of silver in the
following table, showing the rise in price in
each year since the prodigious influx of gold
in 1849-50. It was—

S. d. I. d.
In 1944
1849
IMO
IM'l
1832 - .. 4 111— 5 lf

Abundant evidence of its increasing value
will be found, not only in the exports
of silver to India, which have risen within
the last few years from 50,000 ounces in
1849 to 12,000,000 ounces in 1852, but like
wise in the fact that the exchange value in
London of the East India Company's rupee,
which for seven years before the recent influx
of gold had never exceeded ls. 111 d., has never
been under two shillings since, except for one
single month; and it rose as high as 2s. lid.
within the last year.
The East India Company itself evidently
anticipates a continuation of this increasing
price of silver, else why did it issue in
January last its official notification that in
1875 (twenty-two years hence), it would
reserve to itself the option to pay off its four
per cent. transfer loan at two shillings and a
penny, or, in other words, at four per cent.
above par? Is not this a precaution to guard
against the risk which it already foresees of a
still higher rise In the exchange ?
This is the real question, and that which
vitally affects the trade of this country with
our Indian possessions—the abiding and in-
creasing adverse rate of exchange which has ruled
since 1849, raising the price of every commodity
with which India supplies the United Kingdom,
in consequence of the importer being com-
pelled by the East India Company to pay for
his goods in a scarce metal when an abundant
one is at hand.
And this brings us to the last and most
important point on which the Economist takes
exception to our statement. We have said
that, whilst the imports of India amount to
17,000,0001 per annum, her exports are but
10,000,000/., and the balance of seren millions
must be paid for in silver rupees. The force
of the writer's comment is directed to show
that the above are the sums total of the ex-
ports and imports of India to all the world,
whereas to Great Britain in 1849-50 her ex-
ports were but 7,028,4701., and her imports
7,578,989/., leaving a balance of 552,510/. in
favour of the United Kingdom, instead of
7,000,0001. against her.

THE PRESS.

On this we have to observe, in the first '
place. that, if the Economist implies that the
habitual state of the trade with India showed
a balance in our favour of halt' a million ster- '
hng, it will be difficult to reconcile such a
chronic state of things with the fact, which is
notorious, that England has been annually
forwarding to India from two to three millions
in specie. But our original statement exhi-
bits correctly the results of trade as between
India anti the rest of the world, showing a
balance in her favour to the large amount
particularised. And the pressure if this ba-
lance
.falls almost exelusi rely on this eon nt ry.
inasmuch as the vast bulk of it is remitted
through London, and is provided for either by
bills upon India or direct shipments of silver.
For example : the amount
of
silver
exported to
India in 11452 was upwards of 3,200,0001.,and the
bills drawn on the presidencies, for which cash
was given in England, between May, DO% and
May, 1853, was 3,319,005/.; and, taking the
balance of trade in 1852 t for which the ac-
counts are not yet published) to be only equal
to that of 11419-50, it follows that 0.519,000/.
have been sent out from England in liquidation
of the balance of 7,000,000/.—the difference
being represented by the outstanding tramate
tions of the commercial year.
What we have said will be sufficient to show
that our facts are not "erroneous;' nor our
reasoning " fallacious," as was supposed by
our centemporary. We have a conviction,
strengthened by every advance of inquiry,
that the views we have taken are sound, and
the proposal of Mr. DISRAELI one so advanta
geous to British trade that its ultimate adop-
tion is inevitable. It is so obviously in harmony
with those principles of untrammelled inter-
course which now prevail in our policy that
we can only ascribe the strictures of the writer
in the Economist to the unconscious impulse
of party operating to the prejudice of a mea-
sure which has everything to recommend it,
except the accident of having been propounded
by a political opponent.

RUSSIAN AGGRESSION COMPARED WITH
ITS "LIBERAL" PRECEDENTS.

THE pretension of the Czar to enforce a protecting
or mediating authority between the Sultan and his
Christian subjects is justly resented by the rest of
Europe ; and we cannot imagine that the strange
document bearing the signature of Count Nesselrode,
which appeared in all our newspapers during the last
week, can have any effect in allaying the ferment.
True it repudiates any immediate intention of annex-
ing European Turkey to the Russian dominions, but
it contains the barefaced avowal that the doing so de-
pended only on the will of the Empemr ; and, if he
refrains, he is restrained only by his own moderation

and generosity.
" You are sufficiently aware," says the Russian
Minister in the manifesto to which we have alluded, I
" of the policy of' the Emperor, and know that his
Majesty does not aim at the ruin and desiruction of
the Ottoman empire, which he himself on two occa-
sions has saved from dissolution." After recapitu-
lating the injuries and insults inflicted by Turkey
upon Russia, and the patience with which they hap
been endured, the document proceeds to observe :
" Our august master would have been justified—
wounded as he was in his dignity, in his friendly
confidence, in his form of worship, and in the reli-
gious sentiments which he shares with his subjects—
in demanding ample satisfaction. His Majesty
would have done so if, as he has been assured, he
had only sought for pretexts to upset the Ottoman
empire."
The cause that produces this storm of indignation
is more frivolous than any which a great European
power has ever yet assigned for aggression, and con-
tains in it the complete justification of the tillltail„
" The evident partiality" of the Sultan "for the Latins"
produced only "a serious yet friendly letter" which
the Emperor " found himself under the obligation of
addressing ;" but this admonition not producing the
desired effect, and " France having received cony eli-
sions in favour of the Roman Catholics in Jerusalem,"
and, moreover, " the Turkish commissary having had
the audacity to prevent the Russian consul in the
holy city from publishing a firman," rendered some
manifestation of Russian indignation imperiously
necessary. But another outrage was soon to be per-
petrated, and we arc glad to know what is the " most
flagrant" act of injustice of which the Russians com-
plain. " The most flagrant violation of it (the rights
of the Russo-Greek Church) has been the delivery to
the Latin patriarch of the key of the principal church
at Bethlehem."
We heard without autonkikment of the attempt of

171

the French Cabinet to extend their influence in Syria
on any terms, and to gain a footing under any
pretence ; it might facilitate those wild schemes
of Eastern aggratutisement which that nation has
never ceased to entertain ; anti in the meantime it
might gratify the vanity of the " parti-pretre" in Frame,
which affect: a bigotry of which the Jansenista Goa
Jesuits in the beginning of the last century won%
have been ashamed. but we should have expected
that. Russia would have brought forward a more se-
rious cause of offence. We think that "the public
opinion of the enlightened 10th century" was entitleo to
more respect than that. two of the great !towels of
Europe should avow their subject of quarrel tr. be
no other than a squabble between the priests of rival
superstitions for a monopoly of juggling in the
Syrian temples ! Surely such a cause is most inade-
quate to involve all Europe in a bloody war, with all
war's usual aceompaniments of plagues, pestilenee.
and famine !
We hail expected better reasoning and hotter
sense front the Russian Emperor, and we had hoped
he would not. have forfeited so lightly the high re-
putation that his forbearance, circumspection, and
moderation had universally gained.
During these last five years what extravagant pre-
tensions have been raised, and what insolent de-
mands have been advanced—what unjust aggression
has been perpetrated amidst the applause of " the
enlightened and liberal " of Europe, occasionally
only rebuked by a feeble protest from the farsighted
of the West, who know how such doctrines must lead to
the oppression of the weak and the tyranny of the
strong ! To this torrent of folly and injustice we
are hound to admit that the example of litigant
afforded a bright and brilliant contrast; but
can we ever forget our own expedition to
the Grecian Archipelago to demand payment
for Don Pacitiee's cracked china, or demands
for indemnity, urged with such prepotency by
both Englund and France in behalf of the supposed
losses sustained by natives of the two countries
during the insurrections in Naples and Sicily? Where
shall we find an excuse for compelling the King of
Naples to grant an armistice in the moment of his
victory, to delay his reoccupation of his own domi-
nions, and to prolong the expenses, the risk, and the
bloodshed of civil war? No "affinity " between co-
religionists can here be pleaded, nor any " sym-
pathy " with suffering nationalities. And may not
the Emperor of Russia demand of France why he
has not as good a claim to occupy the Danubian
prineipalitiem, united as they are to his dominions by
so many and such complicated interests, as a French
army has to garrison the principal cities in the
Roman States ? If we are not mistaken, religion was
pressed into the service to mask the aggressive act
of the French Republic, just as it figures in Count
Neaselrode's manifesto side by side with the "dig-
nity " of his imperial master. Has Russia less of a
right to plead for this aggression than the King of
Prussia ter his invasion of Denmark in 114• IS, or that
of the King of Sardinia or Austria in the same fatal
year? The Emperor Nicolas, we believe, remon-
strated on both these occasi nn ; he protested against
our Italian policy, and perhaps put a stop to the
aggressive spirit in Germany ;—may he not now
request to be informed by what article in the code of
international war we imposed our mediation on
Austria after the defeat of the Sardinian armies, and
checked the victorious career of Marshal Radetzky
when with one blow he might have ended the war?
Theme acts were performed amidst the applause of
the " Liberals" throughout Europe. May the Em-
peror of Russia not inquire why the cause of libe-
rality is to maintain a complete monopoly of injustice
and violence?
It was the unwarrantable and meddlesome inter-
ference of Lord Palmerston, in favour of the Hun •
garian rebels in Turkey, that first blew up a quarrel
between the Sultan and the Emperors of Austria
and Russia; and we must, in candour, admit that
the " sympathy " between the Emperor Nicolas and
the Greek subjects of the Sultan may be as strong as
that which united Lord Palmerston to the rebels of
the Emperor Francis Joseph.
If the wrongs committed by other European
powers can justify the aggression of the Emperor of
Russia, we think he stands acquitted—if " sympa-
thies and affinities," and oppressed nationalities, war-
rant an armed interference, we think him justified;
for surely the feelings which connect him with the
Greek subjects of the Porte must be much stronger
than those which unite French and English with
Italians, Sicilians, and Poles and Hungarians.
Let us be understood. We do not defend the pre-
sent conduct of the Russian Emperor—quite the
contrary. In comparing it with that of other Euro-
pean powers during the periods referred to, we mean
to express our strong sense of its injustice, impoliey,
immorality, and imprudence; but we wish to draw
the attention of the public to the inevitable conse-
quence of any departure from the laws of honour
and sound policy, and the certainty that our own
weapons will be turned against ourselves, and used
with greater skill and superior eucce'i; to out own
permanent lob* and detriment.